Page 73 of 228 FirstFirst ... 2363717273747583123173 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 730 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #721
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    It's demonstrably not, though! The world we live in is not defined by any one of the above paradigms - it's a blended population of all three.

    Obama level turnouts (either election) would have produced an electoral landslide in the favor of the democrats in 2016. My point is that the first premise I listed is the valuable one for swing voters and voter mobilization. Under that conceit I do not find your blunt approach effective.
    that is factually not true. Hillary received more votes than obama did in 2012. but because we value your vote based on where you live (stupid, land masses don't vote, people do), she did not win.

    i hate this about liberals. we can argue with each other all day every day about being more intellectually right than even each other .... meanwhile they win because of memes. who's really the foolish ones? they win. we can be right as the day is long, but it doesn't matter. because #heremails

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkWFD--hsNM
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-07-2018 at 02:36 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #722
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    Obama 2012 turnouts result in an electoral win, as does Obama 2008. I specifically said electoral to avoid this confusion.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...rnout-decline/
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  3. #723
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    Obama 2012 turnouts result in an electoral win, as does Obama 2008. I specifically said electoral to avoid this confusion.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...rnout-decline/
    party wise, democrats turned out in higher numbers for hillary than obama used to win 2012.

    the issue is the matter of where those votes were cast. because we claim that everyone's vote is equal, but in reality some votes are 2-3x more powerful than other votes. so loosing even 10,000 votes in Wisconsin, even if you pick up 100,000 votes in California is a losing proposition. we live in a country where where you live is an important as who you vote for, sometimes far more so. at least nationally.

    whatever, this argument is intellectually moot at this point.

    the point is, #heremails #Benghazi #lockherup #obamaisamuslim are far more effective than the perfect, fact and evidence based policy proposal, presented well.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-07-2018 at 03:08 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #724
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Speaking of putting words in people's mouths...
    Hey, I did it at least once here! I even surprised you guys. Forget the topic off hand. (shrugs)

    ___________________

    Josh, have you read the minority memo from HPSCI, commonly referred to as the Schiff Memo? That memo is a rebuttal to what I thought was an unwritten argument until I've seen you here writing it (back to the Fusion GPS thing).

    If you haven't, it's here: https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...hiff-Memo.html
    Yes - it deliberately ignored some points in the timeline. Lets see, how did one of the reviews of it go, since it would be far faster to quote instead of just rewriting this:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...an-helps-them/

    The memo concedes that the FISA-warrant application relied on allegations by Steele*s anonymous Russian hearsay sources that:

    Page met separately while in Russia with Igor Sechin, a close associate of Vladimir Putin and executive chairman of Roseneft, Russia*s state-owned oil company, and Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin official. Sechin allegedly discussed the prospect of future U.S.-Russia energy cooperation and *an associated move to lift Ukraine-related western sanctions against Russia.* Divyekin allegedly disclosed to Page that the Kremlin possessed compromising information on Clinton (*kompromat*) and noted the possibility of its being released to Candidate #1*s [i.e., Donald Trump*s] campaign. . . . This closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos.

    This passage puts the lie to two of the main Democratic talking points:

    1) This was obviously the most critical allegation against Page.
    The Democrats attempt to make much of Page*s trip to Moscow in July 2016, but the uncorroborated Sechin and Divyekin meetings, which Page credibly denies, are the aspect of the Moscow trip that suggested a nefarious Trump*Russia conspiracy.
    That*s what the investigation was about. Far from clandestine, the rest of Page*s trip was well publicized and apparently anodyne. And saliently * for reasons we*ll get to in due course * Page was clearly prepared to talk to the FBI about the trip if the Bureau wanted to know what he was up to.

    2) Democrats implausibly insist that what *launched* the FBI*s counterintelligence investigation was not Steele*s allegations but intelligence from Australia about George Papadopoulos*s contact with what Democrats elusively describe as *individuals linked to Russia.* As we learned when Papadopoulos pled guilty, though, it is anything but clear that these *individuals linked to Russia* had much in the way of links to Putin*s regime: London-based academic Joseph Mifsud, who is from Malta and apparently does not speak Russian; an unidentified woman who falsely pretended to be Putin*s niece; and Ivan Timofeev, a program director at a Russian-government-funded think tank.

