Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 287: Prince Charles Finally Gets the Crown

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik7 posted...

Yeah, let the biggest employers of Americans go under because they are following orders for the public's safety. Then when they go under, let's act like we are surprised when Americans can't find jobs.

They're not in much danger of going under though. Airlines, for example, have plans for other sources of revenue outside of a government bailout.

---

Boeing announced that they aren't taking the stimulus money if it gives the government an equity stake in Boeing. So it seems like they believe they can survive without it.

Other businesses may be in tougher predicaments. Note that the biggest determinant of whether a company can survive an crash like this is not how successful the business was before. It's what management chose to do with their previous profits. There's a reason casinos in Vegas can take money from gamblers for decades and go bust if they have to close for a month. It's because all of those old profits have already paid out and management is leaving the business with a shoestring margin with which to operate.

And hey, if the government is going to bail you out - that's what you should do as management to maximize value for shareholders.

---

I think it's true that there's an improper relationship with businesses and the government but you're kidding yourself if you think the rich people will be the ones that take the hit if you say 'the big corporations can go to hell'.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Boeing announced that they aren't taking the stimulus money if it gives the government an equity stake in Boeing. So it seems like they believe they can survive without it.

Yeah, they lay off their employees is the other option. It was pretty clear as day.

---

ExThaNemesis posted...

Joe Biden has been accused of sexual assault by multiple women now.

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/27/21195935/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation

I'm calling on LoTM and Rock to come out and disavow Biden now, just so they're consistent with the stances they've taken in the past. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite or anything.

So you finally have a reason to back Biden then, huh?

---

neonreaper posted...

I think it's true that there's an improper relationship with businesses and the government but you're kidding yourself if you think the rich people will be the ones that take the hit if you say 'the big corporations can go to hell'.

I don't think that'll happen, but it's the only way forward. It cuts both ways. Rich people also don't take the hit if the government bails out businesses with inadequate oversight, setting up yet another economic disaster to happen down the road.

---

Inviso posted...

So you finally have a reason to back Biden then, huh?

My stance on accusations like these has never changed.

I'm interested to see if that's the same for people like Rock, LOTM, and hell even you.

---

ExThaNemesis posted...

My stance on accusations like these has never changed.

I'm interested to see if that's the same for people like Rock, LOTM, and hell even you.

See how they are ignoring it and focusing on you in the situation? TheRock said he would never vote for a person with a single allegation against them because he believes all women. Biden stands accused of 8... So far.

---

So far the response from Biden stans on Twitter has been "This woman is a Russian asset trying to take down Biden to help Bernie/Trump"

Which is about what I expected from the Believe Women crowd.

Believe Women **except for this one

---

ExThaNemesis posted...

So far the response from Biden stans on Twitter has been "This woman is a Russian asset trying to take down Biden to help Bernie/Trump"

Which is about what I expected from the Believe Women crowd.

Believe Women **except for this one

I mean these people also didn't believe the parade of women who accused Bill and who accused him back when the public environment was that it was extremely risky to come out with these kinds of allegations.

---

The best (worst?) part will be Biden technically telling the truth when he says he didn't do it, since he probably doesn't remember it anymore.

---

ExThaNemesis posted...

My stance on accusations like these has never changed.

I'm interested to see if that's the same for people like Rock, LOTM, and hell even you.

Oh, so you think the accusations are fake and political, and therefore aren't worth signal boosting? Just like with Trump, right?

'cause personally, I already thought it sucked that Biden was the best the Dems could field, even before these allegations. These just add to the unfortunate feelings I have about his frontrunner status. I wish Bernie was a better candidate so maybe Biden wouldn't be the only option that a large portion of the Democratic base felt actually gave a shit about them.

---

Corrik7 posted...

See how they are ignoring it and focusing on you in the situation? TheRock said he would never vote for a person with a single allegation against them because he believes all women. Biden stands accused of 8... So far.

Or we already discussed this ad nauseam. The problem is that the same accuser a year earlier had a radically different story than the one she's telling now, and both her and the one pushing the story are both notable Russian schills.

I still support a full investigation into these claims but there are initial suspect elements.

---

Aaaah and there it is. Rock admitting that maybe some claims of sexual assault do seem suspect and worth looking into. We're finally on the same page after all these years!

See, that wasn't so hard!

---

But, Trump guilty! Believe all women!

Lol.

---

I mean, smart money is on they both did it.

---

ExThaNemesis posted...

Aaaah and there it is. Rock admitting that maybe some claims of sexual assault do seem suspect and worth looking into. We're finally on the same page after all these years!

See, that wasn't so hard!

Except your side is usually going "bitch is lying" and won't bother with an investigation.

---

With some cases, like the Kavanaugh case, there is no way an investigation is going to turn up anything. Because it was 40 years ago. This is why we have a statute of limitations, because after a long period of time the evidence will be gone.

---

FFDragon posted...

I mean, smart money is on they both did it.

Smart money is on you should assume someone is innocent until proven guilty.

---

red sox 777 posted...

With some cases, like the Kavanaugh case, there is no way an investigation is going to turn up anything. Because it was 40 years ago. This is why we have a statute of limitations, because after a long period of time the evidence will be gone.

The person retelling the story is not a reliable witness either after 40 years.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Smart money is on you should assume someone is innocent until proven guilty.

You know what they say about assuming.

Plus I am not a court.

---

FFDragon posted...

You know what they say about assuming.

Plus I am not a court.

Even if not, you should at least give the benefit of the doubt to the accused until the accuser can provide substantial evidence to prove their side at least.

---

FFDragon posted...

I mean, smart money is on they both did it.

Democracy is about giving people the choice of which rapist they want to represent them.

---

Here's my logic: The vast majority of people are hot garbage, so I'm inclined to believe that they'd do something terrible. Especially older people who grew up in an era where terrible things were quietly accepted.

---

FFDragon posted...

Here's my logic: The vast majority of people are hot garbage, so I'm inclined to believe that they'd do something terrible. Especially older people who grew up in an era where terrible things were quietly accepted.

Can't the hot garbage doing something terrible be the accusers?

Tara Reade BTW is a democrat.

---

Why not both?

---

FFDragon posted...

Here's my logic: The vast majority of people are hot garbage, so I'm inclined to believe that they'd do something terrible. Especially older people who grew up in an era where terrible things were quietly accepted.

If that's the case, then do we say that Joseph Stalin was right for having millions executed because he thought they might be plotting to overthrow him?

---

Yeah, I'm far more inclined to believe accusers, given just how imbalanced the scales are in favor of their "alleged" attackers receiving no comeuppance whatsoever.

---

How about this? All moderate Democrats are considered guilty until proven innocent. Everyone else is considered innocent until proven guilty.

---

And, we tell if someone is a moderate Democrat by seeing if they supported Hillary over Bernie in 2016. If they did, then they are. If they didn't, they are not.

---

Inviso posted...

Yeah, I'm far more inclined to believe accusers, given just how imbalanced the scales are in favor of their "alleged" attackers receiving no comeuppance whatsoever.

See that is the difference between us. I am more inclined to believe the evidence or lack thereof.

---

i wouldn't say i'm "more inclined" to believe one or the other

but i still can't understand anyone who couldn't see kavanaugh as being anything other than full of shit

*unless* they're just viewing it as a team sport- yankees vs. red sox, blue vs red, it doesn't matter who's good or bad as long as my team wins

edit: sorry for the triple negative, but i'm not fixing it

---

red sox 777 posted...

And, we tell if someone is a moderate Democrat by seeing if they supported Hillary over Bernie in 2016. If they did, then they are. If they didn't, they are not.

I'll allow this so long as Trump counts here under the assumption he never wanted the job, just the exposure for the Trump brand.

Because Trump has to count, that's non-negotiable.

---

banananor posted...

i wouldn't say i'm "more inclined" to believe one or the other

but i still can't understand anyone who couldn't see kavanaugh as being anything other than full of shit

*unless* they're just viewing it as a team sport- yankees vs. red sox, blue vs red, it doesn't matter who's good or bad as long as my team wins

What makes you believe that

---

banananor posted...

i wouldn't say i'm "more inclined" to believe one or the other

but i still can't understand anyone who couldn't see kavanaugh as being anything other than full of shit

*unless* they're just viewing it as a team sport- yankees vs. red sox, blue vs red, it doesn't matter who's good or bad as long as my team wins

Well that's what it is. Because Kavanaugh wasn't chosen for that Supreme Court seat because of who he is as a person. He was chosen because he would reflect the judicial philosophy chosen by the voters at the elections. On some level, whatever he did or didn't do in his personal life is completely irrelevant. The voters are entitled to the judge of their choosing.

---

Trump invokes DPA forcing GM to make ventilators after talks to do it mutually have broken down.

---

Corrik7 posted...

What makes you believe that

I was lucky enough to be working from home the day the hearings were held. I had the live stream on a third monitor throughout the day, so I saw all of both Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony.

Did you watch the testimony? Was it just highlights, or just Kavanaugh's, or what? I feel like I can't understand where you're coming from unless I know. I could understand someone thinking Kavanaugh as just fine if they only watched the FOX News highlight reel.

Now, given all of that, it's objective that Kavanaugh sidestepped and blustered through as many questions as possible.
It's also objective that he intentionally lied about anything he thought he could get away with.
It is an objective fact that he tried to flip questions around and directly antagonize the committee members.

I honestly don't see a problem with being a teenager and being irreverent, but if you're lying in a situation like this, you are objectively full of shit and do not belong on the supreme court.

Devil's triangle was objectively a slang term for a threesome that he objectively used. He said it was not. This already qualifies him as full of shit.
Boofing was objectively a slang term for sticking something up a butt that he objectively used. He said it was not. This already qualifies him as full of shit.
His claim that his title of "Beach Week Ralph Club- Biggest Contributor" being related to puking from hot sauce already qualifies him as full of shit.
His refusal to admit that he had ever thrown up from drinking was objectively full of shit. This alone qualifies him as full of shit.
His claim that "renate alumnus" was a flattering term was objectively full of shit.

The list goes on and on. Do you honestly think he was being on the level for any of that? For *all* of that?

The sheer volume of times he would interrupt and talk over the committee members to try to muddy the waters is a tactic of a bullshitter.

I actually would be interested in sitting down with a Kavanaugh supporting friend or relative and watching both hearings and seeing what they thought in real time

---

red sox 777 posted...

Well that's what it is. Because Kavanaugh wasn't chosen for that Supreme Court seat because of who he is as a person. He was chosen because he would reflect the judicial philosophy chosen by the voters at the elections. On some level, whatever he did or didn't do in his personal life is completely irrelevant. The voters are entitled to the judge of their choosing.

I know plenty of republican voters, and none of them voted for kavanaugh.

You're using backwards logic.

A few friends and family members have used it, which leads me to believe it's a common talking point from right-wing media. Basically, it's catapulting over the normal discussion of "is this right?" to the discussion of "can anyone stop them?"

They're skipping over the discussion of "is this right" because they know it's wrong.

Now, acknowledging this, I will still engage with the point.

You're saying that, if Elon Musk promised Trump and the republican senate 10 billion dollars in some legal fashion, and they nominated and confirmed him to the supreme court, this would qualify as the voters getting a judge of their own choosing?

This is a logical fallacy. It's saying "well, you decided to drive a car every day, so the weather today is the weather of your own choosing".

There was no way for the voters to predict Kavanaugh specifically would be confirmed.

---

banananor posted...

I know plenty of republican voters, and none of them voted for kavanaugh.

You're using backwards logic.

A few friends and family members have used it, which leads me to believe it's a common talking point from right-wing media. Basically, it's catapulting over the normal discussion of "is this right?" to the discussion of "can anyone stop them?"

They're skipping over the discussion of "is this right" because they know it's wrong.

Now, acknowledging this, I will still engage with the point.

You're saying that, if Elon Musk promised Trump and the republican senate 10 billion dollars in some legal fashion, and they nominated and confirmed him to the supreme court, this would qualify as the voters getting a judge of their own choosing?

This is a logical fallacy. It's saying "well, you decided to drive a car every day, so the weather today is the weather of your own choosing".

There was no way for the voters to predict Kavanaugh specifically would be confirmed.

The voters delegated that choice to Trump, and the Republican senators. Mitch McConnell made perfectly clear with the Merrick Garland stuff in 2016 what the process for choosing Supreme Court justices was going to be. Whether it's Brett Kavanaugh or Elon Musk is immaterial as long as it's someone whose judicial views was consistent with the list of judicial candidates Trump put out during his campaign.

---

red sox 777 posted...

The voters delegated that choice to Trump, and the Republican senators. Mitch McConnell made perfectly clear with the Merrick Garland stuff in 2016 what the process for choosing Supreme Court justices was going to be. Whether it's Brett Kavanaugh or Elon Musk is immaterial as long as it's someone whose judicial views was consistent with the list of judicial candidates Trump put out during his campaign.

First of all, are you saying Elon Musk is consistent with the list of judicial candidates Trump put out during his campaign?

You're not viewing this from an American standpoint. When your representative does something wrong, you hold them accountable. Your perspective is extremely passive.

---

Actually, I'll revise. I do see your point. Kavanaugh's judicial perspectives are pretty much what trump would have on the court.

However, it's wrong that Kavanaugh specifically was confirmed. There are plenty of other justices with nearly identical perspectives out there. Trump and the senate did a horrible job in that regard- plenty of advisors were screaming "no" on him.

Why was he specifically chosen? It's truly a failure and harms our country

---

https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1243551268464930819

these are the very serious people who are tasked with interpreting science to lead us out of a pandemic


---

I don't know what Elon Musk's judicial views are but supposing they were consistent with Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Scalia, etc. then he would be an acceptable choice.

---

red sox 777 posted...

I don't know what Elon Musk's judicial views are but supposing they were consistent with Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Scalia, etc. then he would be an acceptable choice.

So, I mean... would you have voted for Roy Moore?

---

amazing

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUGzjVzUcAAXE3X?format=png&name=medium

---

banananor posted...

So, I mean... would you have voted for Roy Moore?

I have to do some more research into this to be sure but my impression was that Roy Moore is in a rather different judicial school of thought. I can't imagine either of the 3 justices I named ever endorsing the position that Alabama courts should ignore orders made by federal courts interpreting the federal constitution. Nor would they take the position that the Bible should trump the Constitution in American courts.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1243551268464930819

these are the very serious people who are tasked with interpreting science to lead us out of a pandemic

Whats a snake handler in this analogy?
---

red sox 777 posted...

I have to do some more research into this to be sure but my impression was that Roy Moore is in a rather different judicial school of thought. I can't imagine either of the 3 justices I named ever endorsing the position that Alabama courts should ignore orders made by federal courts interpreting the federal constitution. Nor would they take the position that the Bible should trump the Constitution in American courts.

what i'm trying to ask- as I'm sure you already know- is where the line is in terms of "personal" behavior that would disqualify a candidate in your eyes?

---

Whats a snake handler in this analogy?

A charismatic cult church leader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8

---

SmartMuffin posted...

A charismatic cult church leader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8

Oh ok. Thanks!
---