No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

Post by mikeash » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #636

mcguire wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because what mc32 is doing is a rather cheap rhetorical tactic: asserting that, when Mr. Trump says something I (for the appropriate I ) like, he is to be believed, but when he says something unappealing or rediculous, he's joking. It's a relative of the "no true Scotsman". It's also a bit of a problem for a representative government, since it means you cannot take any of Trump's statements as a forecast of his polic…

Not quite. Trump is problematic. While he has attempted to execute his campaign promises, getting there the road is littered with inconsistency, opportunism, reversal, and some fluidity. But, but people take him too literally in the minutiae. The goal may be literal, but the tactics in getting there are not, the supporting verbiage is not. Counterintuitively the "vision" may be. Like I said elsewhere, it's akin to th…

Post by mc32 » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #641

mc32 wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. Trump is problematic. While he has attempted to execute his campaign promises, getting there the road is littered with inconsistency, opportunism, reversal, and some fluidity. But, but people take him too literally in the minutiae. The goal may be literal, but the tactics in getting there are not, the supporting verbiage is not. Counterintuitively the "vision" may be. Like I said elsewhere, it's akin to th…

Are you sure “abolish ICE” is not meant to be taken literally? I’ve seen no indication of that and I sure thought it was literal. The only confusion I’ve seen is from people who think “abolish ICE” is equivalent to “end all border and immigration enforcement.”

Post by doktrin » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

drcode wrote: post #233

RandomInteger4 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably more to do with the fact that there's so much high quality porn on the internet that we're honestly desensitized to amateur quality celeb nudes. Briefly intriguing, but overall rather "meh?" Granted, I could just be projecting, but I don't think I'm alone here.

Well, it's sort of weird because I think at one time the thought was that "serious people" would never take a nude of themselves or have affairs, that this kind of action was somehow "beyond the pale" and an action only a few outliers engage in. Nowadays, everyone seems to have decided that these activities are actually very common, though likely still in the minority (I think??)

Post by mikeash » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 3:57 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #643

mikeash wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure “abolish ICE” is not meant to be taken literally? I’ve seen no indication of that and I sure thought it was literal. The only confusion I’ve seen is from people who think “abolish ICE” is equivalent to “end all border and immigration enforcement.”

Well, now were' playing Trump's semantics, aren't we? It's not the INS, it's ICE. AS if they'll lay off 20k and then what? Nope. They may temper some things, do the dreamer things they promised, accommodate and redefine what refugee means (to include some poor economic migrants, but probably not rich economic migrants, etc.)

Post by mikeash » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 3:59 PM UTC

awb wrote: post #644

mikeash wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” does not apply to removing the President from office. The applicable standard is “whatever will convince half of the House and two thirds of the Senate.”

Yeah, which feels like a slippery slope into political takeovers, especially since the speaker of the house is 3rd in line. If Republicans were guaranteed to keep the President and VP slot, you'd see an impeachment much more easily. I don't think any Republican will want Pelosi a heartbeat away from the Presidency unless Trump's crime was so clear and egregious that 2/3 of the country wanted him gone.