    Concealing the Dossier*s Clinton-Campaign Origins
    Another major takeaway from the Schiff memo is that the FBI and the DOJ withheld from the FISA court the fact that Steele*s work was a project of the Clinton campaign. Naturally, the reader must ferret this admission out of a couple of dense paragraphs, in which Democrats risibly claim that the *DOJ was transparent with the Court about Steele*s sourcing.*

    How*s this for transparency? The FISA warrant application says that Steele, referred to as *Source #1,* was *approached by* Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, referred to as *an identified U.S. person,* who

    indicated to Source #1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1*s [i.e., Trump*s] ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a longstanding business relationship.) The identified U.S. Person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1*s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1*s campaign. [Emphasis in Schiff memo, p. 5]

    The first thing to notice here is the epistemological contortions by which the DOJ rationalized concealing that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for Steele*s reporting. They ooze consciousness of guilt. If you have to go through these kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid disclosing something, it*s because you know that being *transparent* demands disclosing it.

    Next, Schiff * again, hilariously enough to make you wonder if it*s done tongue-in-cheek * accuses Nunes of hypocrisy for condemning the omission of Mrs. Clinton*s name after having rebuked the Obama administration*s *unmasking* of American names. Of course, the two things have nothing to do with each other.

    *Unmasking* refers to the revelation of American identities in intelligence reports. These are Americans who, though not targeted as foreign agents, are incidentally intercepted in surveillance. In marked contrast, we are talking here about a FISA warrant application, not an intelligence report. In a warrant application, it is the DOJ*s honorable practice, and the judiciary*s expectation, that the court must be informed about the material biases of the sources of the factual allegations that the DOJ claims amount to probable cause.
    There is much more, it is a right powerful take down, and not one of the most savage either. Schiff's mistake in his memo is it is a lie of omission. And the NR completely bags it up in the dog poop bag it deserves. But it served it's purpose. It was just false enough that you guys ate it up hook line and sinker and took it for truth. It did it's job.

    _____________________________________________

    the TSI is a fact.
    You didn't even say it was flat. Come on. Know your kool-aid talking points!

    the NRA's actions are facts.
    Now this? This is so stupid. But let's see if we can play a long a bit. Lets put down a few baselines:

    Fact: NRA trains people how to safely use firearms
    Fact: NRA trains people to never keep a gun loaded at home
    Facr: NRA trains people to NEVER point a gun at another person
    Fact: NRA Lobbies congress to protect 2A rights for Law Abiding citizens
    Fact: NRA is given a good chunk of cash by citizens who support their 2A rights
    Fact: NRA is a pretty effective group, all in all, at protecting the rights they lobby for
    Fact: NRA doesn't actually produce any firearms
    Fact: NRA doesn't produce the AR-15
    Fact: NRA doesn't produce bullets either.
    Fact: NRA doesn't produce high capacity magazines.
    Fact: NRA doesn't have a police force, or any policing functions
    Fact: NRA doesn't have a government group, like the FBI, who can legally stop a person who might shoot up a school. Maybe they should?
    Fact: Cops can stop an active shooter. In fact it is their job
    Fact: Cops can stop somebody with a firearm at a school. It is their job.
    Fact: Cops can call the FBI if they fear somebody will become an active shooter. It is their job.
    Fact: An average citizen can call the FBI to investigate if they fear somebody will become an active shooter. Their job.
    Fact: Somebody did call the FBI to tell them they fear somebody will become an active shooter. It is their job.
    Fact: FBI did not follow up. It is their job.
    Fact: The FBI can stop a potential active shooter, or authorize it. It is their job.
    Fact: The FBI can also provide training to cops to help them deal with an active shooter. It is their job.
    Fact: Kid has problems of a mental kind. At school. At home. Cops called, often.
    Fact: Kid grows to an adult
    Fact: At no point is long history of abuse, violence or related issues recorded in a searchable record that can keep him from purchasing a firearm. Or a background check.
    Fact: Kid becomes an adult
    Fact: Kid doesn't join the NRA.
    Fact: Kid does not get NRA training.
    Fact: Kid scared enough people that someone called the FBI
    Fact: Kid scared enough people that someone made a friggin Youtube video about it
    Fact: Kid loaded weapon not purchased from the NRA (since they don't own stores either)
    Fact: Kid passed background check because his years of instability and violence was not recorded on a 'Do no sell' list.
    Fact: Kid PLANNED to shoot school.
    Fact: Kid TOLD people he would do it.
    Fact: Kid Loaded weapon.
    Fact: Kid went to school.
    Fact: Kid deliberately aimed at people, and shot them.

