Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 234: Epsteins;Gate

(+) Yeah! (+)

Also I'm pretty sure people don't realize how downright miserable most prison guards become. They are pretty much paid to stare at a wall for 8 hours on an average day.
---

Eh, Wang's being Wang, and Cyclo's being kinda nuts, but Tony seems fine. That's doubt more than "There's no way he killed himself"
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Eh, Wang's being Wang, and Cyclo's being kinda nuts, but Tony seems fine. That's doubt more than "There's no way he killed himself"

Deja vu! I've just been in this place before. HIGHER ON THE STREET! And I know it's my chance to go!
---

red13n posted...

Also I'm pretty sure people don't realize how downright miserable most prison guards become. They are pretty much paid to stare at a wall for 8 hours on an average day.

They are fairly compensated for it. It is a very good job to have.
---

Corrik7 posted...

red13n posted...

Also I'm pretty sure people don't realize how downright miserable most prison guards become. They are pretty much paid to stare at a wall for 8 hours on an average day.

They are fairly compensated for it. It is a very good job to have.

Oh god i'm going to do it. Everyone i've talked to that has been a prison guard mentions what a miserable experience it is.
---

Corrik7 posted...

They are fairly compensated for it. It is a very good job to have.

Depends on the state/county. Some states only pay like $15 an hour for it.

---

red13n posted...

And lets be clear here, the guy probably has the money and influence to buy off a guard and kill himself.

But people keep propogating this idea that he was murdered(By Hillary! according to half of twitter) when the more likely option is the guard just wasn't paying close enough attention and he hung himself. "Murder" seems basically entirely off the table.

50% think the Clinton family/associates killed him or assisted his suicide. 25% Trump. 20% Random billionaires and big wigs. 5% think he actually committed suicide all on his own.
---

hockeydude15 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

They are fairly compensated for it. It is a very good job to have.

Depends on the state/county. Some states only pay like $15 an hour for it.

Prison guard? It's like 30 something here I believe.
---

"I was probably being paid $500, $600 for a shift of overtime just to watch somebody through a window," Donson said

That means he makes $41.50-50 base pay.
---

A job can suck even if its well-paid. Being a prison guard seems like it would be soulcrushing.

---

https://gothamist.com/2018/06/19/mcc_jail_human_rights_torture.php

"Andrew Laufer, a civil rights attorney who has filed several lawsuits challenging conditions at the BOPs two federal jails in New York City, recalled suing the BOP on behalf of a prisoner at MCC who had had his fingertip chopped off by a cell door. Rather than being placed in an ambulance, alleges Laufer, the man was chained at his ankles and wrists and brought to the hospital by correctional officers, bleeding profusely.
"I think its a human rights violation, Laufer says of the medical care at MCC. I think its an Eighth Amendment violationdeliberate indifference.
There are also claims of extreme brutality by those who are held at the MCC. In September of 2017, Laufer filed a lawsuit alleging that after 35-year-old Roberto Grant was beaten to death at MCC in May 2015, the prison staff tried to cover it up, by telling his Grants family hed died of an overdose.
Gothamist reviewed a copy of the autopsy performed on Grant by the New York City Medical Examiner, which stated the father of two had suffered blunt force injuries of the head, neck, torso, and extremities and had no detectable traces of drugs in his system.
You have someone whos beaten to death in MCC, and there are cameras everywhere, Laufer said. Theres not an inch of that facility that is not surveilled. No one cares.
The case is ongoing, and Laufer recently lost a motion to compel the government to release documents and other materials relevant to Grants death. In court filings, the Department of Justice has denied wrongdoing.
The Bureau of Prisons did not respond to written inquiries about this incident or other allegations laid out in this story. A spokesperson for the BOP also declined to comment.
Several prisoners told Gothamist that they had been physically assaulted by staff. I ended up catching a new charge in MCC for defending myself, said Fabian Morrison in a letter. A crazy officer attacked me and I defended myself, Im the seventh inmate he put hands on. He is really fucked up in the head from the military.
In the past fifteen years, at least one correctional officer at MCC has been convicted of beating an inmate, and at least three guards have been found guilty of sexually assaulting prisoners. In 2016, a former correctional officer at MCC was sentenced to seven years behind bars for raping a woman detained at the facility. Even in my dreams, I am suffering flashbacks where Im repeatedly raped, the woman told the court. And this past April, a guard was arrested for taking bribes to smuggle food, alcohol and cellphones into the facility."

red13n posted...

these are the two posts of people that seem totally on board conspiracy over "maybe". They heavily infer the conspiracy being the more likely option in their mind.

