CatBus

Now it appears there are Nazi links to the Russian payments to Trump’s lawyer. Quelle surprise.

moviefreakedmind said:

CatBus said:

I don’t actually see this as much of a realignment. It’s just the endgame of the Southern Strategy, coming to a head. Today’s Red America and Blue America isn’t really all that different than yesterday’s Gray America and Blue America. If White Identity Politics loses for a third time, if they’re no longer popular enough to be at the center of a national coalition, we can certainly hope for a more productive political realignment in the future, along, say, policy lines.

As for anti-reality, there’s a method to the madness: You call President Obama certain bad words, and you get pilloried, but you suggest maybe he has exotic origins that make him unlike the rest of us real Americans, and you get elected. Repeating patently and provably untrue things is often just a smokescreen, a way to assert group membership without betraying anything more malignant than stupidity. Trump made liberals laugh by denying reality, but he made white supremacists vote – and that was the goal.

I agree with that. Though, don’t underestimate the fact that he lost the popular vote by a lot. He’s not representing the majority of this country or even the majority of voters in this country.

You always have to be the optimist, don’t you? 😉

I don’t actually see this as much of a realignment. It’s just the endgame of the Southern Strategy, coming to a head. Today’s Red America and Blue America isn’t really all that different than yesterday’s Gray America and Blue America. If White Identity Politics loses for a third time, if they’re no longer popular enough to be at the center of a national coalition, we can certainly hope for a more productive political realignment in the future, along, say, policy lines.

As for anti-reality, there’s a method to the madness: You call President Obama certain bad words, and you get pilloried, but you suggest maybe he has exotic origins that make him unlike the rest of us real Americans, and you get elected. Repeating patently and provably untrue things is often just a smokescreen, a way to assert group membership without betraying anything more malignant than stupidity. Trump made liberals laugh by denying reality, but he made white supremacists vote – and that was the goal.

moviefreakedmind said:

Oh yeah. Republicans are an antichrist party.

No, they’re the Party of Trump.

…oh.

Mrebo said:

Do you have a link? What I see was that the payments occurred before the Russian(Vekselberg) was put on the sanctions list. And the Russian link, is that a NY company, whose biggest client is a company controlled by Vekselberg, gave money. There may be dots to connect, but at least on those facts there doesn’t appear to be a sanctions violation.

Possible bank fraud, campaign finance violations, and especially any evidence that the campaign knowingly took money from Moscow…would be serious as you say.

Looks like either I misread or the sources have been updated. You can never tell these days. So yes, he was under sanctions, but it doesn’t seem that the payment we’re talking about was while he was under sanctions. Meanwhile further digging appears to reveal Cohen’s shell company was getting large cash payments from whomever Trump was meeting with that week. i.e. Trump meets with Novartis’ CEO. At the same time, Novartis pays $400,000 to a shell company with no staff or resources of any sort, run by Cohen. Maybe coincidence. Also coincidence with Korea Aerospace Industries, up for a multibillion dollar military contract. AT&T’s in there too, but frankly they bribe everyone contribute to both parties. But how should one classify political contributions that don’t go to a PAC or campaign, but to the shell company of a personal lawyer? Hmm, campaign finance laws are tricky. EDIT: Wait, it’s “consulting” – that may actually be a big enough loophole to hide behind most of the time, wonder if it’ll work this time?

Also:

Adam Schiff just said that members of the House Intelligence Committee were interested in Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, but committee leadership wouldn’t allow anybody to look into him.

Cohen appears to be in serious trouble. The headlines seem to be blaring “Russian Oligarch Paid Cohen Half a Million Dollars”, which makes good copy but doesn’t really quite get there. He’s in way more doodoo than that. The Russian Oligarch in question was under US sanctions at the time of the payment, and Cohen appears to have misled the bank. And this single payment was just one of about 4.5 million dollars of suspicious transactions on this particular account. And this all happened while Trump was President and Cohen was acting as his personal attorney. He is likely open to federal and state-level charges on these matters (California).

No wonder the National Enquirer has gone all anti-Cohen. If he has a single functioning brain cell, he’s flipped already.

Schneiderman’s resigned. As opposed to announcing a Senate bid, which I guess would have been the other realistic possibility these days.

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t see how it’s surprising.

s/surprising/alarming/

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

darthrush said:

Dek Rollins said:

TV’s Frink said:

Trident said:

TV’s Frink said:

Hmmm…you believe different than I do? Ok, you’re going to be tortured forever after you die.

Oh, and that other guy who led a terrible life, raped, robbed, murdered, kicked puppies and pushed down old ladies, but accepted Jesus as his savior right at the end? He’s a better person than you are.

Nah, doesn’t seem like a shitty belief system at all.

A guy who accepts getting saved at the end isn’t gonna fool God if he’s not sincere. And if he’s sincere? Why wouldn’t that matter?

I mean how would such a guy have heard of Jesus anyway if not for someone else taking time to point it out to him. Someone who noticed he was on a destructive path and took a lot of effort to help him onto a better one?

I don’t know why you’d be against the idea that even a horrible person could find a way to redeem themselves. I mean can criminals be rehabilitated or not? Should we lock people up forever on a 1st offense? Or should we give them other chances?

A rapist and murderer who legitimately gives his life to Christ is less of a sinner than me.

I’d just like to say that this is not really how it works. The rapist/murderer is not less of a sinner than you. He did not sin less than you just because that sin is forgiven. But, he will be saved rather than you, because he gave complete recognition to the person who bought him the choice to ask for forgiveness.

And it’s still just as repulsive of an idea.

If you say so.

I do too. It’s completely fucked up, and if God exists and is omnipotent, I don’t think he would judge someone based on their devotion to him, which he has no need for, being a perfect being. It’s lunacy.

I suppose I better just move on with my repulsive and shitty life, though maybe I could better my reputation by murdering a few unborn children with no medical issues.

Well I guess you get credit for throwing medical issues in there.

Too bad for women that were raped though I guess. Or for women with medical issues.

Or what about the couple whose condom broke and they simply cannot afford or simply don’t want to have a kid? (I’m guessing plan B counts as murder.)

Yeah, but who broke the condom…

…with his noodly appendage. Er, wait, no. Too hentai.

Presented without conspiracy theory, because a surprising number of men are simply shitty to women:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse/amp?__twitter_impression=true

moviefreakedmind said:

CatBus said:

Progressive is in many ways just the new label for what used to be called liberal before, say, the Clinton administration. The liberal label over time evolved (at least in some circles) to apply only to the more suburban white well-to-do part of the Democratic base – not particularly union-friendly, not particularly concerned about the social safety net, interested in looking environmentally-conscious without having to change their lifestyle, and so sad about racial injustice that they hope very fervently that somebody else will finally do something about it before they have to sit through another depressing movie about it.

Progressive identity arose the way lots of identities do – simply as a means of saying “I’m not one of them!”

Yeah, I think of progressivism in a Lyndon Johnson “Great Society” way. We haven’t had a truly liberal president since Carter.

IMO we haven’t had a truly liberal President since Nixon, but different strokes.

Progressive is in many ways just the new label for what used to be called liberal before, say, the Clinton administration. The liberal label over time evolved (at least in some circles) to apply only to the more suburban white well-to-do part of the Democratic base – not particularly union-friendly, not particularly concerned about the social safety net, interested in looking environmentally-conscious without having to change their lifestyle, and so sad about racial injustice that they hope very fervently that somebody else will finally do something about it before they have to sit through another depressing movie about it.

Progressive identity arose the way lots of identities do – simply as a means of saying “I’m not one of them!”

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Curious what people would think if Ryan did away with the chaplain position because he’s sick and tired of Catholics.

Most of the right things in history have been done for the wrong reasons. If you’re waiting for nobility, you’re in for a long wait, especially with this crowd.

It’s my view that merely having a bad reason for an otherwise allowed official act isn’t enough to render it void. If we were waiting for nobility, nothing would ever be done in this country.

Sometimes intent figures into legality, in which case it could be enough to at least legally void an action. But bad/stupid reasons don’t 100% overlap with illegal reasons. Hating Catholics would be an illegal reason, so in your example, the action would not be legal. Motivated by hate of the individual would be legal, or even hate of his haircut, but motivated by hate of the protected class is not. Hard to prove that in court, though, unless he was dumb enough to talk openly about it.

Intent does figure into legality but thusfar has remained subsidiary to the act itself. There are those who would like to see intent used to invalidate actions that are otherwise legal.

This is an issue raised in the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Justice Kennedy - who is on the side of thinking intent extremely important - suggested there may be “a significant aspect of hostility to a religion in this case” based in part on a statement by a state official.

The idea that courts can decide whether a law is legal or not based essentially on perceived motivations is dangerous and impractical.

What’s so scary about it? Shooting someone because you hate the way they look is a different scenario than shooting someone because the spirit animal of Jodie Foster told you to do it in a dream. Refusing to serve someone because they’re black (or gay) is different than refusing to serve someone because they once wronged you personally somehow.

There’s kind of a libertarian opposition to hate crimes legislation that goes like this: “burn a church and it’s arson, but burn a church thinking certain thoughts and it’s a hate crime, ergo hate crime laws are gateways to thoughtcrime!”.

I think the problem with that analysis is that it doesn’t think about the effect of generalized intimidation. Prosecuting criminal intimidation as an individual charge typically requires a specific target, but hate crimes are designed to intimidate a broad group indiscriminately. There’s an implied “…and you could be next, because you are in a certain group” in a hate crime, and that is often the explicit intent of the criminal. Which is why it’s treated differently under the law. It really is a different type of crime with a worse impact on society, worthier of harsher sentences.

Mrebo said:

The idea that courts can decide whether a law is legal or not based essentially on perceived motivations is dangerous and impractical.

Motives are taken into account all the time by courts for all sorts of reasons – criminal, civil, administrative, sanctions. Sometimes they get it wrong, I’m sure, but in cases like this, I’d say the evidence of illegal motivation has to be so ironclad that I’m not terribly concerned. I’m sure if the courts feel there’s any doubt at all about motivation, if there’s any sense at all that they’re dealing with perceived motivation rather than actual motivation, they would let the law stand. It would have to be the once-a-century unicorn case where some buffoon left around ample documentary evidence of illegal motivation for the courts to intervene.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Curious what people would think if Ryan did away with the chaplain position because he’s sick and tired of Catholics.

Most of the right things in history have been done for the wrong reasons. If you’re waiting for nobility, you’re in for a long wait, especially with this crowd.

It’s my view that merely having a bad reason for an otherwise allowed official act isn’t enough to render it void. If we were waiting for nobility, nothing would ever be done in this country.

Sometimes intent figures into legality, in which case it could be enough to at least legally void an action. But bad/stupid reasons don’t 100% overlap with illegal reasons. Hating Catholics would be an illegal reason, so in your example, the action would not be legal. Motivated by hate of the individual would be legal, or even hate of his haircut, but motivated by hate of the protected class is not.

That sort of thing is pretty much impossible to prove in court, though, unless he was dumb enough to talk openly about it, so Ryan would probably have nothing to worry about. It would be an extremely rare thing to have enough evidence of illegal intent to bring a credible case to try to stop him.

But, for example, IMO it’s pretty clear the 19th Amendment passed largely due to white voters being scared of minority voters and trying to double their vote margins. Really shitty reason, leading to a truly excellent result. And Susan B Anthony gets on a damn coin for it, so at some point in history the sins of your motivations are washed clean by the results.

EDIT: Also, sometimes depending on the case, actions can be voided not on illegality, but the lack of any reasonable foundation whatsoever, or failure to follow defined process. i.e. if the Secretary of the Interior decided to rename Yellowstone National Park “Zinkeland” one afternoon, he may technically have naming authority, but the act may be void because the Department’s defined process for making these changes was not followed. These policies usually exist precisely to avoid people getting wild hairs to do things without much cause or forethought.

Mrebo said:

Curious what people would think if Ryan did away with the chaplain position because he’s sick and tired of Catholics.

Most of the right things in history have been done for the wrong reasons. If you’re waiting for nobility, you’re in for a long wait, especially with this crowd.

Oh, I wanted to mention something I saw this May Day. As with most cities, we see some people every year using May Day as an opportunity to smash stuff, start fights, and engage in random violence during otherwise peaceful protests. I don’t know whether we’re better or worse than most towns, but it’s seemed pretty bad by my estimation.

Well, this last May Day, there were lots of protests and very little violence, which was nice. But the great thing was what I saw. A room full of riot cops all decked out and ready to go, sitting around bored and playing with their phones. Something about the sight really made me happy. Sure, it was to some degree wasting taxpayer money and they obviously overstaffed by a big margin, but frankly I’m still delighted that they found solace in Candy Crush or whatever instead of going out into the protests and making trouble where there wasn’t any before.

TV’s Frink said:

I’d like to see some statistics backing up the supposed consensus.

I suspect it’s directly down party lines.

While I’m no Reagan defender, quite a lot of time has passed since then and both parties have changed a lot. Republicans tend to praise Reagan as an article of faith, but frankly he’d be viewed as a fringe liberal in today’s Republican party. On some issues he’d be fairly liberal for a Democrat these days too. Top marginal tax rate of 50%? Pffft! Go back to your Bernie rally, Ron! Evil Empire? Fake news!

So if you ask “What do you think of Reagan?” I agree the answer will be split down party lines, but if you ask “What do you think of these specific policies?” the answer may also be split down party lines, in the opposite direction!

Dek Rollins said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

Possessed said:

*YouTube video I’m not going to click on*

Clip from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Indy, teaching class: “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

It’s actually from Raiders.

😉

I don’t know how he could get those confused. The Raiders scene starts with Indy figuring out how to spell neolithic.

Cause I’m a big doodoohead! Stop looking at me!

chyron8472 said:

Possessed said:

*YouTube video I’m not going to click on*

Clip from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Indy, teaching class: “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

It’s actually from Raiders. And I should note at least some of his students aren’t interested in fact or truth, but the more pressing matter of how to get into Dr. Jones’ pants. The kids are all right.

Oh, and I also agree with Chyron. Even as an atheist, I feel fiction often more accurately expresses the truth than nonfiction.

CatBus said:

So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.

Now all the cool kids are doing Trump admin Kremlinology using the National Enquirer.

Yeah, that’s just it. Taking a well-designed, modern nuclear carrier and parking it offshore to power a remote town doesn’t actually sound like a half-bad idea, at least as some sort of stopgap. But this thing? They just launched it and it looks like a Soviet-era museum piece.

I hate to judge a book by its cover, but come on.

No, it’s a real floating power station. For the Siberian far north, where land-based nuclear power plants would be subject to serious permafrost subsidence or huge methane explosions, and any sort of transport or transmission would be both pricey and unreliable. Not that this is a good idea, but the best idea is clearly don’t put a city there.

chyron8472 said:

I don’t know the origins of FSM or whatever

FWIW, I never really cared one way or the other for FSM, but it was created as a rhetorical device, designed not to counter belief in God, but to counter the trend of people enforcing their religious beliefs on others through the law. i.e. “if you’re going to legislate that my kids have to learn religious creation myths in a public school’s science classroom as if they were fact, then please allow me to demonstrate what a bad idea that is using the FSM, since we cannot Constitutionally favor one religion over another”.

The trick is, there are plenty of real religions with alternate creation stories that most people would not want taught in a science classroom. I think that’s an area where the Satanists, for example, have done better work keeping the argument civil than the FSM people IMO. You don’t always have to jump straight to an extreme to get your point across.

Mrebo said:

Does anyone doubt chyron’s sincerity on the certainty of his belief?

I don’t feel any doubt.

Thank you, thank you. Enjoy the veal.