    Fact: The NRA is not a police force.
    Fact: It is not the NRA's job to stop active shooters.
    Fact: It isn't the NRA's job to provide background checks
    Fact: The NRA did not pull the trigger
    Fact: The NRA did not purchase the weapon, nor the bullets, or loaded it either.

    The facts are clear: The Kid is responsible, 100%, for his actions. For stopping his actions, the FBI and Police are 100% of the service we provide to stop active shooters. The problem was brought up to the Cops and FBI, and neither party fulfilled their paid job.

    The NRA is not a police force and is not the shooter.

    So, please explain, clearly (feel free to use the whole page) how the NRA is responsible for the kid doing what he did?

    Any one?
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  5. #725
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Hey, I did it at least once here! I even surprised you guys. Forget the topic off hand. (shrugs)

    ___________________



    Yes - it deliberately ignored some points in the timeline. Lets see, how did one of the reviews of it go, since it would be far faster to quote instead of just rewriting this:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...an-helps-them/



    There is much more, it is a right powerful take down, and not one of the most savage either. Schiff's mistake in his memo is it is a lie of omission. And the NR completely bags it up in the dog poop bag it deserves. But it served it's purpose. It was just false enough that you guys ate it up hook line and sinker and took it for truth. It did it's job.

    _____________________________________________



    You didn't even say it was flat. Come on. Know your kool-aid talking points!



    Now this? This is so stupid. But let's see if we can play a long a bit. Lets put down a few baselines:

    Fact: NRA trains people how to safely use firearms
    Fact: NRA trains people to never keep a gun loaded at home
    Facr: NRA trains people to NEVER point a gun at another person
    Fact: NRA Lobbies congress to protect 2A rights for Law Abiding citizens
    Fact: NRA is given a good chunk of cash by citizens who support their 2A rights
    Fact: NRA is a pretty effective group, all in all, at protecting the rights they lobby for
    Fact: NRA doesn't actually produce any firearms
    Fact: NRA doesn't produce the AR-15
    Fact: NRA doesn't produce bullets either.
    Fact: NRA doesn't produce high capacity magazines.
    Fact: NRA doesn't have a police force, or any policing functions
    Fact: NRA doesn't have a government group, like the FBI, who can legally stop a person who might shoot up a school. Maybe they should?
    Fact: Cops can stop an active shooter. In fact it is their job
    Fact: Cops can stop somebody with a firearm at a school. It is their job.
    Fact: Cops can call the FBI if they fear somebody will become an active shooter. It is their job.
    Fact: An average citizen can call the FBI to investigate if they fear somebody will become an active shooter. Their job.
    Fact: Somebody did call the FBI to tell them they fear somebody will become an active shooter. It is their job.
    Fact: FBI did not follow up. It is their job.
    Fact: The FBI can stop a potential active shooter, or authorize it. It is their job.
    Fact: The FBI can also provide training to cops to help them deal with an active shooter. It is their job.
    Fact: Kid has problems of a mental kind. At school. At home. Cops called, often.
    Fact: Kid grows to an adult
    Fact: At no point is long history of abuse, violence or related issues recorded in a searchable record that can keep him from purchasing a firearm. Or a background check.
    Fact: Kid becomes an adult
    Fact: Kid doesn't join the NRA.
    Fact: Kid does not get NRA training.
    Fact: Kid scared enough people that someone called the FBI
    Fact: Kid scared enough people that someone made a friggin Youtube video about it
    Fact: Kid loaded weapon not purchased from the NRA (since they don't own stores either)
    Fact: Kid passed background check because his years of instability and violence was not recorded on a 'Do no sell' list.
    Fact: Kid PLANNED to shoot school.
    Fact: Kid TOLD people he would do it.
    Fact: Kid Loaded weapon.
    Fact: Kid went to school.
    Fact: Kid deliberately aimed at people, and shot them.