...and in the mind of literally any person who is familiar with the prison and has commented on it.

All of them.
The most logical answer here is foul play.
---

Wang, would you call it foul play if the truth of the matter was simply that a guard was bribed (or something equivalent) to look the other way and not stop Epstein while he committed suicide on his own and of his own volition?

(I haven't fully read this discussion, and frankly I don't really care to, but from what I've skimmed the disconnect seems to be that some people would say yes to that question while others would not)

Reg posted...

Wang, would you call it foul play if the truth of the matter was simply that a guard was bribed (or something equivalent) to look the other way and not stop Epstein while he committed suicide on his own and of his own volition?

(I haven't fully read this discussion, and frankly I don't really care to, but from what I've skimmed the disconnect seems to be that some people would say yes to that question while others would not)

Obviously yes.
---

Reg posted...

Wang, would you call it foul play if the truth of the matter was simply that a guard was bribed (or something equivalent) to look the other way and not stop Epstein while he committed suicide on his own and of his own volition?

(I haven't fully read this discussion, and frankly I don't really care to, but from what I've skimmed the disconnect seems to be that some people would say yes to that question while others would not)

i'd still say yes to that, though would find it incredibly hard to believe the guard didn't slip him something to actually kill himself with too. with what he has in the cell it shouldn't be possible. they've kept literally drug lords and mob bosses alive in there, haven't had a suicide in over 20 years - it shouldn't be doable, especially by hanging.

in updated news:
no footage.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/theres-no-video-of-jeffrey-epsteins-apparent-suicide-sources/

Theres no surveillance video of the incident during which Jeffrey Epstein apparently hanged himself in a federal lockup in Lower Manhattan, law-enforcement officials told The Post on Sunday.

Although there are cameras in the 9 South wing where the convicted pedophile was being held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, they are trained on the areas outside the cells and not inside, according to sources familiar with the setup there.

---

Well then there should be footage to see if anyone entered his cell
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Well then there should be footage to see if anyone entered his cell

Indeed. So even if there's no footage of him killing himself it could prove he wasn't interfered with.
---

The medical examiner has not yet determined the cause of death is suicide.

However, in hilarious news, the Epstein estate has hired a Dr Michael Baden to observe the autopsy in a major trolling move of the conspiracy community. Baden is a fox news contributor, involved with the OJ Simpson trial (worked with Epstein friend Alan Dershowitz), as well as on the committee that investigated the assassination of MLK and JFK. It's a beautiful nexus of the biggest American conspiracies, and we love to see it folks.

The Conspiracy Community
---

Conspiracy fans are people, my friend. Or are they...?

kevwaffles posted...

Calling it out as the same way Corrik uses anecdotal evidence is flat out not true.

i didn't mean to call anyone in this topic out for posting anecdotal evidence, i just wanted to make fun of corrik's stupid statement.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i didn't mean to call anyone in this topic out for posting anecdotal evidence, i just wanted to make fun of corrik's stupid statement.

Admittedly I wasn't entirely sure what you were getting at. Cyclo definitely was in that post you quoted. I figured maybe you were agreeing with him?

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

kevwaffles posted...

Calling it out as the same way Corrik uses anecdotal evidence is flat out not true.

i didn't mean to call anyone in this topic out for posting anecdotal evidence, i just wanted to make fun of corrik's stupid statement.

