President Trump

[Emily's Cat]

Allegations which deserve to be investigated, AKA evidence that needs a closer look.

Allegations are not evidence.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So the sentence I quoted above is wrong?

The sentence you quoted out of context is both incomplete and misleading.

 

[Spindrift]

Allegations are not evidence.

The sentence you quoted out of context is both incomplete and misleading.

No offense but that was 6 pages ago. The thread has moved on. You need to visit a little more frequently. Pulling quotes from pages way back are very hard to re-establish the context at that time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Allegations are not evidence.

Sure they are. They all depend on some form of evidence unless the allegation is that the neighbors dog told me that Hillary is running a sex dungeon for cats out of a gyro shop.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This whole post is not responsive to my point,

Maybe if you read it as a whole instead of parsing it phrase by phrase out of context? Alternatively, maybe consider restating your point, since I was pretty sure I was responding to your point. Your point appeared to be leading to (but not bothering to explicitly say) that because CA is the 3rd larges state, the views of Californians don't count as "localized". My entire post was aimed at expressing why I consider them to be "localized". So... umm... pretty sure it's on point.

I don't know what that means. Is it localized because one border is ocean? Is Washington state localized because it has one ocean border and another with a foreign country? Isn't every state localized to that state? I'd like to know how you define geographical localization and then give an example localized and non-localized states.

It's localized because the viewpoints and culture exist within a limited geography and are not uniformly spread across the entire country. I thought that was fairly clear, and I'm not sure where your confusion comes from.

Physical borders are certainly part of it. Oceans, deserts, and mountain ranges restrict the spread of culture. In addition, differing laws and policies within a state play into it as well. For example... For the past couple of years Colorado has had a noticeable difference in cultural norms from the states surrounding it, regardless of shared terrain features - weed was legal in CO and not in the others, and this affects the norms and beliefs of the citizens in CO as compared to those outside of it.

I don't know what this means; it borders on word salad. What localized "norms" exist in California?

See above. Please also do me the favor of reading the whole thing, rather than stopping after one sentence. Understanding comes from the entirety. Some things can't be said in a single sentence.

I think I understand that but ... well, ok,, I don't. How in the world would you know the "variance" of those non-quantifiable measures? What is the variance in "culture" in the USA? Was the ratio "third" pulled out of your kitty litter box or is there some basis for your assertion?

Mis-statement. It's the third most populous state, and I mangled trying to express that the population doesn't necessarily translate to culture.

Agreed. But what did I say that prompted you to make this obvious observation?

You appeared to be implying that because CA has a lot of people, their views should win.

I disagree. Large, high-density population areas are the breeding ground for influence and social impact in the USA. By the way, what's the difference between "influence" and "social impact"?

Lol, no, they're the breeding ground for media. If they were the breeding ground for social impact gay marriage would have been legal a few decades ago. Just because something is believed to be true in a densely populated and wealthy geography doesn't mean it's accepted as true by everyone else. It takes much more than just population density for an idea to propagate.

Influence is the tendency to alter the beliefs and viewpoints of others. Social impact is the tendency to alter policy. Policy does not necessarily reflect a majority of belief, and in fact often does not.

No. But what did I say that prompted you to make this obvious observation?

I disagree. But what did I say that prompted you to pose these questions?

Your point appeared to be leading to (but not bothering to explicitly say) that because a densely populated but geographically very limited bunch of people believe something, that this thing should be accepted by everyone else. You seemed to be backing the "popular vote is all that matters" camp of thought.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is the second post in a row in which you apparently make assumptions about what I said that aren't in the content of my posts.


Yeah. Obvious facts are obvious. What did I say that prompted you to make this comment?

This is what you said:

You seem to be saying that the "media" are one-sided with respect to their dirt slinging. Is that the case? If so, what evidence supports your claim?

What do you think you are implying with this post? In what way is my reading of it errant? What assumptions am I making that aren't directly implied by your post?

 

[Civet]

Don't laugh. It's worked for him since day one of his campaign. Why would he stop now?

ETA: I hope he doesn't see this:

I stopped laughing a while ago. DT is redefining how politics works. If I was an aspiring politician, I'd be taking notes.

 

[sadhatter]

First, duh, of course it's pervy and disrespectful.

Second, if it happened, not slapping, reporting, or verbally objecting is also not evidence of non-consent.

Yes, let's move on, I'm tired of arguing about it, but I will still respond to any post I feel needs responding to.

Think of consent as a key to someone's house. If it's not given to you using alternate methods to get in is a crime.

 

[Meadmaker]

Think of consent as a key to someone's house. If it's not given to you using alternate methods to get in is a crime.

But if you leave the door unlocked, and you see the guy walking up the front steps, and you don't tell the intruder to get out of the house, it's really hard to get a conviction.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

But if you leave the door unlocked, and you see the guy walking up the front steps, and you don't tell the intruder to get out of the house, it's really hard to get a conviction.

Especially if you know that the intruder is Chums with the chief of police...

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I don't think Trump cares if people hate him. I think he does care if people laugh at him (because of Conway and Spicer). That will be his unhingeing.