    Fact: The NRA is not a police force.
    Fact: It is not the NRA's job to stop active shooters.
    Fact: It isn't the NRA's job to provide background checks
    Fact: The NRA did not pull the trigger
    Fact: The NRA did not purchase the weapon, nor the bullets, or loaded it either.

    The facts are clear: The Kid is responsible, 100%, for his actions. For stopping his actions, the FBI and Police are 100% of the service we provide to stop active shooters. The problem was brought up to the Cops and FBI, and neither party fulfilled their paid job.

    The NRA is not a police force and is not the shooter.

    So, please explain, clearly (feel free to use the whole page) how the NRA is responsible for the kid doing what he did?

    Any one?
    no one denies the shooter is at fault for the shooting.

    fact: there were good guys there with guns
    fact: they were not able to stop the shooter

    your conclusion: good guy with a gun will stop shooters

    everyone else:



    fact: FBI cannot take guns from the mentally ill, there is no law to do this.
    fact: local police cannot disarm or arrest someone based on here-say.

    your conclusion: law enforcement failed

    everyone else:




    some more fun facts:

    fact: because of NRA lobbying, government research into preventing gun violence is illegal
    fact: trump signed a GOP law explicitly allowing the mentally ill to buy and keep firearms
    fact: trump, republicans, and NRA all advocate against health care coverage (including mental health coverage) for 10s of millions of Americans
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-07-2018 at 03:23 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #726
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    @ Josh

    So you never got around to reading the Santer paper, I take it?
    I did Ryan, several times. Please don't be petty. Insulting people isn't a good way to make a point.

    I repeated it back to deaf ears that didn't listen to what I had to say, which it looks like we will have another go of here soon. I have read more of his past papers than you, since he puts out a couple every year. I repeat myself. The problem is almost everybody lacks the historical narrative to understand why Santer's paper was significant, and Mann's addition to the paper. Considering Santer has done this with several of his papers, whittling it down, is only really significant if you understand:

    Santer is the REASON the IPCC extended beyond AR2, because he is the exact one who said we would find an aerosol footprint at the 300mb level, and that was he had proof. He is the reason for the 3X warming feedback. Then to try and change the forcing factor downwards, by as much as he did, in so many different ways, when the water vapor level actually dropped at the 300mb, is just a laugh. It is incredulous.

    You have to have a lot more experience with the body of his work and an understanding of the IPCC history to begin to grasp the claims and result of the paper. In context, knowing the position of Santer and the IPCC, it is huge. As a paper - it is like his 2016, and a response to it. Did you read that one? Not the volcano forcing one, the other one? Did you read the 1995 IPCC report? Ever worked it against the 1990 and 2001 reports? Mann's work in the 2001 paper and how it counters the 1990 and 1995 work is damning. But even more so is where Santer put in the wording that in the referenced paper, completely contradicts the premise the 1995 report is supported by. It is like the head of Greenpeace buying a pleasure boat and huge truck to pull it. It is like a Vegan Cattle Farm. It is like Trump actually not cheating on his wife. Everything he supported? He threw it under the bus because his predictions, he entire assumptions, were wrong. It is huge. The pillars holding the IPCC up he removed.

    Look, I KNOW this, deeply. I am not coming in here from Infowars, or Flat Earth society, or the back corner of Gordon's mind. Normal back and forth, politics, etc? Sure, I am right there with my 'Magicbox Mag' trying to shoot longer distance like the rest of us. Meme wars level. I claim only a decent argument from a different point of view for the most part.

    On this subject - no. Per others:

    The only trouble was with the science. There was still no hard evidence that emissions were having the effect that the climate models were suggesting. In fact, the IPCC had been retreating further and further from making a *detection* finding. Its first assessment in 1990 warned that detection might not be achieved for decades. A special report for the Rio summit was even more sceptical. By 1995, the scientists were declaring that *we don*t know* when detection might be achieved. This could hardly justify drastic climate action.

    The first step towards rectifying the situation involved a claim that sulphate aerosol emissions had been damping warming in recent decades. This is how the climate modellers could explain the lack of recent warming while still predicting a future catastrophe. Still, the argument for detection remained weak.