You got a lot of nerve calling someone's shit stupid. You can't even tell how leaving words out changes context and your entire arguments.
---

I've given Lasa grief a lot and I have NO idea wtf you're babbling about.
---

kevwaffles posted...

I've given Lasa grief a lot and I have NO idea wtf you're babbling about.

He tried posting a "quote" from me which left out a word that completely changed the topic of what was said. Framed it from a question of minimum wage to a question of unemployed individuals. Which is a whole different ball game.

I said I didn't say what he said I said. He posted the actual quote which had different words which changed the whole context and content. He acted like he correctly quoted me.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Actual life versus theoretical situations is important, yes.

I suggest you make use of your actual experiences.

saying a statistic is wrong because you don't see it represented in your personal experience isn't "actual life versus theoretical situations." it's "wrongly extrapolating your personal experience of actual life to a general statement about actual life." again, it's "i haven't personally seen this so it doesn't exist."

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

i suggest you read this again. or, rather, for the first time, as you clearly haven't read it yet.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik7 posted...

Actual life versus theoretical situations is important, yes.

I suggest you make use of your actual experiences.

saying a statistic is wrong because you don't see it represented in your personal experience isn't "actual life versus theoretical situations." it's "wrongly extrapolating your personal experience of actual life to a general statement about actual life." again, it's "i haven't personally seen this so it doesn't exist."

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

i suggest you read this again. or, rather, for the first time, as you clearly haven't read it yet.

The conversation did not have statistics. You are making zero sense.
---

Corrik7 posted...

He tried posting a "quote" from me which left out a word that completely changed the topic of what was said. Framed it from a question of minimum wage to a question of unemployed individuals. Which is a whole different ball game.

I said I didn't say what he said I said. He posted the actual quote which had different words which changed the whole context and content. He acted like he correctly quoted me.

i did misquote you (i was just going by memory of a debate that took place two years ago when i made that post) but my point was (and is) that you don't understand why anecdotal evidence is not legit. whether the argument was about minimum wage or unemployment is completely irrelevant.
---

Corrik7 posted...

The conversation did not have statistics. You are making zero sense.

ok, i shouldn't have used the word "statistic." replace it with "statement," then. my point remains the same.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik7 posted...

He tried posting a "quote" from me which left out a word that completely changed the topic of what was said. Framed it from a question of minimum wage to a question of unemployed individuals. Which is a whole different ball game.

I said I didn't say what he said I said. He posted the actual quote which had different words which changed the whole context and content. He acted like he correctly quoted me.

i did misquote you (i was just going by memory of a debate that took place two years ago when i made that post) but my point was (and is) that you don't understand why anecdotal evidence is not legit. whether the argument was about minimum wage or unemployment is completely irrelevant.

Anecdotal evidence can be legit or at least provide some insight that cannot be established by simply running numbers.

It is always good to question studies and how they were done and what they could have missed. No one should be taking stuff as gospel just because they see a study that says it, and no one should also be assuming answers based on what they think they will be.

The topic there is about minimum wage. About all jobs should be able to support a family. I pointed out that jobs do exist to support a family but they are not taking them. I gave some anecodotal reasons that may explain that or at least give insight some factors.

The saying what happens when none exist anymore cuz there are more people than those jobs. Well, that's an extraneous and ideal hypothetical. Because we know that those jobs do exist. There are not none left. And, even with all the people that want them, they are not filling them.

So, then we should be wondering why this is.

The goal shouldn't be to raise minimum wage for entry and lesser jobs not intended to be one that is a family provider. It should be to get those looking for those kind of jobs to the higher paying career jobs that exist and wonder why they aren't trying to get these jobs already.
---

Corrik7 posted...

I pointed out that jobs do exist to support a family but they are not taking them.

yes, so your source for your claim that there are more "serious" jobs than adults is "i personally have seen vacancies for 'serious' jobs that people are not taking." which is anecdotal and doesn't prove anything. it doesn't disprove moogle's claim that there are more adults than "serious" jobs at all.

you're right in that anecdotal evidence can have value, but it depends entirely on the argument you're arguing against. if moogle had said "there absolutely no 'serious' jobs in the united states at all, 100% of the jobs that exist are crappy jobs like burger flipping that could never support a family," your post would have been totally valid. THEN you could have just said "well, i've seen vacancies for 'serious' jobs, so that's obviously bullshit." in that case, your personal experience would be sufficient to disprove moogle's claim.

however, to accuse moogle of lying about there being more adults than "serious" jobs based on nothing but the completely anecdotal argument that you've seen vacancies for "serious" jobs that people are not taking, which is what you did, is absurd.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

yes, so your source for your claim that there are more "serious" jobs than adults

I again have never said this. It is a stupid argument to even make.

The inverse was argued in regards to what do we do when none are left. Which is like I said completely extraneous because they do exist and they are not being filled and the question is why?

I am not there to disprove moogles claim that there are more adults than serious jobs. That is common sense. There are probably significantly more adults than jobs period itself. I mean, adults doesn't even have to refer to those in the workforce. His claim has nothing to do with the reality of why aren't those trying to move forward to higher paying jobs. Why are the jobs requiring labor or a trade skill commonly being ones that people do not want to go into? Why are we trying to give a 100% if not more (some states) raise to those doing the bottom rings jobs and devaluing the middle class career jobs instead of giving people the skills to do higher paying jobs or figure out why they don't want to take them if they can?

It is easy to say, "Hey, I want $15 an hour". However, is the person even trying to get a job that pays that? If not, why?

You seem to be misrepresenting the entire argument to either try and push a narrative or by just not understanding what was being said.
---

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/us/politics/trump-immigration-policy.html

This is just gross.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I again have never said this. It is a stupid argument to even make.

The inverse was argued in regards to what do we do when none are left. Which is like I said completely extraneous because they do exist and they are not being filled and the question is why?

I am not there to disprove moogles claim that there are more adults than serious jobs. That is common sense. There are probably significantly more adults than jobs period itself. I mean, adults doesn't even have to refer to those in the workforce. His claim has nothing to do with the reality of why aren't those trying to move forward to higher paying jobs. Why are the jobs requiring labor or a trade skill commonly being ones that people do not want to go into? Why are we trying to give a 100% if not more (some states) raise to those doing the bottom rings jobs and devaluing the middle class career jobs instead of giving people the skills to do higher paying jobs or figure out why they don't want to take them if they can?

It is easy to say, "Hey, I want $15 an hour". However, is the person even trying to get a job that pays that? If not, why?

You seem to be misrepresenting the entire argument to either try and push a narrative or by just not understanding what was being said.

oh, you said the "if getting a 'serious' job was easy, almost everyone would do it" part of moogle's post was a lie rather than the "there are less 'serious' jobs than there are adults" part.

you just said "this is a lie" without specifying what part of his post was a lie so it was kind of hard to tell (at least to me), but i did misrepresent the argument you were making. my apologies.

however, while not anecdotal evidence, i still find your argument to be pretty weird as moogle didn't say "almost everyone is trying to get a 'serious' job." he said "if getting a 'serious' job was easy, almost everyone would do it." you're replying to a hypothetical scenario with an argument based in reality. unless you're arguing "it's not hypothetical because it IS extremely easy to get a 'serious' job," but i would disagree with that.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

oh, you said the "if getting a 'serious' job was easy, almost everyone would do it" part of moogle's post was a lie rather than the "there are less 'serious' jobs than there are adults" part.

you just said "this is a lie" without specifying what part of his post was a lie so it was kind of hard to tell (at least to me), but i did misrepresent the argument you were making. my apologies.

however, while not anecdotal evidence, i still find your argument to be pretty weird as moogle didn't say "almost everyone is trying to get a 'serious' job." he said "if getting a 'serious' job was easy, almost everyone would do it." you're replying to a hypothetical scenario with an argument based in reality. unless you're arguing "it's not hypothetical because it IS extremely easy to get a 'serious' job," but i would disagree with that.

