21

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 15, 2017, 01:41:39 PM »

This is operating under the presumption of guilt, as opposed to the presumption of innocence.

For those who do not know, impeachment does not mean that the President would be found guilty. It simply means that the House of Representatives will bring charges against the President. It's similar to an indictment but not quite the same thing.

‘We may have an illegitimate President of the United States currently occupying the White House,' says Ted Lieu

Oh look, what I said. These Democrats are not saying Trump is 100% guilty.

Hasn't James Comey stated that the FBI has been investigating the Trump campaign for the past year, since last July?

You're shifting goalposts away from Trump to the Trump campaign. Let's pretend you didn't do that for a while.

Is Trump not responsible for what happened in his campaign? Or are we still operating under Trump having no idea what was going on within his own presidential campaign, which strains credibility and is arguably worse.

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 15, 2017, 11:43:53 AM »

It's also not presuming guilt to want to halt your opponent from passing legislation while they're under investigation.

Unless you're halting him from passing legislation while loudly screaming about how you're doing it because he's 100% guilty and disgraceful. By virtue of stating someone's guilt, you're making it pretty clear that you believe them to be guilty.

No Democrat in Congress is doing that. And few people here are doing it. People are of course skeptical and are saying that Trump might be guilty of collusion. Or that the evidence seems to point that way.

And he wasn't under investigation. That's why everyone was proposing an investigation as an alternative to Democratic vigilantism.

Hasn't James Comey stated that the FBI has been investigating the Trump campaign for the past year, since last July? But even if that weren't the case, again, political manoeuvring is not vigilantism, and no Democratic congressmen were stating Trump was certainly guilty.

23

Technology & Information / Re: Ask Rushy about Bitcoins.

« on: July 14, 2017, 08:41:35 PM »

This seems like a strange sentiment. Why would I ever keep my savings in USD if I know it'll devalue over time

Well, first off, US dollars are not nearly as volatile as Bitcoin is right now, so the effects of it's perpetual inflation are not very noticeable. However, the Federal Reserve still seems to think that inflation encourages consumers to spend.

You don't see me spending all of my USD because I know it will be worth less later, likewise, I haven't saved 100% of my Bitcoin simply by virtue of knowing that it will be worth more later.

Well I didn't say all of your Bitcoin. But I have encountered many people online who treat Bitcoins like an investment, hoping they'll increase in value. And for those that have Bitcoin but aren't really "investing," I'd still think that it's deflation would create incentive to save, not spend. What's to stop Bitcoin from entering a deflationary spiral? Is Bitcoin just betting on this not existing?

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2017, 05:14:23 PM »

Not convicting, no, but you did jump to conclusions and wanted to speak of him as a guilty man. Meanwhile, the DNC was disrupting government because of Trump's collusion with Russia - a thing that has not been proven to date. And you supported those moves. So no, nobody wanted to convict him, but some people did want to exact their own form of vigilante justice.

Using political manoeuvring to hamper the other party from passing legislation isn't exacting vigilante justice. The Republicans did it constantly for the past eight years. It's also not presuming guilt to want to halt your opponent from passing legislation while they're under investigation.

25

Technology & Information / Re: Ask Rushy about Bitcoins.

« on: July 13, 2017, 02:10:15 PM »

• Because Bitcoin is made to limit itself to 21 million total coins, coin loss is greater than zero, and demand is increasing faster than coins are being produced, Bitcoin is pretty much doomed to be permanently deflationary. If I own Bitcoins, why would I be eager to spend them if I know that they pretty much constantly increase in value right now? What value does Bitcoin have if it's now being used as a currency because of this pressure to save them?
• The blockchain is ever growing in size. If Bitcoin is going to survive for decades, how do we address the issue of the blockchain size? If Bitcoin were suddenly the size of Visa, how would it manage transactions?
• If I want to make an anonymous purchase, how is Bitcoin better than cash in most cases?

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 12, 2017, 07:51:00 PM »

I'm pretty sure multiple Democrats at this point have introduced articles of impeachment that will go nowhere.

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 12, 2017, 01:30:49 PM »

I think the issue isn't so much that the e-mail alluded to Russian government support since you can easily say that was a lie to get a meeting.  The issues that DOES show up is Mr. Trump Jr. was very happy to get help from the Russian Government knowing absolutely nothing about the Russian party providing the intel.  So that makes me ask: If he's happy to get it so quickly, what's to say he wasn't just as happy to get something from an actual, official Russian agent?  Because now we know: If asked, he would say "I love it!"

I'm referring to this part specifically in the original E-mail, which isn't a statement from the lawyer, but from Rob Goldstone:

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

If this is a part of something, I want to know what the other parts are.

28

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 12, 2017, 12:45:31 PM »

Kushner was led to believe she was a lawyer for the Russian government, though, right, in these E-mails? And he presumably would have still been under that impression when he filled out the form. And if she does turn out to be a part of the Russian government establishment, that meeting would have had to have been disclosed.

And all of this is still shady as all get out even if it doesn't turn out to be illegal. The E-mails allude to Russian government support for the Trump campaign, which at the time Trump was calling outrageous lies. And which many supporters were mocking as a leftist conspiracy theory. This E-mail definitely seems to move the collusion from leftist conspiracy to at least plausible.

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 12, 2017, 11:13:58 AM »

Gary and Tom are mostly correct. Nothing criminal has been revealed yet.

Even if this doesn't break FEC laws, Jared Kushner has probably broken a law by not disclosing this before when specifically asked when getting his clearance for his job in the administration.

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 11, 2017, 08:58:42 PM »

The Steele Dossier was also originally being compiled by Fusion GPS, and American company, on the behalf of a Republican client. Fusion then hired a British oppo research company later, from my understanding, and a Democrat began funding it. The Clinton campaign itself wasn't involved in the Steele Dossier.

31

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 11, 2017, 06:45:38 PM »

Is Donald Trump Jr. a literal moron or something? Apparently the Times informed him they were going to post these E-mails, but still, if he didn't post them, he could at least deny it. He probably just admitted to breaking federal election law.

The Trump supporters also seem to be pivoting from "There was no collusion!" to "If there was collusion, it wasn't illegal!"

32

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion of Peace Strikes Back

« on: June 19, 2017, 07:24:09 PM »

London just needs to post "no van zone" signs on sidewalks and then that will solve the problem.

Or outlaw vans except for police.

But then, only the criminals will have vans.

We can compromise. Ban high-capacity van space and equipment racks.

33

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 12, 2017, 03:48:24 PM »

For the most part, yes.

Trekky, why do you keep saying things I've already said and acting as if it was a rebuttal of some sort? How would you feel if I responded to your post just now with "A-ha! I think you'll find that most Americans find Trump less trustworthy than Comey!!!"? My guess is it wouldn't leave the best impression on you, so why would you let yourself do the same?

This entirely explains your inability to understand why the GOP trying to make Comey look like an insider threat is working so spectacularly well. An insider threat is much more easily addressed than an outsider threat once it's been detected, and the narrative plays right into Trump's hands: the 4D-Chess mastermind not only fired a leaker before the leaks were admitted, he also got Comey to admit that he was never under investigation in the first place! You can think it's "fucking hilarious" all you want, but unless you guys learn to actually deal with this sort of rhetoric, you're in for a rough GOP ride.

You claim this GOP strategy, which, by the way, I don't see any evidence of from Congressional Republicans, is working "spectacularly well." If this strategy is even happening within the GOP, the polls indicate it's not working anywhere near "spectacularly."

What the GOP is instead saying is one of either (a) Trump is new to this, he didn't know better, (b) What Comey said Trump did is not actually wrong, or (c) they're focusing on other things, like Trump not being under investigation or the actions of Loretta Lynch. The only people claiming Comey lied or is a threat is the Trump administration, not the mainstream GOP.

34

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 12, 2017, 02:17:47 PM »

Trump's opinion polls and polls on the trustworthiness of Comey and Trump (bonus Rasmussen poll) don't seem to point to this "masterful 4-D chess move" narrative. The only people who are going to think Comey is some sort of threat are the people who are already die-hard Trump supporters. And, as was said in the campaign, they'll support him even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.

35

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 12, 2017, 11:36:51 AM »

all the gop pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos is fucking hilarious.  apparently sharing your own unclassified notes with someone is a greater moral evil than stealing private emails from a political party.

Does it surprise you that many Americans might take an insider threat as more urgent than an outsider threat?

Since no one else was talking about insider threats, it appears that either you think or you understand that other people think that something in what garygreen said constituted what could possibly be considered an "insider threat." Why bring it up otherwise?

So if you don't think Comey is an insider threat, then perhaps explain why people in the GOP would consider him an insider threat, since you brought it up.

36

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 12, 2017, 11:15:09 AM »

How in the world is Comey anything close to an insider threat? He hasn't done anything illegal or vaguely threatening.

37

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 10, 2017, 11:49:20 AM »

Reporter: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of things.
Trump: 100%.
and. . .
I didn't say under oath . . . I hardly know the man. I am not going to say—I want you to pledge allegiance—who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath . . . I mean think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. No . . . I didn't say that, and I didn't say the other.

For fuck's sake

Does he like, not understand what under oath means?

1. Has he never heard the pleadge of allegance?
2. I'm not sure what he's trying to say. Is he like... Saying he'd never ask for loyalty from someone who was under oath?  That whole thing is very confusing.

I'm pretty sure he thinks the reporter who said "under oath" was referring to the "loyalty pledge" he allegedly made Comey take. AKA, he's a moron, and his team apparently didn't make sure he knew what "under oath" even meant before he started talking to the press. Leading him to inadvertently sort-of say he was 100% willing to speak under oath.

38

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 09, 2017, 08:52:46 PM »

Reporter: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of things.
Trump: 100%.
and. . .
I didn't say under oath . . . I hardly know the man. I am not going to say—I want you to pledge allegiance—who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath . . . I mean think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. No . . . I didn't say that, and I didn't say the other.

For fuck's sake

Does he like, not understand what under oath means?

39

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Freakin' Roofways

« on: June 08, 2017, 06:19:27 PM »

Might be good if you want solar panels and don't have room, or some other reason why you can't just mount solar panels on the roof.

In all other cases, all these "futuristic" suggestions are dumb. Just put the damn solar panels out in the open. Not on roads, not on sidewalks, not on rooftops, not on Mexican walls. I just do not get it.

40

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 08, 2017, 05:08:04 PM »

So... McCain just went on a "why is Hillary not being checked but is Trump is even though you were checking her e-mail server then finished it?  Why is she clear but Trump is not?"

I'm not even sure if he understood that the DNC hack was not related to the investigation into Hillary's e-mail server.

I missed that part.

So McCain basically just did a "But Her E-mails..." thing in a congressional hearing...?