    But then, at the eleventh hour, Santer made a dramatic new discovery. The aerosols effect also distorted the expected geographical pattern of warming, and he claimed to have found this very pattern in the climate data. However, his announcement came after his chapter of the IPCC report had already been drafted and reviewed. While it was agreed to include the new findings, there was heavy and sustained criticism from his peers, and this explains why he retained a very sceptical conclusion.

    All that remained was for the country delegates to accept the scientists* report and agree on a summary at a meeting in Madrid. But it was leading into that meeting, in their comments on the summary, where the US said that the report needed changing. Watson made specific suggestions on how to use Santer*s new findings to support a detection statement. The State Department cover letter was less specific but more insistent, asking *that the chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text*.

    In Madrid, Santer was again invited to explain his discovery. When he declared that his chapter was out of date and needed changing, the Saudis and Kuwaitis protested that the new findings were only preliminary and they also questioned the probity of national delegates changing the text of the scientists* report. But this was dismissed as the carping and blocking strategies of vested interests; the changes the US wanted were made.

    Many years later, Houghton published a reflection on the Madrid meeting under a banner *Meetings that changed the world*. As he saw it, without the triumph of science over the oil lobby at that meeting, global action on climate change could not have proceeded to the climate treaty agreed in Kyoto two years later. According to Houghton, passage of the famed *discernible human influence* statement saved the treaty process. Considering its effects on later events it*s hard to disagree. But what is not widely known is that this policy driven finding also saved the IPCC.
    Then, in that paper you think I didn't read, and several of his prior, the discoveries were... undone.

    That is it. A premature jump into alarmism instead of decades of thorough study. A position I made at the beginning of this forum. I believe, strongly, that we need to do better science. Then we can make decisions. Just like they felt in 1995. Before Santer.

    And this is not the entire reason, but a very small drop in a very large pool of similar facts I base my decisions on.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 03-07-2018 at 04:21 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  7. #727
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    To be clear, Josh, did you read the Schiff memo, or did you read the article about the Schiff memo and make impressions about the memo?

    I did not make my earlier point, which is to say that the allegation that Fusion GPS directly wiretapped is refuted in the Schiff memo. I'm now gathering that you meant that Fusion GPS information was used by the government to wiretap people in circumference to the Trump campaign? I've re-read your earlier post and I don't think this is what you said the first time. Your article that you posted in support certainly says nothing about Fusion GPS directly wiretapping US Citizens.

    I think the article you linked to makes weak arguments about unknown unknowns to support the case that the Steele document was the only thing a judge looked at to approve the FISA claims. But I also think there is not enough now and may never be enough information in the hands of the public to make factual determination about what happened here.

  8. #728
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Gordon - You blame, FIRST, the GOP and NRA for the shooting.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  9. #729
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Unfated: I read some. Then when I started finding contradictions, I went elsewhere to check. The NR, again, instead of me repeating it, covers it. If you want more sources, there are plenty who came to the same result.

    The Schiff report has done it job of sowing doubt through omission, like I said.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #730
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    To be clear, Josh, did you read the Schiff memo, or did you read the article about the Schiff memo and make impressions about the memo?

    I did not make my earlier point, which is to say that the allegation that Fusion GPS directly wiretapped is refuted in the Schiff memo. I'm now gathering that you meant that Fusion GPS information was used by the government to wiretap people in circumference to the Trump campaign? I've re-read your earlier post and I don't think this is what you said the first time. Your article that you posted in support certainly says nothing about Fusion GPS directly wiretapping US Citizens.

    I think the article you linked to makes weak arguments about unknown unknowns to support the case that the Steele document was the only thing a judge looked at to approve the FISA claims. But I also think there is not enough now and may never be enough information in the hands of the public to make factual determination about what happened here.
    If you don't know who the author is, Andrew McCarthy is a former U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York. He's got a pretty impressive counter-terrorism background to say the least and I try to make sure I read him. That being said, I've had trouble with his recent stuff and quite a few national security folks have posted some stuff that cuts directly against his position.

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/takeaway...democrats-memo
    https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts...lk-about-devin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •