Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 114: Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated!

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Jakyl25 07/21/17 5:30:33 PM #403:	Pretty sure you can't pardon yourself from getting impeached anyway --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvGKDK2WIAAmKTf?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:883349761] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>Pretty sure you can't pardon yourself from getting impeached anyway</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanglicious 07/21/17 5:32:34 PM #404:	oh yeah, it's also worth noting that you guys are arguing over a clickbait tweet that didn't get at all into what the article was about instead of talking about the actual article with actual facts and details of trump's administration trying to fuck mueller, limit him, and try to kick him out. and you're ignoring that based entirely off a fantasy where he admits wrongdoing as opposed to trying to save his daughter and son in law from prison. that just needs to be pointed out. --- "Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel. <cite>Wanglicious posted [p:883349866] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>oh yeah, it's also worth noting that you guys are arguing over a clickbait tweet that didn't get at all into what the article was about instead of talking about the actual article with actual facts and details of trump's administration trying to fuck mueller, limit him, and try to kick him out. and you're ignoring that based entirely off a fantasy where he admits wrongdoing as opposed to trying to save his daughter and son in law from prison. that just needs to be pointed out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 07/21/17 5:34:33 PM #405:	Wanglicious posted... xp1337 posted... doesn't mean much of anything. The way I read that is the advisor simply saying the plan isn't to go, "Okay, we can do this? Sweet! brb doing it right now." It could very well still be figuring out if he can pardon himself in case he needs to later. I mean, I guess you can try to read it however you want, but saying "it's nothing" is wrong, IMO. that's just too literal and wouldn't make much sense as a response. the phrase "can't wait to do __!" is another way of saying that you really want to do something. so it's not in the context of "I really want to do this," it's just stuff mentioned along the way. and how do you know this? I said it means nothing and I meant precisely that. It doesn't definitively state anything much one way or the other. What's clear by the article is that he has asked about self-pardoning. The follow-up quote speaks to context and only speaks to the fact that context is that it's not something that they're eagerly looking to do. Which is obvious. A self-pardon would be an absolute last resort, in part for the reason you mentioned, he knows how bad it would look in regards to whether he did anything wrong. However, I think he'd still find it preferable to an outcome where the investigation finds a ton of stuff. I think he still thinks he can get the investigation to go away somehow or failing that, to discredit it to throw doubt on anything it does find. I don't think either option is really feasible (but with this Congress you never know!) but he's looking for any other avenue out of this. tl;dr: You're stating with a lot of certainty exactly what is intended by all these statements with no basis I can see. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:883349963] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> doesn't mean much of anything. The way I read that is the advisor simply saying the plan isn't to go, "Okay, we can do this? Sweet! brb doing it right now." It could very well still be figuring out if he can pardon himself in case he needs to later. I mean, I guess you can try to read it however you want, but saying "it's nothing" is wrong, IMO.</quote> that's just too literal and wouldn't make much sense as a response. the phrase "can't wait to do __!" is another way of saying that you really want to do something. so it's not in the context of "I really want to do this," it's just stuff mentioned along the way.</quote> and how do you know this? I said it means nothing and I meant precisely that. It doesn't definitively state anything much one way or the other. What's clear by the article is that he has asked about self-pardoning. The follow-up quote speaks to context and only speaks to the fact that context is that it's not something that they're eagerly looking to do. Which is obvious. A self-pardon would be an absolute last resort, in part for the reason you mentioned, he knows how bad it would look in regards to whether he did anything wrong. However, I think he'd still find it preferable to an outcome where the investigation finds a ton of stuff. I think he still thinks he can get the investigation to go away somehow or failing that, to discredit it to throw doubt on anything it does find. I don't think either option is really feasible (but with this Congress you never know!) but he's looking for any other avenue out of this. tl;dr: You're stating with a lot of certainty exactly what is intended by all these statements with no basis I can see.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Peace___Frog 07/21/17 5:36:41 PM #406:	xp1337 posted... tl;dr: You're stating with a lot of certainty exactly what is intended by all these statements with no basis I can see. Is this for the last 5 posts or the last 150 --- ~Peaf~ <cite>Peace___Frog posted [p:883350075] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> tl;dr: You're stating with a lot of certainty exactly what is intended by all these statements with no basis I can see. </quote> Is this for the last 5 posts or the last 150</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 07/21/17 5:37:27 PM #407:	Wanglicious posted... and you're ignoring that based entirely off a fantasy where he admits wrongdoing as opposed to trying to save his daughter and son in law from prison. do you think pardons are limited in use? or have a cooldown? of course he's also looking at what he can do to for his inner circle, the article says as much. how is that somehow mutually exclusive with the idea that he's also looking ahead for a emergency last resort plan? --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:883350109] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>and you're ignoring that based entirely off a fantasy where he admits wrongdoing as opposed to trying to save his daughter and son in law from prison. </quote> do you think pardons are limited in use? or have a cooldown? of course he's also looking at what he can do to for his inner circle, the article says as much. how is that somehow mutually exclusive with the idea that he's also looking ahead for a emergency last resort plan?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LapisLazuli 07/21/17 5:41:09 PM #408:	Putting Wang in ignore was very liberating. Shame about the quoting. --- **** Netflix <cite>LapisLazuli posted [p:883350285] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>Putting Wang in ignore was very liberating. Shame about the quoting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 07/21/17 5:47:39 PM #409:	A good point about pardoning I had forgotten It removes your ability to plead the 5th regarding the crime you've been pardoned for, because you can no longer "incriminate" yourself. Depending on who he pardons, that could bite Trump --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvGKDK2WIAAmKTf?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:883350666] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>A good point about pardoning I had forgotten It removes your ability to plead the 5th regarding the crime you've been pardoned for, because you can no longer "incriminate" yourself. Depending on who he pardons, that could bite Trump</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanglicious 07/21/17 5:48:21 PM #410:	xp1337 posted... and how do you know this? know what? that "can't wait to" means "really want to?" if so then it's a common phrase. that's the only way it really makes any sense. not to mention that if trump is ever going "can't wait to ___!" for something he just does it. he's as impulsive as it gets. xp1337 posted... in part for the reason you mentioned, he knows how bad it would look in regards to whether he did anything wrong. oh no, it's not that it would look bad. it's that he himself would admit that he did bad. that's just not happening. xp1337 posted... tl;dr: You're stating with a lot of certainty exactly what is intended by all these statements with no basis I can see. one of the statements literally said it's pure theorycrafting. what do you expect that to even mean beyond pulling-it-out-of-my-ass? there's no basis to believe he's trying to pardon himself. but in claiming so, you get clicks for a story that is entirely driven by wish fulfillment as opposed to an actual story. and as you do that, you end up the far more likely scenario of pardoning Kushner and Ivanka, him digging into Mueller to remove the guy, and him trying to stop the guy from digging too much. even if you believe that everything i've said is bullshit, the fact remains that you'd be stuck with arguing for something that is both out of character and completely made of bullshit instead of focusing on things that are in character and that are actually happening. remember that this argument began with me saying that tweet is clickbait. --- "Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel. <cite>Wanglicious posted [p:883350700] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> and how do you know this? </quote> know what? that "can't wait to" means "really want to?" if so then it's a common phrase. that's the only way it really makes any sense. not to mention that if trump is ever going "can't wait to ___!" for something he just does it. he's as impulsive as it gets. <cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>in part for the reason you mentioned, he knows how bad it would look in regards to whether he did anything wrong.