I think the only thing Trump ultimately cares about is whether or not people stop paying attention to him. And I don't see that happening anytime soon. People are too triggered and too quick to continue replying to his tweets and posting response videos on the internet. Plus, you know.... he's President now. Everything he does and says is gonna become news.

 

[Spindrift]

But if you leave the door unlocked, and you see the guy walking up the front steps, and you don't tell the intruder to get out of the house, it's really hard to get a conviction.

No, it's very easy. Entering without permission is trespassing. You don't have to tell them to get out, you don't have to tell them they can't come in, the door does not have to be locked, it's still trespassing. It's not up to the victim to tell the perpetrator not to commit a crime.

 

[William Parcher]

He had a claque in the audience for his CIA speech per CBS. That was who you heard applauding.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats...s-to-cia-visit.html?via=mobile&source=copyurl

He also did that for his first press conference. How insecure.

A couple of days ago I read that the cameras were not allowed to show CIA officals there because it's a security danger to show their faces. The standing ovation given by the CIA is only an anecdote because they can't be shown doing it on film.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

President Trump has been signing a bunch of executive orders to progress repealing ACA and TPP. Weren't executive orders "unconstitutional", or at least an abuse of power when the last chap (sparingly) used them ?

Obama paved the highway around the Constitution, are you going to fault Trump for following it?
Chris B.

 

[quadraginta]

No, it's very easy. Entering without permission is trespassing. You don't have to tell them to get out, you don't have to tell them they can't come in, the door does not have to be locked, it's still trespassing. It's not up to the victim to tell the perpetrator not to commit a crime.

Back in '81 our car, parked on the street in front of our house, was broken into. The car was registered in my wife's name, and a couple of the items that were stolen out of it belonged to me.

They caught the perps that same morning, breaking into other cars nearby.

Both my wife and I were subpoenaed for the trial. She was to testify that she hadn't given them permission to go into her car or take any of her stuff. And I was to testify that I hadn't given them permission to take the items of mine which were in it.

At some expense and great inconvenience to us we had to show up for the trial. Twice. (It was continued the first time.)

Both times we waited until the trial started, at which time the defense lawyer promptly agreed to stipulate our testimony. At which point we were free to leave.

Apparently it isn't very hard to establish that if permission isn't given then the entry is illegal, or the defense lawyer wouldn't have caved on that point so easily.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Takes a while for the news media to get to all the stories. Today they've gotten around to noticing that Trump repeated his belief it would have been OK to pillage the Iraq oil and he may get another opportunity to do just that.

Trump Says U.S. Should Have Stolen Iraq’s Oil, and ‘Maybe We’ll Have Another Chance’

National Review has noted that Trump’s “odd fixation” with taking Iraq’s oil dates back to at least 2011. He made the argument numerous times on the campaign trail, suggesting that the U.S. could take Iraq’s oil while fighting ISIS. When PolitiFact examined the claim in September, numerous experts said trying to seize Iraqi oil would not be legal, feasible, or desirable. The idea is “so out of step with any plausible interpretation of U.S. history or international law that they should be dismissed out of hand by anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of world affairs,” said Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University.

 

[Armitage72]

Sean Spicer just gave a briefing in which he complained that it's "demoralizing" and "unbelievably frustrating" when the media doesn't support Trump.

Maybe Trump needs a Safe Space where people can't say mean things about him. Maybe the media needs to use Trigger Warnings before they talk about him.

If he's this upset three days into his term, he'd better buckle up. It's going to be a rough four years (or however long he lasts).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sean Spicer just gave a briefing in which he complained that it's "demoralizing" and "unbelievably frustrating" when the media doesn't support Trump.

Maybe Trump needs a Safe Space where people can't say mean things about him. Maybe the media needs to use Trigger Warnings before they talk about him.

If he's this upset three days into his term, he'd better buckle up. It's going to be a rough four years (or however long he lasts).

Trump knows how great Trump is. Why doesn't the press report how great he is?

Very predictable, and Spicer did an almost convincing job of selling that narrative.

 

[quadraginta]

Sean Spicer just gave a briefing in which he complained that it's "demoralizing" and "unbelievably frustrating" when the media doesn't support Trump.

Maybe Trump needs a Safe Space where people can't say mean things about him. Maybe the media needs to use Trigger Warnings before they talk about him.

If he's this upset three days into his term, he'd better buckle up. It's going to be a rough four years (or however long he lasts).

What really makes it interesting is that every time he reacts (and he can't stop himself from reacting) he just provides more material to use against him.

Sort of a positive reinforcement resonance. For some reason I am reminded of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

How long will it take for him to tear himself apart?

 

[Marcus]

No, it's very easy. Entering without permission is trespassing. You don't have to tell them to get out, you don't have to tell them they can't come in, the door does not have to be locked, it's still trespassing. It's not up to the victim to tell the perpetrator not to commit a crime.

I don't think that in my entire life I have ever asked a girl if I had permission to kiss her. Or to go to third base for that matter, although this is not something I would use as a greeting