I argued that not "almost everyone" would based on anecdotal evidence yes. But our opinions are based on what we would describe as easy. I believe passing a hair drug test is easy. Others might not agree.
---

i do wonder, though, do you really know "hundreds of people" who either don't want to apply for "serious" jobs or quit shortly after being hired at a "serious" job, as you claimed at the time? if that's true, you must know a loooooooot of people.

asked you this question at the time too and you didn't respond then, so...
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i do wonder, though, do you really know "hundreds of people" who either don't want to apply for "serious" jobs or quit shortly after being hired at a "serious" job, as you claimed at the time? if that's true, you must know a loooooooot of people.

asked you this question at the time too and you didn't respond then, so...

Yes, I do know hundreds of people have failed drug tests to apply to my job and at least 50 or so have quit within weeks of starting here.

I do know double digits of friends and family who won't apply where I work because they don't want to stop smoking pot, don't want to have to work overtime, don't want rotating schedules, and don't want to get as dirty as we do or have to work in heat like we do.

So, yeah, I think all of this would apply.

Some people are more concerned about convenience of a job over their money they earn.

Is that their choice? Sure. But, I can't help but laugh when they also complain they are broke all the time when they weren't willing to put in the effort to not be broke.

I understand some people believe you shouldn't do a job you won't like, but I think being unwilling to do jobs available for the pay you might want kind of lessens their arguments of made that they deserve more to do the jobs they want to do.
---

Corrik7 posted...

I do know double digits of friends and family who won't apply where I work because they don't want to stop smoking pot, don't want to have to work overtime, don't want rotating schedules, and don't want to get as dirty as we do or have to work in heat like we do.

I mean this sounds completely miserable so it makes sense people would avoid it. If this is your example of a $15/hr job (and I hope that's paid overtime and they aren't cheesing people with a low salary) I think that's drastically underpaid.

Part of increasing minimum wage to $15 is that people across the board aren't being paid what they're worth and the hope is it forces other wages up too.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

I do know double digits of friends and family who won't apply where I work because they don't want to stop smoking pot, don't want to have to work overtime, don't want rotating schedules, and don't want to get as dirty as we do or have to work in heat like we do.

I mean this sounds completely miserable so it makes sense people would avoid it. If this is your example of a $15/hr job (and I hope that's paid overtime and they aren't cheesing people with a low salary) I think that's drastically underpaid.

Part of increasing minimum wage to $15 is that people across the board aren't being paid what they're worth and the hope is it forces other wages up too.

Starting wage is 21 something I think. And ofc overtime is time and a half.
---

I mean in your case Corrik, working at a coke plant is also basically agreeing to cut 10-20 years off your life on top of the things you mentioned.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/us/politics/trump-immigration-policy.html

This is just gross.

Disgusting

---

But I'm sure Obama did it first, somehow!
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/us/politics/trump-immigration-policy.html

This is just gross.

Remember when the white supremacists (and trolls pretending not to be such) were like "nuh uh. We only hate illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants are fine!"

Turns out that they actually really were just racist pieces of shit.

Just like anybody with a brain knew at the time.

kevwaffles posted...

But I'm sure Obama did it first, somehow!

Stephen Miller would be very upset that you're giving a black man credit for his terrible ideas...!

---

hockeydude15 posted...

I mean in your case Corrik, working at a coke plant is also basically agreeing to cut 10-20 years off your life on top of the things you mentioned.

That's a theory. But, yeah. Lol
---

Protests against Putin in Moscow:

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1160187497835651072

---

Corrik7 posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik7 posted...

He tried posting a "quote" from me which left out a word that completely changed the topic of what was said. Framed it from a question of minimum wage to a question of unemployed individuals. Which is a whole different ball game.

I said I didn't say what he said I said. He posted the actual quote which had different words which changed the whole context and content. He acted like he correctly quoted me.

i did misquote you (i was just going by memory of a debate that took place two years ago when i made that post) but my point was (and is) that you don't understand why anecdotal evidence is not legit. whether the argument was about minimum wage or unemployment is completely irrelevant.

Anecdotal evidence can be legit or at least provide some insight that cannot be established by simply running numbers.

It is always good to question studies and how they were done and what they could have missed. No one should be taking stuff as gospel just because they see a study that says it, and no one should also be assuming answers based on what they think they will be.

The topic there is about minimum wage. About all jobs should be able to support a family. I pointed out that jobs do exist to support a family but they are not taking them. I gave some anecodotal reasons that may explain that or at least give insight some factors.

The saying what happens when none exist anymore cuz there are more people than those jobs. Well, that's an extraneous and ideal hypothetical. Because we know that those jobs do exist. There are not none left. And, even with all the people that want them, they are not filling them.

So, then we should be wondering why this is.

The goal shouldn't be to raise minimum wage for entry and lesser jobs not intended to be one that is a family provider. It should be to get those looking for those kind of jobs to the higher paying career jobs that exist and wonder why they aren't trying to get these jobs already.

Wouldn't raising the minimum wage drive up the wage level of higher paying jobs? If employers want to attract talent, they'll have to offer comparatively more than you can get at a minimum wage job.

As for why jobs aren't filled, if a job isn't filled become someone starts and quits, it will probably be filled as soon as the company can find someone who won't quit. If they can't find anyone like that.....it means they aren't paying enough.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik7 posted...

He tried posting a "quote" from me which left out a word that completely changed the topic of what was said. Framed it from a question of minimum wage to a question of unemployed individuals. Which is a whole different ball game.

I said I didn't say what he said I said. He posted the actual quote which had different words which changed the whole context and content. He acted like he correctly quoted me.

i did misquote you (i was just going by memory of a debate that took place two years ago when i made that post) but my point was (and is) that you don't understand why anecdotal evidence is not legit. whether the argument was about minimum wage or unemployment is completely irrelevant.

Anecdotal evidence can be legit or at least provide some insight that cannot be established by simply running numbers.

It is always good to question studies and how they were done and what they could have missed. No one should be taking stuff as gospel just because they see a study that says it, and no one should also be assuming answers based on what they think they will be.

The topic there is about minimum wage. About all jobs should be able to support a family. I pointed out that jobs do exist to support a family but they are not taking them. I gave some anecodotal reasons that may explain that or at least give insight some factors.

The saying what happens when none exist anymore cuz there are more people than those jobs. Well, that's an extraneous and ideal hypothetical. Because we know that those jobs do exist. There are not none left. And, even with all the people that want them, they are not filling them.

So, then we should be wondering why this is.

The goal shouldn't be to raise minimum wage for entry and lesser jobs not intended to be one that is a family provider. It should be to get those looking for those kind of jobs to the higher paying career jobs that exist and wonder why they aren't trying to get these jobs already.

Wouldn't raising the minimum wage drive up the wage level of higher paying jobs? If employers want to attract talent, they'll have to offer comparatively more than you can get at a minimum wage job.

As for why jobs aren't filled, if a job isn't filled become someone starts and quits, it will probably be filled as soon as the company can find someone who won't quit. If they can't find anyone like that.....it means they aren't paying enough.

Not many places can afford that without cutting jobs or raising prices. The former takes jobs away from people to allow McDonald's workers to earn more. The latter causes inflation making the hike pointless.
---

Corrik, you're looking at this as if market wages are purely determined by a ceiling of how much the labor is worth to the employer. That's one component of it, but market wages are also affected by how much supply of workers there are for the job. The floor wage will be the lowest wage anyone who can competently perform will accept and the ceiling will be the actual value of the labor to the employer - where the actual wage ends up will fall between these values and depends on supply and demand.

Loads of companies get many multiples of what they pay their workers in production. Maybe not at McDonald's - but at those "career jobs" you bet the value to the employer is much higher than what they are paying the worker. The reason the wage doesn't rise is that if the worker quit there is another worker willing to accept the current wage.
---

You are comparing small business and companies not killing it with extremely profitable companies.
---