</quote> oh no, it's not that it would look bad. it's that he himself would admit that he did bad. that's just not happening. <cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> tl;dr: You're stating with a lot of certainty exactly what is intended by all these statements with no basis I can see.</quote> one of the statements literally said it's pure theorycrafting. what do you expect that to even mean beyond pulling-it-out-of-my-ass? there's no basis to believe he's trying to pardon himself. but in claiming so, you get clicks for a story that is entirely driven by wish fulfillment as opposed to an actual story. and as you do that, you end up the far more likely scenario of pardoning Kushner and Ivanka, him digging into Mueller to remove the guy, and him trying to stop the guy from digging too much. even if you believe that everything i've said is bullshit, the fact remains that you'd be stuck with arguing for something that is both out of character and completely made of bullshit instead of focusing on things that are in character and that are actually happening. remember that this argument began with me saying that tweet is clickbait.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/21/17 5:55:22 PM #411:	Jakyl25 posted... A good point about pardoning I had forgotten It removes your ability to plead the 5th regarding the crime you've been pardoned for, because you can no longer "incriminate" yourself. Depending on who he pardons, that could bite Trump This is a great point. The person could then be compelled to testify before Congress. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:883351035] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>A good point about pardoning I had forgotten It removes your ability to plead the 5th regarding the crime you've been pardoned for, because you can no longer "incriminate" yourself. Depending on who he pardons, that could bite Trump</quote> This is a great point. The person could then be compelled to testify before Congress.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 07/21/17 6:00:23 PM #412:	Wanglicious posted... one of the statements literally said it's pure theorycrafting. literally? i'll take a quote please Wanglicious posted... what do you expect that to even mean beyond pulling-it-out-of-my-ass? I take it to mean what it generally does: Discussing whether something is possible without putting it into practice. Could it have no basis in reality? Sure. But it also could. There's nothing about the word theorycrafting that indicates anything deeper. (In fact in most uses I see of it, it's actually well grounded in the established rules because you're only partaking in it because you're considering making use of it.) It could just be that Trump has taken an interest in legal theory and wanted to discuss it on a purely theoretical basis. It also could be that he asked about it because he wants to know if it's a card he can play at some later date. The only claim I'm making is that both interpretations are valid. I'm taking issue with the idea that you know for sure which one is correct and that the other is absolutely absurd and anyone humoring it is ridiculous. Wanglicious posted... even if you believe that everything i've said is bullshit, the fact remains that you'd be stuck with arguing for something that is both out of character and completely made of bullshit ...what kind of reasoning is that? If I think what you're saying is BS how is it a fact that I'm arguing for something "completely made of BS"? That presupposes that what you're saying isn't BS. Wanglicious posted... remember that this argument began with me saying that tweet is clickbait. right because you had completely dismissed a possible interpretation of the situation and i'm trying to figure out under what logical basis you're doing so i mean i'd be satisfied with "none whatsoever, i just feel it to be so" it's only the leaps in logic being made that are bothering me --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:883351315] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>one of the statements literally said it's pure theorycrafting.</quote> literally? i'll take a quote please <cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>what do you expect that to even mean beyond pulling-it-out-of-my-ass?</quote> I take it to mean what it generally does: Discussing whether something is possible without putting it into practice. Could it have no basis in reality? Sure. But it also could. There's nothing about the word theorycrafting that indicates anything deeper. (In fact in most uses I see of it, it's actually well grounded in the established rules because you're only partaking in it because you're considering making use of it.) It could just be that Trump has taken an interest in legal theory and wanted to discuss it on a purely theoretical basis. It also could be that he asked about it because he wants to know if it's a card he can play at some later date. The only claim I'm making is that both interpretations are valid. I'm taking issue with the idea that you know for sure which one is correct and that the other is absolutely absurd and anyone humoring it is ridiculous. <cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>even if you believe that everything i've said is bullshit, the fact remains that you'd be stuck with arguing for something that is both out of character and completely made of bullshit </quote> ...what kind of reasoning is that? If I think what you're saying is BS how is it a fact that I'm arguing for something "completely made of BS"? That presupposes that what you're saying isn't BS. <cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>remember that this argument began with me saying that tweet is clickbait.</quote> right because you had completely dismissed a possible interpretation of the situation and i'm trying to figure out under what logical basis you're doing so i mean i'd be satisfied with "none whatsoever, i just feel it to be so" it's only the leaps in logic being made that are bothering me</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanglicious 07/21/17 6:01:48 PM #413:	LapisLazuli posted... Putting Wang in ignore was very liberating. Shame about the quoting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTpgqqLyAs8xp1337 posted... do you think pardons are limited in use? or have a cooldown? well yeah, there's a limit. "case of impeachment." now how that has been defined, i don't know. but i do know things as low as misdemeanors could be used to impeach, so if you take the logical conclusion that such things would be cases of impeachment, that'd work. of course, courts don't follow common sense all the time so maybe there's some case law that awkwardly defines it. xp1337 posted... of course he's also looking at what he can do to for his inner circle, the article says as much as barely a footnote before writing a couple paragraphs on the legal ideas behind a president pardoning himself. so instead of focusing on what a presidential pardon on Kushner would mean, something that has a strong basis in reality on a guy who seems pretty trapped, we get useless facts. if that article got into Kushner's position as a civil officer, what "case of impeachment" means, and what each entails, that could've been good and relevant. Jakyl25 posted... A good point about pardoning I had forgotten It removes your ability to plead the 5th regarding the crime you've been pardoned for, because you can no longer "incriminate" yourself. Depending on who he pardons, that could bite Trump yeah, very real possibility that if somebody resigns, gets pardoned, any contents for that one person's investigation of course, Trump can pardon a group of people. he could simply go with a broad pardon where he says anybody who's worked on his campaign is pardoned with respect to anything to do with Russia or Russian agents. but that would work on anyone who isn't a civil officer, president, or vice president. and if it's something to move forward with against one of those, "whoops." --- "Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel. <cite>Wanglicious posted [p:883351376] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>LapisLazuli posted...</cite> <quote>Putting Wang in ignore was very liberating. Shame about the quoting.</quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTpgqqLyAs8<cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> do you think pardons are limited in use? or have a cooldown?</quote> well yeah, there's a limit. "case of impeachment." now how that has been defined, i don't know. but i do know things as low as misdemeanors could be used to impeach, so if you take the logical conclusion that such things would be cases of impeachment, that'd work. of course, courts don't follow common sense all the time so maybe there's some case law that awkwardly defines it. <cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> of course he's also looking at what he can do to for his inner circle, the article says as much</quote> as barely a footnote before writing a couple paragraphs on the legal ideas behind a president pardoning himself. so instead of focusing on what a presidential pardon on Kushner would mean, something that has a strong basis in reality on a guy who seems pretty trapped, we get useless facts. if that article got into Kushner's position as a civil officer, what "case of impeachment" means, and what each entails, that could've been good and relevant. <cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>A good point about pardoning I had forgotten It removes your ability to plead the 5th regarding the crime you've been pardoned for, because you can no longer "incriminate" yourself. Depending on who he pardons, that could bite Trump</quote> yeah, very real possibility that if somebody resigns, gets pardoned, any contents for that one person's investigation of course, Trump can pardon a group of people. he could simply go with a broad pardon where he says anybody who's worked on his campaign is pardoned with respect to anything to do with Russia or Russian agents. but that would work on anyone who isn't a civil officer, president, or vice president. and if it's something to move forward with against one of those, "whoops."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 07/21/17 6:08:54 PM #414:	Wanglicious posted... well yeah, there's a limit. "case of impeachment." now how that has been defined, i don't know. but i do know things as low as misdemeanors could be used to impeach, so if you take the logical conclusion that such things would be cases of impeachment, that'd work. of course, courts don't follow common sense all the time so maybe there's some case law that awkwardly defines it. spoilers: congress can impeach for whatever the hell it wants to Wanglicious posted... as barely a footnote before writing a couple paragraphs on the legal ideas behind a president pardoning himself. so instead of focusing on what a presidential pardon on Kushner would mean, something that has a strong basis in reality on a guy who seems pretty trapped, we get useless facts. if that article got into Kushner's position as a civil officer, what "case of impeachment" means, and what each entails, that could've been good and relevant. That would only be a decent discussion in a law school. As a practical thought experiment it's near worthless. Just have anyone with any possible issues resign their position and problem solved. See: Nixon. As a matter of public interest the legal idea of a self-pardon is absolutely more interesting if the idea has been brought up. I mean, I'd be interested in the legal opinion of all the technical stuff but as a practical matter it's just not really important because it avoids the simplest solution which is just "resign." Now if a pardon is issued and there is no resignation we can revisit the legal technicalities here. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:883351748] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>well yeah, there's a limit. "case of impeachment." now how that has been defined, i don't know. but i do know things as low as misdemeanors could be used to impeach, so if you take the logical conclusion that such things would be cases of impeachment, that'd work. of course, courts don't follow common sense all the time so maybe there's some case law that awkwardly defines it. </quote> spoilers: congress can impeach for whatever the hell it wants to <cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>as barely a footnote before writing a couple paragraphs on the legal ideas behind a president pardoning himself. so instead of focusing on what a presidential pardon on Kushner would mean, something that has a strong basis in reality on a guy who seems pretty trapped, we get useless facts. if that article got into Kushner's position as a civil officer, what "case of impeachment" means, and what each entails, that could've been good and relevant. </quote> That would only be a decent discussion in a law school. As a practical thought experiment it's near worthless. Just have anyone with any possible issues resign their position and problem solved. See: Nixon. As a matter of public interest the legal idea of a self-pardon is absolutely more interesting if the idea has been brought up. I mean, I'd be interested in the legal opinion of all the technical stuff but as a practical matter it's just not really important because it avoids the simplest solution which is just "resign." Now if a pardon is issued and there is no resignation we can revisit the legal technicalities here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/21/17 6:09:42 PM #415:	Trump's new comms director: https://twitter.com/Scaramucci/status/213702657687293952 --- Congrats to BKSheikah for winning the BYIG Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:883351794] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>Trump's new comms director: https://twitter.com/Scaramucci/status/213702657687293952</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SupremeZero 07/21/17 6:12:35 PM #416:	Trump's REAL new comms director: https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/samuraijack/images/e/e5/Maxresdefault.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/220?cb=20170423124736 --- There's always hope for better things in life. But you can't let anything, friend, lover,God himself,be your hope. You have to be your own hope <cite>SupremeZero posted [p:883351931] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>Trump's REAL new comms director: https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/samuraijack/images/e/e5/Maxresdefault.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/220?cb=20170423124736</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Emeraldegg 07/21/17 6:15:20 PM #417:	LOL I knew the name sounded kinda familiar --- I'm a greener egg than the eggs from dr. seuss <cite>Emeraldegg posted [p:883352071] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>LOL I knew the name sounded kinda familiar</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/21/17 6:16:53 PM #418:	The Senate parliamentarian has ruled that some parts of BCRA don't comply with the Byrd Rule and would therefore need 60 votes: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/21/16012950/senate-health-care-bill-byrd-rule-rulings --- Congrats to BKSheikah for winning the BYIG Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:883352155] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>The Senate parliamentarian has ruled that some parts of BCRA don't comply with the Byrd Rule and would therefore need 60 votes: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/21/16012950/senate-health-care-bill-byrd-rule-rulings</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanglicious 07/21/17 6:19:49 PM #419:	xp1337 posted... literally? i'll take a quote please Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team are purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations. But if Trump pardoned himself in the face of the ongoing Mueller investigation, there is nothing else to work with here. unless you think that there are other people who said that this was taken seriously, although the WaPo never mentioned that and instead just pointed out people telling them that there's nothing really here on this subject. xp1337 posted... I'm taking issue with the idea that you know for sure which one is correct and that the other is absolutely absurd and anyone humoring it is ridiculous. there's two different points in this. the first where you take issue with what i'm saying is correct - fair. but that people humoring it aren't being completely ridiculous - that's something else entirely. it is ridiculous to see people creating a story out of nothing and then choosing to use that instead of a far more rational answer (Kushner) or the factual basis of everything else written in that article that's completely unrelated to this. it is stupifying to see the most extreme bullshit - and if your argument is "well there could be something here despite being told there isn't" that's what it is - being the talking point over the actual issue because it's just catchier, hits all those wish fulfillment points, and doesn't bother to ground itself. it is ridiculous to see a bit grounded in nothing being used for clicks, overwhelming the actual story, and ultimately may well lead to another proper cry of "FAKE NEWS." xp1337 posted... If I think what you're saying is BS how is it a fact that I'm arguing for something "completely made of BS"? that's me thinking you're defending the "HE'S TRYING TO PARDON HIMSELF!" story as opposed to you taking issue to my positions. you're clearly not, so my bad there. xp1337 posted... right because you had completely dismissed a possible interpretation of the situation and i'm trying to figure out under what logical basis you're doing so that bit on twitter has almost nothing to do with the article. seriously, over 80% of it has nothing to do with it. and if i'm being specific here, trump saying he's trying to pardon himself, that's at best 5% of forced discussion, intertwined with political theory of what's possible or not. that's clickbait. you clicked for a story that doesn't actually have a real story to it on an article that barely mentions it. --- "Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel. <cite>Wanglicious posted [p:883352312] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> literally? i'll take a quote please</quote> Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team are purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations. But if Trump pardoned himself in the face of the ongoing Mueller investigation, there is nothing else to work with here. unless you think that there are other people who said that this was taken seriously, although the WaPo never mentioned that and instead just pointed out people telling them that there's nothing really here on this subject. <cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm taking issue with the idea that you know for sure which one is correct and that the other is absolutely absurd and anyone humoring it is ridiculous.</quote> there's two different points in this. the first where you take issue with what i'm saying is correct - fair. but that people humoring it aren't being completely ridiculous - that's something else entirely. it is ridiculous to see people creating a story out of nothing and then choosing to use that instead of a far more rational answer (Kushner) or the factual basis of everything else written in that article that's completely unrelated to this. it is stupifying to see the most extreme bullshit - and if your argument is "well there could be something here despite being told there isn't" that's what it is - being the talking point over the actual issue because it's just catchier, hits all those wish fulfillment points, and doesn't bother to ground itself. it is ridiculous to see a bit grounded in nothing being used for clicks, overwhelming the actual story, and ultimately may well lead to another proper cry of "FAKE NEWS." <cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> If I think what you're saying is BS how is it a fact that I'm arguing for something "completely made of BS"? </quote> that's me thinking you're defending the "HE'S TRYING TO PARDON HIMSELF!" story as opposed to you taking issue to my positions. you're clearly not, so my bad there. <cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> right because you had completely dismissed a possible interpretation of the situation and i'm trying to figure out under what logical basis you're doing so</quote> that bit on twitter has almost nothing to do with the article. seriously, over 80% of it has nothing to do with it. and if i'm being specific here, trump saying he's trying to pardon himself, that's at best 5% of forced discussion, intertwined with political theory of what's possible or not. that's clickbait. you clicked for a story that doesn't actually have a real story to it on an article that barely mentions it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 07/21/17 6:26:41 PM #420:	Wanglicious posted... Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team are purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations. But if Trump pardoned himself in the face of the ongoing Mueller investigation, there is nothing else to work with here. unless you think that there are other people who said that this was taken seriously, although the WaPo never mentioned that and instead just pointed out people telling them that there's nothing really here on this subject. Why do you keep saying "Theoretical" means that there's nothing there. Theoretical just means that nothing is happening right now, because he'd have no reason to pardon yet. Theoretical doesn't mean "He isn't even thinking about it." Do you think it's saying "discussions are theoretically happening?" Because it's not. It's saying that what they are discussing is theoretical. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:883352649] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team are purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations. But if Trump pardoned himself in the face of the ongoing Mueller investigation, there is nothing else to work with here. unless you think that there are other people who said that this was taken seriously, although the WaPo never mentioned that and instead just pointed out people telling them that there's nothing really here on this subject. </quote> Why do you keep saying "Theoretical" means that there's nothing there. Theoretical just means that nothing is happening right now, because he'd have no reason to pardon yet. Theoretical doesn't mean "He isn't even thinking about it." Do you think it's saying "discussions are theoretically happening?" Because it's not. It's saying that what they are discussing is theoretical.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanglicious 07/21/17 6:31:16 PM #421:	xp1337 posted... spoilers: congress can impeach for whatever the hell it wants to ...no, they can't. if they could, obama would've been. xp1337 posted... That would only be a decent discussion in a law school. As a practical thought experiment it's near worthless. Just have anyone with any possible issues resign their position and problem solved. See: Nixon. what? no. if Kushner resigns and then gets pardoned the investigation that would be used against him would be over but then it could be used for a case against Trump. if Trump does a broad pardon like i mentioned a bit before yours, it runs into a few different scenarios. if there's any aide that's afraid of speaking up, they now have legal immunity of any crimes. or you have Jakyl's scenario, they're compelled to testify before Congress. their protections of incrimination aren't an issue for anything that's password protected or encrypted - they're safe. so if they have any files on a PC that may be useful for a greater investigation (see: Trump himself), they can be told by the courts to unlock it or be held in contempt of court. and then we have the situation where Kushner doesn't resign. then what? he's a civil officer, right? if so then we're in the same turf as Trump himself. so either we get a mini-Trump case or we get it on everyone else. after all that, we still have Ivanka. Kushner's wife, Trump's favorite child, and currently working as an unpaid assistant. well if she's unpaid, is she a civil officer? if not then she can't really be impeached now can she? so if she gets pardoned, then what happens to her position and what does that mean for everyone else? similarly, if being unpaid means you aren't a civil officer, does that mean Kushner can resign, be pardoned, and then be given a special position by Trump too? these are just a few examples that i can come up with off the top of my head and do ultimately lead to the story that even pardoning Kushner or Ivanka may save either of them but it absolutely does not save Trump himself. all you're telling me is that when it comes to this subject, as a practical thought experiment, you aren't actually thinking about it because nobody told you to think about it. if it was written down in one of these outlets, maybe you'd change your mind because there's a lot to unpack there. xp1337 posted... As a matter of public interest the legal idea of a self-pardon is absolutely more interesting if the idea has been brought up. it's a lot more dumbed down, sure. but it's definitely not more interesting. --- "Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel. <cite>Wanglicious posted [p:883352902] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> spoilers: congress can impeach for whatever the hell it wants to</quote> ...no, they can't. if they could, obama would've been. <cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>That would only be a decent discussion in a law school. As a practical thought experiment it's near worthless. Just have anyone with any possible issues resign their position and problem solved. See: Nixon.</quote> what? no. if Kushner resigns and then gets pardoned the investigation that would be used against him would be over but then it could be used for a case against Trump. if Trump does a broad pardon like i mentioned a bit before yours, it runs into a few different scenarios. if there's any aide that's afraid of speaking up, they now have legal immunity of any crimes. or you have Jakyl's scenario, they're compelled to testify before Congress. their protections of incrimination aren't an issue for anything that's password protected or encrypted - they're safe. so if they have any files on a PC that may be useful for a greater investigation (see: Trump himself), they can be told by the courts to unlock it or be held in contempt of court. and then we have the situation where Kushner doesn't resign. then what? he's a civil officer, right? if so then we're in the same turf as Trump himself. so either we get a mini-Trump case or we get it on everyone else. after all that, we still have Ivanka. Kushner's wife, Trump's favorite child, and currently working as an unpaid assistant. well if she's unpaid, is she a civil officer? if not then she can't really be impeached now can she? so if she gets pardoned, then what happens to her position and what does that mean for everyone else? similarly, if being unpaid means you aren't a civil officer, does that mean Kushner can resign, be pardoned, and then be given a special position by Trump too? these are just a few examples that i can come up with off the top of my head and do ultimately lead to the story that even pardoning Kushner or Ivanka may save either of them but it absolutely does not save Trump himself. all you're telling me is that when it comes to this subject, as a practical thought experiment, you aren't actually thinking about it because nobody told you to think about it. if it was written down in one of these outlets, maybe you'd change your mind because there's a lot to unpack there. <cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> As a matter of public interest the legal idea of a self-pardon is absolutely more interesting if the idea has been brought up.</quote> it's a lot more dumbed down, sure. but it's definitely not more interesting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanglicious 07/21/17 6:34:37 PM #422:	StealThisSheen posted... Why do you keep saying "Theoretical" means that there's nothing there. Theoretical just means that nothing is happening right now, because he'd have no reason to pardon yet. Theoretical doesn't mean "He isn't even thinking about it." because in this context (see: not science), 'theoretical' basically just means there could be something that and there could not be something there. you don't have anything grounding you so it's not much, if at all, different than pulling it out of your ass. --- "Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel. <cite>Wanglicious posted [p:883353088] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote> Why do you keep saying "Theoretical" means that there's nothing there. Theoretical just means that nothing is happening right now, because he'd have no reason to pardon yet. Theoretical doesn't mean "He isn't even thinking about it."</quote> because in this context (see: not science), 'theoretical' basically just means there could be something that and there could not be something there. you don't have anything grounding you so it's not much, if at all, different than pulling it out of your ass.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 07/21/17 6:37:26 PM #423:	Wanglicious posted... StealThisSheen posted... Why do you keep saying "Theoretical" means that there's nothing there. Theoretical just means that nothing is happening right now, because he'd have no reason to pardon yet. Theoretical doesn't mean "He isn't even thinking about it." because in this context (see: not science), 'theoretical' basically just means there could be something that and there could not be something there. you don't have anything grounding you so it's not much, if at all, different than pulling it out of your ass. So then wouldn't you be saying "there's nothing there" ALSO be pulling it out of your ass? Literally all the article is saying is: 1. Trump brought up the subject of how far his pardon powers can go 2. He's not currently going "I'm pardoning myself right now yes yes yes!" 3. Current discussions are theoretical What that's basically suggesting is that the talks are currently "In the event of blank, could I blank?" There is literally nothing suggesting that he could not be going "In the event of blank, could I pardon myself?" You are the one trying to say that's impossible, based on... Nothing but your gut of what Trump is like. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:883353244] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote> Why do you keep saying "Theoretical" means that there's nothing there. Theoretical just means that nothing is happening right now, because he'd have no reason to pardon yet. Theoretical doesn't mean "He isn't even thinking about it."</quote> because in this context (see: not science), 'theoretical' basically just means there could be something that and there could not be something there. you don't have anything grounding you so it's not much, if at all, different than pulling it out of your ass.</quote> So then wouldn't you be saying "there's nothing there" ALSO be pulling it out of your ass? Literally all the article is saying is: 1. Trump brought up the subject of how far his pardon powers can go 2. He's not currently going "I'm pardoning myself right now yes yes yes!" 3. Current discussions are theoretical What that's basically suggesting is that the talks are currently "In the event of blank, could I blank?" There is literally nothing suggesting that he could not be going "In the event of blank, could I pardon myself?" You are the one trying to say that's impossible, based on... Nothing but your gut of what Trump is like.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 07/21/17 6:38:35 PM #424:	Wanglicious posted... Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team are purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations. But if Trump pardoned himself in the face of the ongoing Mueller investigation, there is nothing else to work with here. unless you think that there are other people who said that this was taken seriously, although the WaPo never mentioned that and instead just pointed out people telling them that there's nothing really here on this subject. First off that's not literal use of the word "theorycraft" which is what I was meant there. I was calling out that you were saying something was "literally" described as something that it literally was not. No need to use hyperbole in your diction with me. You could have said "essentially theorycraft" and I'd have accepted that (word choice, I'd still take issue with the conclusions you were drawing). But secondly, how are you making the jump from "theoretical" to "not seriously"? Do you think you can't discuss hypotheticals or theories seriously? I'm not even being snarky there, I'm genuinely baffled at how you get "not serious" from "theoretical." Wanglicious posted... it is ridiculous to see people creating a story out of nothing and then choosing to use that instead of a far more rational answer (Kushner) or the factual basis of everything else written in that article that's completely unrelated to this. Okay, slow down. This is what I'm talking about. You're continuing to maintain that it's "nothing" when that is in dispute. Now I understand you believe this to be the case, but when I'm disputing that it's "nothing" it's of no value to just keep insisting that is and building arguments off of that. I mean, if your goal is to have us go in circles for eternity, then sure, that works, but it's not going to go anywhere productive. Wanglicious posted... and if your argument is "well there could be something here despite being told there isn't" well that'd be a silly argument for me to take on since i'm admitting i'm wrong in the statement Again, I am disputing "being told there isn't." Perhaps it will be that we will be forced to admit that we can't work this out and will have to disagree on the point, but what you're doing here is ignoring my argument entirely, declaring you're right, and then trying to force me to continue the argument on those terms. newsflash: doesn't work that way and i'm not going to play along with that ~~~ Okay, look, I'm gonna zoom out a bit and let you know roughly how I think this whole thing is going down so maybe you'll see why I'm taking issue with what I do. 1. You see this article/tweet and feel it's burying the lede/focusing on the wrong thing. (I can respect this opinion, and would have no problem with that statement.) 2. As a result, you attack the whole thing as clickbait and call anyone claiming otherwise ridiculous. (This is where I think things irreparably break down because I think this is uncalled for) 3. People disagree. 4. To defend your point you attack the main focus of the article, the self-pardon bit. (I mean, tactically this is sound in theory) 4a. In doing so you make arguments that I feel don't hold up/are tortured logic/semantic plays (Which I was arguing against) 5. You and I, at least, never really come to a resolution on this after a few posts of arguing it. 6. You jump back to 2, but argue it as if you proved your case at all further steps, and balk at any attempt on my part to act otherwise. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:883353298] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team are purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations. But if Trump pardoned himself in the face of the ongoing Mueller investigation, there is nothing else to work with here. unless you think that there are other people who said that this was taken seriously, although the WaPo never mentioned that and instead just pointed out people telling them that there's nothing really here on this subject. </quote> First off that's not literal use of the word "theorycraft" which is what I was meant there. I was calling out that you were saying something was "literally" described as something that it literally was not. No need to use hyperbole in your diction with me. You could have said "essentially theorycraft" and I'd have accepted that (word choice, I'd still take issue with the conclusions you were drawing). But secondly, how are you making the jump from "theoretical" to "not seriously"? Do you think you can't discuss hypotheticals or theories seriously? I'm not even being snarky there, I'm genuinely baffled at how you get "not serious" from "theoretical." <cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>it is ridiculous to see people creating a story out of nothing and then choosing to use that instead of a far more rational answer (Kushner) or the factual basis of everything else written in that article that's completely unrelated to this.</quote> Okay, slow down. This is what I'm talking about. You're continuing to maintain that it's "nothing" when that is in dispute. Now I understand you believe this to be the case, but when I'm disputing that it's "nothing" it's of no value to just keep insisting that is and building arguments off of that. I mean, if your goal is to have us go in circles for eternity, then sure, that works, but it's not going to go anywhere productive. <cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>and if your argument is "well there could be something here despite being told there isn't"</quote> well that'd be a silly argument for me to take on since i'm admitting i'm wrong in the statement Again, I am disputing "being told there isn't." Perhaps it will be that we will be forced to admit that we can't work this out and will have to disagree on the point, but what you're doing here is ignoring my argument entirely, declaring you're right, and then trying to force me to continue the argument on those terms. newsflash: doesn't work that way and i'm not going to play along with that ~~~ Okay, look, I'm gonna zoom out a bit and let you know roughly how I think this whole thing is going down so maybe you'll see why I'm taking issue with what I do. 1. You see this article/tweet and feel it's burying the lede/focusing on the wrong thing. (I can respect this opinion, and would have no problem with that statement.) 2. As a result, you attack the whole thing as clickbait and call anyone claiming otherwise ridiculous. (This is where I think things irreparably break down because I think this is uncalled for) 3. People disagree. 4. To defend your point you attack the main focus of the article, the self-pardon bit. (I mean, tactically this is sound in theory) 4a. In doing so you make arguments that I feel don't hold up/are tortured logic/semantic plays (Which I was arguing against) 5. You and I, at least, never really come to a resolution on this after a few posts of arguing it. 6. You jump back to 2, but argue it as if you proved your case at all further steps, and balk at any attempt on my part to act otherwise.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanglicious 07/21/17 6:39:49 PM #425:	StealThisSheen posted... Literally all the article is saying is: 1. Trump brought up the subject of how far his pardon powers can go 2. He's not currently going "I'm pardoning myself right now yes yes yes!" 3. Current discussions are theoretical no. you missed 80%+ of the article. which is a huge frustration of mine here as i've repeatedly stated. and hey, my gut has been pretty good with Trump! i know the new york mafioso type well. --- "Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel. <cite>Wanglicious posted [p:883353364] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote> Literally all the article is saying is: 1. Trump brought up the subject of how far his pardon powers can go 2. He's not currently going "I'm pardoning myself right now yes yes yes!" 3. Current discussions are theoretical </quote> no. you missed 80%+ of the article. which is a huge frustration of mine here as i've repeatedly stated. and hey, my gut has been pretty good with Trump! i know the new york mafioso type well.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 07/21/17 6:41:34 PM #426:	Wanglicious posted... StealThisSheen posted... Literally all the article is saying is: 1. Trump brought up the subject of how far his pardon powers can go 2. He's not currently going "I'm pardoning myself right now yes yes yes!" 3. Current discussions are theoretical no. you missed 80%+ of the article. which is a huge frustration of mine here as i've repeatedly stated. and hey, my gut has been pretty good with Trump! i know the new york mafioso type well. Yes, that is all it's saying. The rest, with it discussing Trump pardoning himself, if it's possible, etc... Is basically fluff. Those are the main points of the article. You're just, for some reason, throwing a fit over the fact that it's going "So, theoretically, what if Trump did want to pardon himself?" --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:883353453] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote> Literally all the article is saying is: 1. Trump brought up the subject of how far his pardon powers can go 2. He's not currently going "I'm pardoning myself right now yes yes yes!" 3. Current discussions are theoretical </quote> no. you missed 80%+ of the article. which is a huge frustration of mine here as i've repeatedly stated. and hey, my gut has been pretty good with Trump! i know the new york mafioso type well.</quote> Yes, that is all it's saying. The rest, with it discussing Trump pardoning himself, if it's possible, etc... Is basically fluff. Those are the main points of the article. You're just, for some reason, throwing a fit over the fact that it's going "So, theoretically, what if Trump did want to pardon himself?"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kevwaffles 07/21/17 6:46:40 PM #427:	Wanglicious posted... ...no, they can't. if they could, obama would've been. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors They could literally just say a president was failing to supervise or had unbecoming conduct with basically no burden of proof outside of being able to convince enough Senators to convict. The simplest reason it doesn't/didn't happen is because the political fallout would be tremendous. --- "One toot on this whistle will take you to a far away land." -Toad, SMB3 <cite>kevwaffles posted [p:883353740] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>...no, they can't. if they could, obama would've been.</quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors They could literally just say a president was failing to supervise or had unbecoming conduct with basically no burden of proof outside of being able to convince enough Senators to convict. The simplest reason it doesn't/didn't happen is because the political fallout would be tremendous.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanglicious 07/21/17 6:47:18 PM #428:	xp1337 posted... But secondly, how are you making the jump from "theoretical" to "not seriously"? Do you think you can't discuss hypotheticals or theories seriously? I'm not even being snarky there, I'm genuinely baffled at how you get "not serious" from "theoretical." i like it being discussed. i don't like it being used for clickbait in an article that's not about it. xp1337 posted... but it's not going to go anywhere productive. i don't think we're going to go anywhere productive if you're stuck on my calling it nothing and continue to ignore everything else i mentioned there - Kushner being a much more realistic subject and what the article was actually about. if that does not matter to you then no, we won't be getting anywhere. --- "Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel. <cite>Wanglicious posted [p:883353780] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> But secondly, how are you making the jump from "theoretical" to "not seriously"? Do you think you can't discuss hypotheticals or theories seriously? I'm not even being snarky there, I'm genuinely baffled at how you get "not serious" from "theoretical."</quote> i like it being discussed. i don't like it being used for clickbait in an article that's not about it. <cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>but it's not going to go anywhere productive. </quote> i don't think we're going to go anywhere productive if you're stuck on my calling it nothing and continue to ignore everything else i mentioned there - Kushner being a much more realistic subject and what the article was actually about. if that does not matter to you then no, we won't be getting anywhere.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanglicious 07/21/17 6:48:38 PM #429:	StealThisSheen posted... The rest, with it discussing Trump pardoning himself, if it's possible, etc... Is basically fluff. Those are the main points of the article. ...you've got it completely backwards. when the fuck did actual reporting become fluff? --- "Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel. <cite>Wanglicious posted [p:883353846] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote>The rest, with it discussing Trump pardoning himself, if it's possible, etc... Is basically fluff. Those are the main points of the article. </quote> ...you've got it completely backwards. when the fuck did actual reporting become fluff?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 07/21/17 6:49:08 PM #430:	If your issue is that people aren't going "Oh no he may try to pardon Kushner/Ivanka/etc.," that's because... That's not news. We've discussed that possibility dozens of times before. Of course he'd try to pardon his family/etc. That's not new. What's interesting is the thought that he may try to pardon himself if it came to it. And thus, that's what was discussed. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:883353866] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>If your issue is that people aren't going "Oh no he may try to pardon Kushner/Ivanka/etc.," that's because... That's not news. We've discussed that possibility dozens of times before. Of course he'd try to pardon his family/etc. That's not new. What's interesting is the thought that he may try to pardon himself if it came to it. And thus, that's what was discussed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SupremeZero 07/21/17 6:49:12 PM #431:	Wanglicious posted... xp1337 posted... spoilers: congress can impeach for whatever the hell it wants to ...no, they can't. if they could, obama would've been. With their 2/3 supermajority of votes that they totally had that are necessary for impeachment? Were they going to convince 12 democrats to join them in impeaching him? They attempted to impeach Clinton on almost nothing, and got laughed at for it by the public. You think they were going to try to impeach Obama on LITERALLY nothing? --- There's always hope for better things in life. But you can't let anything, friend, lover,God himself,be your hope. You have to be your own hope <cite>SupremeZero posted [p:883353869] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>xp1337 posted... spoilers: congress can impeach for whatever the hell it wants to ...no, they can't. if they could, obama would've been.</quote> With their 2/3 supermajority of votes that they totally had that are necessary for impeachment? Were they going to convince 12 democrats to join them in impeaching him? They attempted to impeach Clinton on almost nothing, and got laughed at for it by the public. You think they were going to try to impeach Obama on LITERALLY nothing?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 07/21/17 6:50:17 PM #432:	Wanglicious posted... StealThisSheen posted... The rest, with it discussing Trump pardoning himself, if it's possible, etc... Is basically fluff. Those are the main points of the article. ...you've got it completely backwards. when the fuck did actual reporting become fluff? ...The facts are the main points of the article. The speculation is just fluff, yes. Not sure how this is weird. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:883353929] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote>The rest, with it discussing Trump pardoning himself, if it's possible, etc... Is basically fluff. Those are the main points of the article. </quote> ...you've got it completely backwards. when the fuck did actual reporting become fluff?</quote> ...The facts are the main points of the article. The speculation is just fluff, yes. Not sure how this is weird.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 07/21/17 6:52:46 PM #433:	Basically, it sounds like you're mad that the article spent about 25% of it on the facts and the other 75% on speculation/theorycrafting. But, again... "Trump may pardon family" isn't news, so... Not sure why it's a big deal? --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:883354046] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>Basically, it sounds like you're mad that the article spent about 25% of it on the facts and the other 75% on speculation/theorycrafting. But, again... "Trump may pardon family" isn't news, so... Not sure why it's a big deal?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kevwaffles 07/21/17 6:52:55 PM #434:	SupremeZero posted... With their 2/3 supermajority of votes that they totally had that are necessary for impeachment? Were they going to convince 12 democrats to join them in impeaching him? Oh yeah, I forgot that part of it. I still have my doubts they would have pulled that off even with a supermajority, but yeah. --- "One toot on this whistle will take you to a far away land." -Toad, SMB3 <cite>kevwaffles posted [p:883354053] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>SupremeZero posted...</cite> <quote>With their 2/3 supermajority of votes that they totally had that are necessary for impeachment? Were they going to convince 12 democrats to join them in impeaching him?</quote> Oh yeah, I forgot that part of it. I still have my doubts they would have pulled that off even with a supermajority, but yeah.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanglicious 07/21/17 6:53:11 PM #435:	like lemme get this straight. the actual headline is fluff. the overwhelming majority of the content inside is fluff. the facts, specific details, interviews with Trump's lawyers, opposing lawyers, details of what they're looking into to remove Mueller, the backstage politics of how he's reacting to Mueller, what his lawyers are specifically trying to block him on, that's all fluff. no seriously, the actual fucking headline is fluff. an article titled this: "Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller’s Russia investigation" of which 80%+ of it is about specifically and exclusively that is fluff. what the fuck? --- "Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel. <cite>Wanglicious posted [p:883354058] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>like lemme get this straight. the actual headline is fluff. the overwhelming majority of the content inside is fluff. the facts, specific details, interviews with Trump's lawyers, opposing lawyers, details of what they're looking into to remove Mueller, the backstage politics of how he's reacting to Mueller, what his lawyers are specifically trying to block him on, that's all fluff. no seriously, the actual fucking headline is fluff. an article titled this: "Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller’s Russia investigation" of which 80%+ of it is about specifically and exclusively that is fluff. what the fuck?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 07/21/17 6:54:08 PM #436:	Wanglicious posted... i like it being discussed. i don't like it being used for clickbait in an article that's not about it. So we've gotta have 50+ more posts because Wang wants more nuance in his 140 character tweets. Got it. --- Phantom Dust. <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:883354117] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote> i like it being discussed. i don't like it being used for clickbait in an article that's not about it. </quote> So we've gotta have 50+ more posts because Wang wants more nuance in his 140 character tweets. Got it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 07/21/17 6:54:11 PM #437:	https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Background%20on%20Byrd%20Rule%20decisions_7.21%5B1%5D.pdf Senate Parliamentarian decisions on which parts of the BCRA are subject to the Byrd rule Another nail in the coffin --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvGKDK2WIAAmKTf?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:883354119] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Background%20on%20Byrd%20Rule%20decisions_7.21%5B1%5D.pdf Senate Parliamentarian decisions on which parts of the BCRA are subject to the Byrd rule Another nail in the coffin</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 07/21/17 6:54:20 PM #438:	Wanglicious posted... the facts, specific details, interviews with Trump's lawyers, opposing lawyers, details of what they're looking into to remove Mueller, the backstage politics of how he's reacting to Mueller, what his lawyers are specifically trying to block him on, that's all fluff. ...Where the hell did I even say this? You're literally creating things to argue about. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:883354125] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>the facts, specific details, interviews with Trump's lawyers, opposing lawyers, details of what they're looking into to remove Mueller, the backstage politics of how he's reacting to Mueller, what his lawyers are specifically trying to block him on, that's all fluff.</quote> ...Where the hell did I even say this? You're literally creating things to argue about.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 07/21/17 6:55:18 PM #439:	..........If this entire argument is about JUST the title/the tweet, you are absolutely fucking HORRIBLE at getting your points across, and this is the dumbest argument ever. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:883354183] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>..........If this entire argument is about JUST the title/the tweet, you are absolutely fucking HORRIBLE at getting your points across, and this is the dumbest argument ever.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525 07/21/17 6:57:36 PM #440:	Jakyl25 posted... https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Background%20on%20Byrd%20Rule%20decisions_7.21%5B1%5D.pdf Senate Parliamentarian decisions on which parts of the BCRA are subject to the Byrd rule Another nail in the coffin This was posted earlier but everyone missed thanks to Wang and SEPs never-ending argument. --- TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues. <cite>TheRock1525 posted [p:883354299] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Background%20on%20Byrd%20Rule%20decisions_7.21%5B1%5D.pdf Senate Parliamentarian decisions on which parts of the BCRA are subject to the Byrd rule Another nail in the coffin</quote> This was posted earlier but everyone missed thanks to Wang and SEPs never-ending argument.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 07/21/17 6:58:19 PM #441:	TheRock1525 posted... Jakyl25 posted... https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Background%20on%20Byrd%20Rule%20decisions_7.21%5B1%5D.pdf Senate Parliamentarian decisions on which parts of the BCRA are subject to the Byrd rule Another nail in the coffin This was posted earlier but everyone missed thanks to Wang and SEPs never-ending argument. Hey, whoa! I only joined back in a little bit ago! Don't put this shit on me! There's like, six people replying to Wang! --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:883354348] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheRock1525 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Background%20on%20Byrd%20Rule%20decisions_7.21%5B1%5D.pdf Senate Parliamentarian decisions on which parts of the BCRA are subject to the Byrd rule Another nail in the coffin</quote> This was posted earlier but everyone missed thanks to Wang and SEPs never-ending argument.</quote> Hey, whoa! I only joined back in a little bit ago! Don't put this shit on me! There's like, six people replying to Wang!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
-FFDragon- 07/21/17 7:00:15 PM #442:	One day you all will learn. But lmao that is like a bullet to the head of the bill. It was already bleeding out, but damn it is over. --- If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up on a different Nexus? <cite>-FFDragon- posted [p:883354474] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>One day you all will learn. But lmao that is like a bullet to the head of the bill. It was already bleeding out, but damn it is over.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525 07/21/17 7:00:19 PM #443:	SEP you literally argue about everything. You should be called SlightlyArgumentativePigeon. --- TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues. <cite>TheRock1525 posted [p:883354480] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>SEP you literally argue about everything. You should be called SlightlyArgumentativePigeon.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 07/21/17 7:00:57 PM #444:	Well, I feel disappointed having written all that and only getting those parts responded to! Wanglicious posted... i don't think we're going to go anywhere productive if you're stuck on my calling it nothing and continue to ignore everything else i mentioned there - Kushner being a much more realistic subject and what the article was actually about. if that does not matter to you then no, we won't be getting anywhere. I accept that very few minds will be changed by any arguments in this topic. Most of the arguments here can be traced down to some core beliefs that are not going to be changed in a few posts. I'm fine with that. I simply took issue with how you were going to the extreme in throwing out "clickbait" and calling anyone who interpreted the article/quotes differently as ridiculous. I think the former is hyperbole and ascribing malicious intent where it doesn't necessarily exist and the latter is just pretty insulting and not grounded in any well-reasoned logic. If you want to say that focusing on the self-pardon part was disappointing because you felt the other parts of the story were more relevant or newsworthy, fine. Cool. If you want to say the self-pardon part is absurd and anyone who thinks it has any worth is ridiculous. Not cool. I feel like you believe the first part and either see malice in it or can't believe/accept that some people might feel otherwise and therefore seek to claim and prove the latter aggressively. Again, I like to think the best of people here, and I dunno, I just get the feeling that in that light you're just being overly aggressive in defending your opinion here and overreaching in the process. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:883354516] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>Well, I feel disappointed having written all that and only getting those parts responded to! <cite>Wanglicious posted...</cite> <quote>i don't think we're going to go anywhere productive if you're stuck on my calling it nothing and continue to ignore everything else i mentioned there - Kushner being a much more realistic subject and what the article was actually about. if that does not matter to you then no, we won't be getting anywhere.</quote> I accept that very few minds will be changed by any arguments in this topic. Most of the arguments here can be traced down to some core beliefs that are not going to be changed in a few posts. I'm fine with that. I simply took issue with how you were going to the extreme in throwing out "clickbait" and calling anyone who interpreted the article/quotes differently as ridiculous. I think the former is hyperbole and ascribing malicious intent where it doesn't necessarily exist and the latter is just pretty insulting and not grounded in any well-reasoned logic. If you want to say that focusing on the self-pardon part was disappointing because you felt the other parts of the story were more relevant or newsworthy, fine. Cool. If you want to say the self-pardon part is absurd and anyone who thinks it has any worth is ridiculous. Not cool. I feel like you believe the first part and either see malice in it or can't believe/accept that some people might feel otherwise and therefore seek to claim and prove the latter aggressively. Again, I like to think the best of people here, and I dunno, I just get the feeling that in that light you're just being overly aggressive in defending your opinion here and overreaching in the process.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 07/21/17 7:01:00 PM #445:	TheRock1525 posted... SEP you literally argue about everything. You should be called SlightlyArgumentativePigeon. No, seriously. Why are you singling me out when most of the topic is replying to him --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:883354518] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheRock1525 posted...</cite> <quote>SEP you literally argue about everything. You should be called SlightlyArgumentativePigeon.</quote> No, seriously. Why are you singling me out when most of the topic is replying to him</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525 07/21/17 7:01:22 PM #446:	-FFDragon- posted... One day you all will learn. But lmao that is like a bullet to the head of the bill. It was already bleeding out, but damn it is over. I especially like that they are always gonna need 60 votes to get rid of the individual mandate, if I'm reading this correctly. --- TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues. <cite>TheRock1525 posted [p:883354537] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>-FFDragon- posted...</cite> <quote>One day you all will learn. But lmao that is like a bullet to the head of the bill. It was already bleeding out, but damn it is over.</quote> I especially like that they are always gonna need 60 votes to get rid of the individual mandate, if I'm reading this correctly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525 07/21/17 7:01:54 PM #447:	StealThisSheen posted... TheRock1525 posted... SEP you literally argue about everything. You should be called SlightlyArgumentativePigeon. No, seriously. Why are you singling me out when most of the topic is replying to him I said Wang and SEP and only you responded so I responded to you. --- TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues. <cite>TheRock1525 posted [p:883354564] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheRock1525 posted...</cite> <quote>SEP you literally argue about everything. You should be called SlightlyArgumentativePigeon.</quote> No, seriously. Why are you singling me out when most of the topic is replying to him</quote> I said Wang and SEP and only you responded so I responded to you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Xeybozn 07/21/17 7:03:09 PM #448:	Why is this thing about Trump pardoning himself such a big deal? He can't be put on criminal trial while he's in office and there won't be enough votes to impeach him until at least 2020. It not like anything changes if he does pardon himself. --- Congrats to 2017 Guru champ BKSheikah! <cite>Xeybozn posted [p:883354628] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>Why is this thing about Trump pardoning himself such a big deal? He can't be put on criminal trial while he's in office and there won't be enough votes to impeach him until at least 2020. It not like anything changes if he does pardon himself.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 07/21/17 7:03:24 PM #449:	TheRock1525 posted... StealThisSheen posted... TheRock1525 posted... SEP you literally argue about everything. You should be called SlightlyArgumentativePigeon. No, seriously. Why are you singling me out when most of the topic is replying to him I said Wang and SEP and only you responded so I responded to you. And my question is why is it "Wang and SEP" when like 80% of the people who post here are arguing with him --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:883354643] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheRock1525 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheRock1525 posted...</cite> <quote>SEP you literally argue about everything. You should be called SlightlyArgumentativePigeon.</quote> No, seriously. Why are you singling me out when most of the topic is replying to him</quote> I said Wang and SEP and only you responded so I responded to you.</quote> And my question is why is it "Wang and SEP" when like 80% of the people who post here are arguing with him</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
-FFDragon- 07/21/17 7:03:58 PM #450:	I am the 20% --- If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up on a different Nexus? <cite>-FFDragon- posted [p:883354676] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>I am the 20%</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanglicious 07/21/17 7:04:01 PM #451:	StealThisSheen posted... ...Where the hell did I even say this? You're literally creating things to argue about. then i'll take a step back here: what, specifically, is the fluff? because a good 80%+ of that article is about exactly what that headline said it was about, going into great detail. that is the substance in the article. that is not fluff. all those things that i listed there are things in that 80%, about that headline. but these three things, which you said "is all that it's saying:" 1. Trump brought up the subject of how far his pardon powers can go 2. He's not currently going "I'm pardoning myself right now yes yes yes!" 3. Current discussions are theoretical are the fluff of the article. --- "Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel. <cite>Wanglicious posted [p:883354680] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote> ...Where the hell did I even say this? You're literally creating things to argue about.</quote> then i'll take a step back here: what, specifically, is the fluff? because a good 80%+ of that article is about exactly what that headline said it was about, going into great detail. that is the substance in the article. that is not fluff. all those things that i listed there are things in that 80%, about that headline. but these three things, which you said "is all that it's saying:" <quote>1. Trump brought up the subject of how far his pardon powers can go 2. He's not currently going "I'm pardoning myself right now yes yes yes!" 3. Current discussions are theoretical</quote> are the fluff of the article.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525 07/21/17 7:04:45 PM #452:	Because I saw you responding the most to Wang based on solely anecdotal evidence from a quick glance. If I'm technically wrong then ok. --- TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues. <cite>TheRock1525 posted [p:883354718] in Politics C... [t:75579225]...</cite> <quote>Because I saw you responding the most to Wang based on solely anecdotal evidence from a quick glance. If I'm technically wrong then ok.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 114: Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated! (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 114: Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated!