Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, December 11, 2017

OTP 11 December, 2017 - GOP strategist: Moore would have ‘date with a baseball bat’ if he tried dating teens where I grew up

“I grew up in Mississippi. Every father I knew, if he saw a guy like Roy Moore in his 30s trying to date his 16-year-old daughter, he would have had a date with a baseball bat,” Stevens, a former aide to Mitt Romney’s campaign, said on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360.”

Stevens, who worked on former Alabama Gov. Bob Riley’s (R) primary campaign against Moore in 2006, said Moore has violated the “decency standard” of civil society in his previous alleged pursuit of teenage girls.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 11, 2017 at 08:53 AM | 2653 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: bats, bats are afraid, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 25 of 27 pages ‹ First  < 23 24 25 26 27 > 
   2401. Hot Wheeling American in his sleazy salon Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:03 PM (#5593897)
So, early dementia? My sympathies.

How DARE anyone on a baseball message board try to diagnose another poster and/or the President of the United States (mainly because the latter legitimately can't form a coherent sentence and throws down a dozen Diet Cokes a day). Shame on everyone who didn't speak up about before now. We're better than this.
   2402. Shredder Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:04 PM (#5593898)
I don't see how GSA can turn that material over without notifying the WH so that the Trump team can raise whatever claim of privilege they might have.
Keep carrying that water, Hacker!
The downside here is that future incoming administrations may be less likely to use government communications for their transition.
Of course, the upside is that future incoming administrations may be less likely to commit crimes. But that probably didn't occur to you, what with you being a massive hack and all.
   2403. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:10 PM (#5593899)
Of course, the upside is that future incoming administrations may be less likely to commit crimes. But that probably didn't occur to you, what with you being a massive hack and all.


I can already see tmr's Hannity.

"Kushner should have copied crooked Hillary's methods"
   2404. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:19 PM (#5593903)
Purely as an idle sidetrack of irrelevant trivia, seven of the central co-conspirators were indicted 19 weeks after Nixon fired the special prosecutor. Impeachment hearings for the president began 10 weeks after that.
   2405. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:20 PM (#5593904)
None of this would have happened, if only Jim Comey had pledged his loyalty.
   2406. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:37 PM (#5593906)
One theory - Here’s Why Republicans Are Hellbent on Passing an Unpopular Tax Bill

The Republican tax bill is massively unpopular. It polls at about 30 percent approval—the worst showing of any major bill in recent history—and doesn’t crack 50 percent even among Republicans. And yet, the GOP leadership is hellbent on passing it. What’s going on?


My theory is they are bought and paid for by the donor class, and so are doing their "job". His is a little more nuanced. But only a little.

But again: Republicans aren’t idiots. They recognize just how unlikely this victory was and they know it won’t repeat itself. Demographic trends won’t slow down and midterm elections always go against the party in power anyway. They’re probably going to lose unified control of the government in 2018, and even if they hang on they won’t make it past 2020. This is their last chance to control the levers of power, quite possibly for a decade or two.

That’s why they’re pushing an unpopular tax bill. That’s why they’re focused like a laser on confirming judges. That’s why they might even take on entitlement reform. They’re going to lose power shortly no matter what they do, so they’re trying to put their stamp on the future while they still have the chance.
   2407. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: December 16, 2017 at 11:08 PM (#5593911)
I dunno about that theory. If only I was as confident in their demise as they seem to be.
   2408. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: December 16, 2017 at 11:48 PM (#5593918)
   2409. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: December 17, 2017 at 12:05 AM (#5593920)
Come on, trumpkins. Fire mueller. Clap clap, clap clap clap. Fire mueller. Clap clap clap clap clap.
   2410. zenbitz Posted: December 17, 2017 at 12:15 AM (#5593922)
Mueller asked transition team officials to share relevant emails. Unbenownst to them, he had *all* the emails already. So now he knows exactly who is trying to hide what.


The FBI's normal tactic is to learn everything about a topic first before interviewing targets, and then hope they lie because they don't know how much the FBI knows.


Diabolical!
   2411. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 12:23 AM (#5593923)
Come on, trumpkins. Fire mueller. Clap clap, clap clap clap. Fire mueller. Clap clap clap clap clap.


? Trumpkins don't want him fired. They want him to stay on to learn what Trump -- and Hillary, and the FBI -- did.

You're losing it. Maybe Canada's health care system doesn't provide you with your proper medication?
   2412. Hot Wheeling American in his sleazy salon Posted: December 17, 2017 at 12:31 AM (#5593925)
Trumpkins don't want him fired

You lie
   2413. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: December 17, 2017 at 12:41 AM (#5593926)
Fire Mueller because he's been so mean to Hillary! Just like Comey!

Clap clap, clap clap clap.
   2414. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:02 AM (#5593928)
My theory is they are bought and paid for by the donor class, and so are doing their "job". His is a little more nuanced. But only a little.
My theory is that the bill isn't unpopular at all, since the people being polled are not remotely informed about what's in the bill. What's unpopular are random left-wing characterizations of the bill that falsely tell people that they won't get tax cuts under the bill. While some of us -- upper middle class wage earners in high-tax states -- will likely be hurt, most people will in fact see a benefit. And then they'll be happy.

EDIT: See, e.g.,:
According to the survey of 5,100 adults, conducted this week for The New York Times by the online polling firm SurveyMonkey, only a third of Americans think their taxes will go down in 2018 if the bill passes next week as widely expected.

That is at odds not only with the Republican talking points but also with the assessment of most economists who have studied the bill.
The Tax Policy Center, a research group, recently found that under the Senate version of the plan, roughly three-quarters of American households would pay less in taxes next year. Last-minute changes made by a House-Senate conference committee could lead to a tax cut for even more Americans.

[...]

Perhaps most striking, however, is the skepticism about how the bill would affect taxpayers personally. Using demographic and other data provided by survey respondents, The Times estimated how likely they were to receive a tax cut. Even among people with more than a 90 percent chance of getting a cut, about half said they did not expect to get one.
Emphasis added.

So, sure, people disapprove of the bill... for now. Based on their mistaken idea -- mistakes driven by a biased left-wing media narrative that focuses on the issue of rich people getting tax cuts -- that they won't benefit.
   2415. Shredder Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:32 AM (#5593929)
My theory is that the bill isn't unpopular at all, since the people being polled are not remotely informed about what's in the bill.
This is nonsensical, unless your argument is that there are massive numbers of people out there who are knowledgeable about the bill that aren't being polled (but of course, that's not how polls work). You could say the bill would be more popular if people were more informed about what's in it, but the bill's popularity is what it is, regardless of whether people know the truth. If I blanketed the streets in Maryland with pictures of David Nieporent saying "This man is a known child molester and he's coming for your kids", David Nieporent would be very unpopular, regardless of the factual inaccuracy of those posters. You could say "they don't know the real David Nieporent", and that may be true, but the one they think they know is really unpopular. And if that David Nieporent ran for office, the lack of truthfulness of the allegations would be cold comfort. At the end of the day, what people think they know about the bill is all that's important when they go to the polls.

Also, I'm not going to look it up, but I'm going to guess that David did not make this same argument when people were generally ill-informed about Obamacare, which polled very poorly, especially considering almost all of the actual individual elements of Obamacare polled very well. I don't recall a lot of posts from David saying "those people who don't like Obamacare are ill-informed and we shouldn't believe the numbers."
   2416. tshipman Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:39 AM (#5593930)
So, sure, people disapprove of the bill... for now. Based on their mistaken idea -- mistakes driven by a biased left-wing media narrative that focuses on the issue of rich people getting tax cuts -- that they won't benefit.


I don't think so, David. The Bush tax cuts made sense and were easy to understand: everyone got money back.

These tax cuts are very complicated and very difficult to understand. I actually am not sure right now if my taxes are going up or going down. I *think* they're going up, but I'm honestly not really sure. The reduced ability to deduct interest and state taxes are offset in part by the top end rate drop. It's complicated. Honestly, our taxes are pretty complicated even without all the law changes, and I'd have to ask a CPA to know for sure. I think my wife's year end bonus might have shifted this slightly also because more of our take home got put under the highest marginal rate.

What I am absolutely sure of is that most businesses are getting a huge cut. At a time when corporate profits are at an all time high, businesses got a huge cut.

So it'd be one thing if everyone got a cut: like, I disagree with it intellectually, but at least it's easy to understand the benefit.

But right now it's really complicated, and it sends a clear message: "Sure, we claim to want to cut everyone's taxes, but in actuality, we're totally willing to screw some people in order to give a big kiss to big business."

I think everyone understands that message pretty clearly.
   2417. Shredder Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:50 AM (#5593931)
What I am absolutely sure of is that most businesses are getting a huge cut. At a time when corporate profits are at an all time high, businesses got a huge cut.
Congresspersons spend four hours per day on the phone to donors. The big donors told them the well was dry unless they could point to some, any, accomplishment. This is basically the Donor Relief Act of 2017. The only consideration was how they make sure the Doug Deasons of the world get the warm fuzzies before they turn off the tap.
   2418. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 17, 2017 at 02:03 AM (#5593933)
#2411:
? Trumpkins don't want him fired.


Perhaps this U.S. Representative speaking on the floor of the House isn't a "Trumpkin," maybe he just hates Mueller.

Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Etard) have both signed onto Rep. Gaetz's resolution demanding that Mueller quit.

Newt Gingrich has gone from calling Mueller a "superb choice" in May to "corrupt" last week.

Laura Ingraham has said that Mueller's entire investigative team must quit.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board has called on Mueller to quit.

So has the New York Post.

Gateway Pundit called Rod Rosenstein's testimony this week that there was no good cause to fire the "crooked" Mueller "Deep State Depravity."

Jeanine Pirro says the Mueller probe "needs to be cleansed of individuals who should not just be fired, but who need to be taken out in handcuffs."

Sean Hannity has called Mueller "a disgrace to the American justice system" and "the head of the snake" threatening Trump and the United States. Media Matters has logged 79 instances when "Sean Hannity and his guests have questioned Mueller's legitimacy, or called for Mueller to remove himself or be fired."

However, the National Review says that Trump should NOT fire Mueller... because Mueller is digging his own grave with a torrent of illicit actions.
   2419. Larvell B Posted: December 17, 2017 at 07:04 AM (#5593937)
The DOJ and SEC take attorney-client privilege very seriously -- it's essentially inviolate -- and if this was in fact a deliberate effort to invade it or not care about its invasion, it's a serious, serious issue.

There are also a number of ethics provisions for individual fake lawyers on the issue, including duties upon inadvertent production or receipt.

But leave it to the usual suspects and the know-nothing Twitter trolls and harpies to cheer on the invasion of the privilege.
   2420. Lassus Posted: December 17, 2017 at 08:39 AM (#5593941)
Who are we believing today, the elites or Ray? As per Rotten Tomatoes:

Last Jedi 93% critic score, 56% audience score
Justice League: 40% critic score, 79% audience score

(I enjoyed both films)
   2421. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 08:48 AM (#5593943)
I saw Last Jedi yesterday with my daughter. I think as long as you’re expectations are appropriate for a children’s movie there’s a lot to enjoy. Hold it to the same critical standard as “The Goonies” or “Matilda” and the stupid dialogue and a plot that progresses from one deus ex jedia to another aren’t too vexing.
   2422. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 08:51 AM (#5593945)
   2423. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 17, 2017 at 08:58 AM (#5593947)
In general, if you're middle class and you have a straightforward tax return, then your taxes will probably go down by several hundred dollars. If you're middle class and you have a complicated return, then your taxes will probably either stay the same or increase a bit. So it's probably going to be something like: no effect for poor, something like a 65/35 small decrease for the middle class (i.e., 65% get a cut while 35% see no change or small increase), and a significant tax cut for nearly all the wealthy households. At least in the version passed by the Senate, there were going to be a small number of middle class who saw a significant increase (assuming they didn't change how they structured their small business), but presumably their accountant would find a way to change how they filed to reduce their liability. I don't know that anyone quite knows whether those particular concerns have been successfully fixed in the reconciliation version of the bill.

Where the middle class will be hurt is indirectly by higher interest rates than there otherwise would be. The tax cuts will explode the deficit, which will increase federal borrowing costs that will in turn increase everyone else's. Higher interest rates may also adversely impact the real estate market, which will result in a negative wealth effect. That will impact everyone who owns property, but its the middle class who will be hurt the most since most of their wealth is usually tied to the value of their primary residence. The increase in interest rates will offset any stimulative effect of the tax cuts. So we're probably looking at a net tenth of a point improvement in GDP growth.

The more important consideration isn't relative tax burden, but how the tax will indirectly impact opportunities for future wealth accumulation. Over time, that could lead to even greater wealth stratification.
   2424. PreservedFish Posted: December 17, 2017 at 09:35 AM (#5593950)
Last Jedi 93% critic score, 56% audience score


Interesting. I assume it would have been the opposite for the prequels? I haven't seen it yet. What are fans disappointed by?
   2425. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 09:37 AM (#5593951)
Hey sci-fi nerds, since I figure most of you are already spending the weekend with your Vulcan ears on shouting “Nanu nanu” into the microphone at the drive-through, how about that DoD UFO program that all the kids are talking about? This NYT article has a really remarkable case that is made even more intriguing because we actually have video of the event in question. Check out the clip, it’s short.

“I have no idea what I saw,” Commander Fravor replied to the pilot. “It had no plumes, wings or rotors and outran our F-18s.”

But, he added, “I want to fly one.”
   2426. greenback is on a break Posted: December 17, 2017 at 09:59 AM (#5593954)
The more important consideration isn't relative tax burden, but how the tax will indirectly impact opportunities for future wealth accumulation. Over time, that could lead to even greater wealth stratification.

Alternatively the effects of the tax cut should be measured in terms of purchasing power. If everybody's purchasing power increases by X% in nominal terms, then for all practical purposes nobody's purchasing power has increased. If average purchasing power increased by X% in nominal terms and the Koch brothers' purchasing power increased by Y%, where X<Y, then guess what just happened. The whole point of debt-financed tax cuts is to obscure who benefits from a tax redistribution scheme. Politicians understand this, which is the reason the party out of power always whines about the deficit.

It's fascinating to watch the government go Keynesian under Republicans (OK, the timing is wrong, but the claim is that this will generate growth at a time when growth has been modest). It's also fascinating to watch as Congress tries to generate inflation while the Fed takes active steps to cut off inflation. GLWT.
   2427. BDC Posted: December 17, 2017 at 10:10 AM (#5593957)
The Bush tax cuts made sense and were easy to understand: everyone got money back.

These tax cuts are very complicated and very difficult to understand


Didn't Bush at one point literally cut everybody a check? Unsubtle but effective.

But yes, this bill is difficult to understand, largely because of the cloak of secrecy about its drafting. I was bemoaning the alimony provision a few weeks ago. It is still unclear whether that provision (which was in the House bill, I believe, but not the Senate) will survive. And if it does, it seems that it will probably only impact divorces settled after 1/1/2018.* And even if it affected all divorces, I ultimately found a clause in my own decree which states that if the IRS finds the alimony I pay taxable to me, my payment goes down by the amount of the tax. (This would actually mean slightly more money for my ex, though it would mean a smaller check amount, so trying to explain that to her would be a nightmare :)

Well, anyway, thanks to the mysteries that pervade these bills, like shipman I have no idea which way my taxes will go next year. I trust that 6-4-3 is right, because I'm an upper-middle-class earner with extremely simple taxes, and I could use another couple hundred dollars.

*One oddity of the proposed alimony change is the assertion that it would simplify the system. Indeed, if it were mandated overnight that no alimony could be deducted, that line would simply drop off the 1040 and things would get simpler for both filers and the IRS. But if adopted, the actual proposed change would mean that any payer with a settlement on 12/31/2017 or before could continue to deduct till the settlement (or the payer) expired, for decades to come. So there would have to be a more complicated line on future 1040s allowing a deduction only if your divorce was of a certain vintage, and maybe an extra form to attest to that, etc. Jeebus.
   2428. BDC Posted: December 17, 2017 at 10:11 AM (#5593958)
we actually have video of the event in question

Honestly it looks like they're chasing a bug on their own windshield.
   2429. DavidFoss Posted: December 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM (#5593964)
Interesting. I assume it would have been the opposite for the prequels? I haven't seen it yet. What are fans disappointed by?

These movies are a lot of fun to look forward to, but its super-easy to get your expectations set up too high so that you walk out of the theater disappointed.

I think critics come in with a lot of nostalgia and grade a movie like this on a curve. As long as it was fun, entertaining and didn't totally ruin the franchise, then they'll give it a B+ (93% seems too high).

If you actually watch the previous movies right before going to the latest one, then you won't be let down. It's a soap opera in space. Not unlike game of thrones.
   2430. Larvell B Posted: December 17, 2017 at 11:20 AM (#5593972)
I went yesterday with son and was entertained for the full 2 1/2 hours. Actually a pretty good movie; among the highlights was a sensible theological exposition of The Force -- far and away the best one yet.

   2431. Greg K Posted: December 17, 2017 at 11:30 AM (#5593974)
among the highlights was a sensible theological exposition of The Force -- far and away the best one yet.

That's interesting. That's been noticeably absent so far.
   2432. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: December 17, 2017 at 11:34 AM (#5593977)
Last Jedi 93% critic score, 56% audience score

Interesting. I assume it would have been the opposite for the prequels?

If by that you mean '7% critic score, 44% audience score' then yeah, just about.

among the highlights was a sensible theological exposition of The Force -- far and away the best one yet.

That's interesting. That's been noticeably absent so far.

You don't think midichlorians are a great explanation?
   2433. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 17, 2017 at 11:38 AM (#5593978)
[2427] Iirc, the check to everyone was part of the Bush stimulus package. During the 2002 recession he basically cut a check ($500?) to everyone and said “go spend more money.”
   2434. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 17, 2017 at 11:39 AM (#5593979)
Didn't Bush at one point literally cut everybody a check? Unsubtle but effective.

So did Obama, but no one noticed.
   2435. BDC Posted: December 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM (#5593980)
the full 2 1/2 hours

Agh, that sounds like a chore. But I'll go some morning this week when audiences are at their thinnest. Maybe get an aisle seat for self-scheduled intermissions. Or bring a book and a flashlight.

The first two Star Wars had the advantage of coming in at just around two hours apiece.
   2436. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 17, 2017 at 11:49 AM (#5593982)
[2434] I remember the Obama one because it resulted in me paying negative taxes one year. That was a year that I was in college and between grading and tutoring, I made just enough money to qualify for the stimulus money and just little enough money to avoid paying income tax.
   2437. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2017 at 11:54 AM (#5593984)
Didn't Bush at one point literally cut everybody a check? Unsubtle but effective.

So did Obama, but no one noticed.

Well, here's something that everyone but the Dancing Monkeys has noticed**:

Trump’s Lies vs. Obama’s
After we published a list of President Trump’s lies this summer, we heard a common response from his supporters. They said, in effect: Yes, but if you made a similar list for previous presidents, it would be just as bad.

We’ve set out to make that list. Here, you will find our attempt at a comprehensive catalog of the falsehoods that Barack Obama told while he was president. (We also discuss George W. Bush below, although the lack of real-time fact-checking during his presidency made a comprehensive list impossible.)

We applied the same conservative standard to Obama and Trump, counting only demonstrably and substantially false statements. The result: Trump is unlike any other modern president. He seems virtually indifferent to reality, often saying whatever helps him make the case he’s trying to make.

In his first 10 months in office, he has told 103 separate untruths, many of them repeatedly. Obama told 18 over his entire eight-year tenure. That’s an average of about two a year for Obama and about 124 a year for Trump.

Separately, we have updated our earlier list of Trump's lies, which also includes repeated falsehoods. This article counts only distinct falsehoods for both Trump and Obama.

If we had used a less strict standard, Trump would look even worse by comparison. He makes misleading statements and mild exaggerations – about economic statistics, his political opponents and many other subjects – far more often than Obama. We left out any statement that could be plausibly defended even if many people would disagree with the president's interpretation. We also left out modest quantitative errors, such as Trump's frequent imprecision with numbers.

We have used the word “lies” again here, as we did in our original piece. If anything, though, the word is unfair to Obama and Bush. When they became aware that they had been saying something untrue, they stopped doing it. Obama didn’t continue to claim that all Americans would be able to keep their existing health insurance under Obamacare, for example, and Bush changed the way he spoke about Iraq’s weapons capability.

Trump is different. When he is caught lying, he will often try to discredit people telling the truth, be they judges, scientists, F.B.I. or C.I.A. officials, journalists or members of Congress. Trump is trying to make truth irrelevant. It is extremely damaging to democracy, and it’s not an accident. It’s core to his political strategy....

** David's not a Dancing Monkey, and he's noticed it, but he also likes to trash the messenger.
   2438. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 12:11 PM (#5593987)

I don't think so, David. The Bush tax cuts made sense and were easy to understand: everyone got money back.
That's not what liberals said at the time; they said exactly the same thing they're saying now: most of the benefits go to the top, giveaways to the rich, yada yada yada.
   2439. PreservedFish Posted: December 17, 2017 at 12:16 PM (#5593989)
among the highlights was a sensible theological exposition of The Force -- far and away the best one yet.


I really liked the idea they explored in the movie that came out last year - that Asian fellow that seemed to have immense natural force powers but never had a teacher to shape them in any way. He's not a Jedi, but he can do magical stuff. It stands to reason that there'd be people like that around.
   2440. BDC Posted: December 17, 2017 at 12:28 PM (#5593992)
Trump is unlike any other modern president. He seems virtually indifferent to reality

This is crucial. Any whatabouting that equates Trump lies to those of Obama & Clinton – or the Bushes & Reagan – is really just flat-out Trumpist fanboyism.

The difference is … well, imagine a marital argument. She says, "When we got married, you told me you would stop drinking. You told me you would never cheat on me. But now you are drinking and cheating on me."

He answers, "Well, in 2014, you ran over my cat, and backed up and ran over him again." Except that he never even had a cat. That's the Donald Trump style of lying.

   2441. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 12:44 PM (#5593993)

Well, here's something that everyone but the Dancing Monkeys has noticed**:
"Noticed" in the sense of mocked mercilessly for being incredibly stupid, yes. "Obama told 18 over his entire eight-year tenure." WTF? Like all politicians, Obama lied regularly. I mean, what kind of nutty believe-anything-he-reads-in-the-NYT thinks that Obama told just two lies per year? (How about New York Times claims Obama only told 18 falsehoods during his whole presidency. Here are 18 he told in selling Obamacare in 2009 alone. This article reports that one of your favorite sources, Politifact -- which, as we've discussed is very selective -- identified 98 lies by Obama during his tenure.). (Is Trump much higher? Yeah. In fact, it's a vast undercounting of him, too. 103 would be an average week for him.)
   2442. PreservedFish Posted: December 17, 2017 at 12:46 PM (#5593994)
I'm surprised the Times published that. Such an accounting would be virtually impossible and, browsing the list, I can instantly find many examples that fall short of their supposedly stringent definition of "lie."

But I mean, yeah, Trump tells more lies than anyone.
   2443. Lassus Posted: December 17, 2017 at 12:48 PM (#5593995)
You don't think midichlorians are a great explanation?

I'll cop to finding this a fascinating idea; as a hard sci-fi fan I was into it.


Agh, that sounds like a chore.

I'm super-glad I don't hate long movies. I don't know how you poor people live.
   2444. BDC Posted: December 17, 2017 at 12:56 PM (#5593997)
I'm super-glad I don't hate long movies

It's maybe not the length per se – just that, like ballgames and operas, most would be better if they were a bit shorter.
   2445. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:03 PM (#5593998)
Well, here's something that everyone but the Dancing Monkeys has noticed**:

** David's not a Dancing Monkey, and he's noticed it, but he also likes to trash the messenger.


"Noticed" in the sense of mocked mercilessly for being incredibly stupid, yes. "Obama told 18 over his entire eight-year tenure." WTF? Like all politicians, Obama lied regularly. I mean, what kind of nutty believe-anything-he-reads-in-the-NYT thinks that Obama told just two lies per year? (How about New York Times claims Obama only told 18 falsehoods during his whole presidency. Here are 18 he told in selling Obamacare in 2009 alone. This article reports that one of your favorite sources, Politifact -- which, as we've discussed is very selective -- identified 98 lies by Obama during his tenure.). (Is Trump much higher? Yeah. In fact, it's a vast undercounting of him, too. 103 would be an average week for him.)


If you think it's a vast undercounting of both of them, it might have occurred to you that their cutoff point was slightly higher than yours or Politifact's. But by any standard, Trump's lies are the hands down winner in both quantity and quality, which is the point of the article. You know this, even if the Dancing Monkeys don't, but as I said, you also love to trash the messengers. Maybe in your spare time you can come up with a similar comparison, using the David Nieporent cutoff point, and tell us the proportion of lies you find between Trump and Obama to what either the Times or Politifact has listed.
   2446. Lassus Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:04 PM (#5593999)
just that, like ballgames and operas, most would be better if they were a bit shorter.

Disagree. I don't think length has anything to do with quality. An endless parade of normal-length films are dreck in the same percentage.

And the opposite ends up being true - long films that are cut end up WORSE. Brazil, Once Upon a Time in America, etc.
   2447. PreservedFish Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:08 PM (#5594002)
How is BDC supposed to keep up his one book per day habit if movies are over 2 hours long?
   2448. AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:16 PM (#5594004)
That Last Jedi 93/55 Reviewer/Audience split on Rotten Tomatoes is very unusual for blockbusters. Usually you only see something like that for documentaries or artsy movies, though I'm sure there are notable exceptions. A 93/75 might not be that unusual, and of course a reverse split is much more common for blockbusters.

There must be some kind of audience backlash, or maybe a smallish group of people has flooded the reviews. Perusing the internet now it looks like others (e.g. an article on Forbes) have noticed this as well.
   2449. Lassus Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:17 PM (#5594005)
or maybe a smallish group of people has flooded the reviews.

Disgruntled, childish, petulant, franchise sci-fi fans? Wait, let me sit down.
   2450. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:22 PM (#5594006)
This "coup d'etat" talk! LOL! I said here, weeks ago, that if Mueller's investigation caused Trump's impeachment/forced resignation, he'd rally his base to do violence. Here we go. He's beginning the call.
   2451. PreservedFish Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:35 PM (#5594008)
It's got a 7.9 on IMDB, which is fine, but not great.
   2452. Morty Causa Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:43 PM (#5594012)
Actually, I think 7.9 is very high, but that's me. Starting with 8 is a great rating, so its rating is right there. It's true, though, that many highly publicized, highly anticipated movie events are higher by now, so there's that.
   2453. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 01:44 PM (#5594013)

In response to the transition emails story:
Peter Carr, Special Counsel spokesman:

“When we have obtained emails in the course of our ongoing criminal investigation, we have secured either the account owner’s consent or appropriate criminal process.”
   2454. tshipman Posted: December 17, 2017 at 02:03 PM (#5594016)
“When we have obtained emails in the course of our ongoing criminal investigation, we have secured either the account owner’s consent or appropriate criminal process.”


This is the key, right? Obama was still POTUS for all of the transition email stuff.

There is no attorney client privilege because they were government attorneys and Obama was head of government.
   2455. Larvell B Posted: December 17, 2017 at 02:08 PM (#5594018)
There is no "appropriate criminal process" by which privileged emails can be obtained absent a waiver by the possessor of the privilege.

And typically, a law enforcement agency doesn't subpoena the technical custodian of the emails, or the server company, but instead people who may have written them. Upon which a privilege and relevance review can be undertaken.

It's still early and no need to assume, but on its face the request and production seem highly inappropriate. Just another bizarre turn of events in what has become a bizarre investigation.
   2456. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 17, 2017 at 02:15 PM (#5594022)
This is the key, right? Obama was still POTUS for all of the transition email stuff. There is no attorney client privilege because they were government attorneys and Obama was head of government.

No, Obama wouldn't have anything to do with it. If there is a claim of privilege, it involves communications between the Trump transition team and the transition team's attorneys. There might also be some communications with government attorneys - career types or Obama political appointees - but it seems highly unlikely that those would be where anyone would find the hypothetical smoking gun.
   2457. Morty Causa Posted: December 17, 2017 at 02:22 PM (#5594025)
2365:

Well, I don't know, tshipman. That doesn't seem to be ventures done on a just-so basis. It's more like the dishonest taking advantage of that the scoundrel doctor in England who hornswoggled everyone with phony evidence and argument with regard to vaccines was doing. But, he was not adhering to evidence-based medicine. He was phoneying up stuff so it looks evidence-based. That's not science or evidence's fault.

And I don't consider that you need a study for something to be evidence-based.

But, the term does seem to be a term of art, and I may not be up to speed on it. And speaking of being up to speed, many medical procedures become out-of-date or are shown to be ineffective, but doctors will continue doing it the way they were taught to do it, and they're so busy raking in money for their corporation they don't have time to keep up. And there are always doctors who'll take out those tonsils because he has visions of that new boat dancing in his head.

The profit motive especially applies hospice care. But that's not evidence-based medicine's fault. That's greed and lust for money, and that leads to justification and denial.
   2458. Larvell B Posted: December 17, 2017 at 02:24 PM (#5594027)
The way it works in the ethical law enforcement world is that if you get things in that even remotely look like they're privileged and therefore might have been inadvertently produced is that you get on the phone with the lawyer and tell her you think she might have inadvertently produced privileged materials.(*) I've fake done this a couple times in my various fake law adventures. Indeed, as I noted earlier, there are ethics rules (that vary by state) on the matter. These principles would also apply to the Mueller lawyers.

And if you take testimony from a witness, and the witness may reveal things that are privileged as to his company, you let the company's counsel participate to protect its privilege. Same for many hearings.

If there is a "Trump transition" entity, it should have received the subpoena so that it could review its emails for privilege and relevance. Any other method is essentially unacceptable.

(*) And if they say, "Yeah, that one was," you put that one aside and don't look at it until the issue is worked out. If they say "Yeah, it's privileged," you destroy all your copies.



   2459. tshipman Posted: December 17, 2017 at 02:28 PM (#5594028)
No, Obama wouldn't have anything to do with it. If there is a claim of privilege, it involves communications between the Trump transition team and the transition team's attorneys. There might also be some communications with government attorneys - career types or Obama political appointees - but it seems highly unlikely that those would be where anyone would find the hypothetical smoking gun.


I don't think there's any ability to claim privilege. Mueller doesn't, and he's a better lawyer than you. Just FYI: on every email sent, this footer was attached:

The following legal notice applies to all internal systems accessed from this page:

YOU HAVE CONNECTED TO A U.S. GOVERNMENT COMPUTER. IF YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO THIS SYSTEM, DISCONNECT NOW.

***** WARNING ****

This is a U.S. General Services Administration Federal Government computer system that is "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY." This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. [GSA CIO P 2100.1F, page 39 of 43, Chapter 5, Paragraph 4] or may be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment in accordance with Title 18, USC, Section 1030 USAGE NOTICE: If you are on a computer that is government issued or that you personally own, please select the 'This is a private computer' option. Otherwise, select the 'This is a public computer' option for public computers, or computers that you do not personally own. You will then need to enter your User ID (Active Directory logon) and click 'Submit' to access the system. If you experience any issues or difficulties, please contact the IT Service Desk at +1(866)450-5250 or email them at itservicedesk@gsa.gov

   2460. Larvell B Posted: December 17, 2017 at 02:31 PM (#5594029)
Shipman, you literally have zero clue what you're talking about and everything you've regurgitated is irrelevant.
   2461. Hot Wheeling American in his sleazy salon Posted: December 17, 2017 at 02:34 PM (#5594030)
There must be some kind of audience backlash, or maybe a smallish group of people has flooded the reviews. Perusing the internet now it looks like others (e.g. an article on Forbes) have noticed this as well.

I've been assuming any significant negative numbers are coming from the same cool dudes who tried organizing a boycott of The Force Awakens because of its diverse casting. But I don't know if these figures are from polling live people in the theater, or anonymous online votes.
   2462. tshipman Posted: December 17, 2017 at 02:43 PM (#5594031)
Shipman, you literally have zero clue what you're talking about and everything you've regurgitated is irrelevant.


Here's some relevant cases:
The 3-0 decision Thursday by the Sacramento Third Appellate District means that if you intend to sue your employer, don't discuss the suit with an attorney using company e-mail. The company has a right to access it and use it against you in a court.

"… [T]he e-mails sent via company computer under the circumstances of this case were akin to consulting her lawyer in her employer's conference room, in a loud voice, with the door open, so that any reasonable person would expect that their discussion of her complaints about her employer would be overheard," (.pdf) the court wrote.

Case law on electronic privacy in the workplace is slowly evolving, and not always for the best.

The U.S. Supreme Court in July ruled that a police officer's texts on department pagers were not private. But that ruling was based on grounds other than the Ontario Police Department's policy that said text messages on work pagers were not private.

The New Jersey Supreme Court said e-mail messages on a personal web-based e-mail account accessed from an employer's computer were private. But that decision was contingent on the fact that use of such an account was not clearly covered by the company's policy, and the e-mails in question contained a standard warning that the communications were personal, confidential, attorney-client communications.



Attorney/Client privilege is not an absolute.

Again, Robert Mueller is a much better lawyer than you are, and he seems pretty damn sure he's on solid ground. That causes me to significantly discount your (fake) lawyer opinion.
   2463. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 17, 2017 at 02:46 PM (#5594033)
I don't think there's any ability to claim privilege. Mueller doesn't, and he's a better lawyer than you. Just FYI: on every email sent, this footer was attached:

Mueller may be a better lawyer than I was, he has certainly made a lot more money, but I know that even as a non-practicing retiree I am a much better lawyer than tshipman, who has no idea what he's talking about here. That footer quoted in # 2459 has nothing to do with claims of privilege, although the page hosting it doesn't actually say it's attached to every e-mail. That language, and similar language that is typically displayed every time you start-up a federal government computer, means that you can't download your Madeleine Allbright porn collection to your government computer, and claim an unlawful search if it's discovered and you're fired. If there is an otherwise valid claim of privilege, that notice does nothing to defeat it.
   2464. tshipman Posted: December 17, 2017 at 03:00 PM (#5594035)
Mueller may be a better lawyer than I was, he has certainly made a lot more money, but I know that even as a non-practicing retiree I am a much better lawyer than tshipman, who has no idea what he's talking about here. That footer quoted in # 2459 has nothing to do with claims of privilege, although the page hosting it doesn't actually say it's attached to every e-mail. That language, and similar language that is typically displayed every time you start-up a federal government computer, means that you can't download your Madeleine Allbright porn collection to your government computer, and claim an unlawful search if it's discovered and you're fired. If there is an otherwise valid claim of privilege, that notice does nothing to defeat it.


Again, there are people who disagree with you:

Specifically, Loewentritt said, "in using our devices," transition team members were informed that materials "would not be held back in any law enforcement" actions.

Loewentritt read to BuzzFeed News a series of agreements that anyone had to agree to when using GSA materials during the transition, including that there could be monitoring and auditing of devices and that, "Therefore, no expectation of privacy can be assumed."



Perhaps some folks are allowing motivated reasoning to cloud their judgment and make personal attacks on people.
   2465. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 17, 2017 at 03:08 PM (#5594036)
Here's some relevant cases …

Tshipman may need some work on the concept of relevance. There may not be a lot of privileged transition team e-mails, but nothing cited in #2462 would defeat a valid privilege claim.
   2466. tshipman Posted: December 17, 2017 at 03:12 PM (#5594039)
Some posters may need some work on understanding that law enforcement is not obligated to take the most Trump-friendly reading of case law.

Indeed, the GSA owns the accounts and supplies them to the Presidential Transition Team. They are a government agency and the emails are subject to FOIA.

Some posters may need to understand that there is case law on whether or not employees have an expectation of privacy when communicating with lawyers on email they do not own. In fact, disclaimers help establish the lack of an expectation of privacy.

Indeed, some posters might realize that the general counsel for the GSA in fact specifically cited those facts when discussing with the press why the emails were turned over lawfully.

Some posters might owe me an apology.
   2467. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 17, 2017 at 03:20 PM (#5594040)
Again, there are people who disagree with you

Did you even notice that neither Loewentritt nor the language you quoted in #2464 address privilege? You are conflating whether Mueller might generally access transition team e-mails with whether he can access those with a claim of privilege attached.
   2468. tshipman Posted: December 17, 2017 at 03:28 PM (#5594041)
Did you even notice that neither Loewentritt nor the language you quoted in #2464 address privilege? You are conflating whether Mueller might generally access transition team e-mails with whether he can access those with a claim of privilege attached.


You seem to be conflating your fears of the Republican President being indicted of crimes with the law.
   2469. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 17, 2017 at 03:28 PM (#5594042)
Sexual misconduct update - Representative Kihuen Will Not Seek Re-Election:
Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D-Nev.) said Saturday that he will not seek reelection after facing accusations about sexual harassment. Kihuen has been under fire after a former campaign staffer and a Nevada lobbyist both accused Kihuen of sexual harassment while he was a Democratic candidate and during his tenure as a state legislator.
. . .
The Nevada Independent reported Saturday that a 24-year-old woman who worked with Kihuen this fall said he "made unwanted overtures and asked overly personal questions," like "asking if she lived alone and offering to help her move up in her career — something she interpreted as a possible suggestion for sexual favors." Kihuen also denied this accusation in a statement to the Independent.

Ethics Committee is investigating, and it may not be certain that he makes it through 2018. It's a competitive district.
   2470. Larvell B Posted: December 17, 2017 at 03:32 PM (#5594044)
Again, Robert Mueller is a much better lawyer than you are,


No, he's not.

All you're doing is regurgitating things you don't begin to understand, and making bizarre appeals to authority. You're the functional equivalent of the guy on the barstool in Youngstown, though without the humor.
   2471. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 17, 2017 at 03:34 PM (#5594045)
Looks like Chris Mathews is the latest media member with a sexual harassment problem. $40,000 settlement with an assistant producer some years ago.
   2472. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 17, 2017 at 03:49 PM (#5594050)
JBivens, #2450:
This "coup d'etat" talk! ...Here we go.


There's no way Trumpkateers will rally behind anything with French in it.
   2473. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 03:56 PM (#5594052)
Obama told 18 over his entire eight-year tenure.


Lofl.

   2474. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: December 17, 2017 at 04:11 PM (#5594053)
Thank god we have Dancing Monkey #1 here to let us know about every D legislator that gets his wang in a sling. Way to go, Clap.
   2475. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: December 17, 2017 at 04:13 PM (#5594054)
.In general, if you're middle class and you have a straightforward tax return, then your taxes will probably go down by several hundred dollars. If you're middle class and you have a complicated return, then your taxes will probably either stay the same or increase a bit. So it's probably going to be something like: no effect for poor, something like a 65/35 small decrease for the middle class (i.e., 65% get a cut while 35% see no change or small increase),


I just calculated what my 2016 taxes would have been under this new, soon to be passed plan. I get an 8.6% reduction, due almost entirely to the expanded child tax credit, which I will lose in a couple of years. Absent that, my taxes would have gone down 1.6%. Next year will be the only year I get a full tax credit for my daughter, so my 8.6% decrease is good for only 1 year.

   2476. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: December 17, 2017 at 04:14 PM (#5594055)
Speaking of Dancing Monkeys, doesn't STEVE MNUCHIN look like Ray's more intelligent older brother?
   2477. Hot Wheeling American in his sleazy salon Posted: December 17, 2017 at 04:14 PM (#5594056)
@m_breen
If someone told me 5 years ago I’d live to see a coordinated attack on the FBI and defense of Putin & Assange by “conservatives,” I’d have laughed in their face
   2478. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 04:14 PM (#5594057)
If you think it's a vast undercounting of both of them, it might have occurred to you that their cutoff point was slightly higher than yours or Politifact's. But by any standard, Trump's lies are the hands down winner in both quantity and quality, which is the point of the article. You know this, even if the Dancing Monkeys don't, but as I said, you also love to trash the messengers. Maybe in your spare time you can come up with a similar comparison, using the David Nieporent cutoff point, and tell us the proportion of lies you find between Trump and Obama to what either the Times or Politifact has listed.


Andy, a word of perhaps concern-trolly advice: Don't take an issue that is a slam dunk for your side and blunt its impact by giving your ideological opponents an easy target to hit. Yes, Trump lies much more and in much more blatant fact-checky ways than any other politician I can think of. More than Obama. More than than Gore or Kerry. More than either Clinton. (Though Trump can tell a million lies a minute and it wouldn't mean that Hillary isn't a habitual liar, any more than F. Lee Bailey murdering 100 people wouldn't mean that his client OJ Simpson isn't a murderer.) I really don't think a single person worth listening to disputes this. (Some here may not weigh in specifically on the issue -- but they sure as hell don't dispute it.) I've said many times that Trump took their lying liar who lies game and played it a hell of a lot better than they did. It's obvious this is part of his strategy and is part of what sent his ideological opponents straight to TDSjail without passing Go and without collecting $200.

But when you claim that Obama only told 18 lies in 8 years it makes you look like a crazy person and clouds the effectiveness of the point by allowing people to dispute the conclusion and methodology of this "study."
   2479. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 04:19 PM (#5594058)
Looks like Chris Mathews is the latest media member with a sexual harassment problem. $40,000 settlement with an assistant producer some years ago.


Very much not a good look for yet another person who has self-claimed the moral high ground.
   2480. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 17, 2017 at 04:34 PM (#5594060)
Reportedly the Matthews story was about making "inappropriate, juvenile" jokes about the woman in front of her co-workers. No handsy groinsy activity. And MSNBC disputes the size of the already not big settlement. Unlike Matthews' massive melon head, this revelation could easily blow over.

Except for lapsing into the usual TDS diarrhea, Ray's #2478 is completely correct on all points.
   2481. Greg K Posted: December 17, 2017 at 04:36 PM (#5594061)
I always get Chris Matthews confused with the widely respected journalist who was a fan of the Bills and died a few years ago.

At least I'm assuming I've got them confused if Chris Matthews is still alive. Which is the one I'm thinking of?

   2482. baravelli Posted: December 17, 2017 at 04:43 PM (#5594062)
You're thinking of Tim Russert, who used to host "Meet the Press."
   2483. DavidFoss Posted: December 17, 2017 at 04:57 PM (#5594064)
Happy Birthday Chris Matthews!

Lots of people know about the times he was caught ogling people (Erin Burnett, Melania Trump) on live TV. It took all of five minutes for those videos to resurface after the news broke last night.

We'll see if there's more accusations.
   2484. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 05:10 PM (#5594065)
As linked to from Dershowitz's twitter feed:

Dershowitz, who has been quite critical of the Russia probe, said that one of the “new developments” is that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “should recuse himself,” claiming it’s because Rosenstein “is a witness.”

“If there’s any investigation into obstruction of justice for firing [former FBI Director James] Comey — and there shouldn’t be, that’s a constitutionally protected act — but if that is part of the investigation, then Rosenstein is a key witness,” the attorney declared. “He wrote the crucial memo.”
   2485. Greg K Posted: December 17, 2017 at 05:14 PM (#5594066)
You're thinking of Tim Russert, who used to host "Meet the Press."

That's the one!

Chris Matthews is the yelly guy. I got it now.
   2486. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 05:16 PM (#5594067)
Yeah, Matthews is the one who merely made "inappropriate, juvenile" jokes about a woman in front of her co-workers felt a tingle run down his leg when Obama was elected and then pissed his pants when Trump was.

In both cases his pants ended up wet. But at least no female coworkers were humiliated by it.
   2487. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2017 at 05:22 PM (#5594068)
Andy, a word of perhaps concern-trolly advice: Don't take an issue that is a slam dunk for your side and blunt its impact by giving your ideological opponents an easy target to hit. Yes, Trump lies much more and in much more blatant fact-checky ways than any other politician I can think of. More than Obama. More than than Gore or Kerry. More than either Clinton. (Though Trump can tell a million lies a minute and it wouldn't mean that Hillary isn't a habitual liar, any more than F. Lee Bailey murdering 100 people wouldn't mean that his client OJ Simpson isn't a murderer.) I really don't think a single person worth listening to disputes this. (Some here may not weigh in specifically on the issue -- but they sure as hell don't dispute it.) I've said many times that Trump took their lying liar who lies game and played it a hell of a lot better than they did. It's obvious this is part of his strategy and is part of what sent his ideological opponents straight to TDSjail without passing Go and without collecting $200.

Except for lapsing into the usual TDS diarrhea, Ray's #2478 is completely correct on all points.


Ray (and Gonfalon), this is nothing but classic spin. Obviously all politicians lie to some extent, but the point of the article is not only the breathtakingly disproportionate number of lies that Trump has told compared to all of his predecessors, but even more important, his inevitable reaction when his lies are exposed, a distinction that the article spells out quite concisely:
Trump is different. When he is caught lying, he will often try to discredit people telling the truth, be they judges, scientists, F.B.I. or C.I.A. officials, journalists or members of Congress. Trump is trying to make truth irrelevant. It is extremely damaging to democracy, and it’s not an accident. It’s core to his political strategy....

And people like you (in this case, not Gonfalon) are part of the problem, with your pathetic and serial attempts to magnify other politicians lies to the point where they effectively cancel out Trump's and enable you to throw up your hands and say "they're all alike". If you ever were to acknowledge this, which you're intellectually incapable of doing, you wouldn't have retreated into your I'm Above It All stance when it came to last year's election. This is what distinguishes you from David, and it's what distinguishes honest conservatives like Gerson and Brooks from Trump's dancing monkeys on Fox News and talk radio. You freely acknowledge Trump's serial lying, but you refuse to draw any conclusion from that acknowledgement, other that his lying is part of his political genius!

But when you claim that Obama only told 18 lies in 8 years it makes you look like a crazy person and clouds the effectiveness of the point by allowing people to dispute the conclusion and methodology of this "study."

Hmmmm, I suppose if I were you, I'd reply by saying I was merely passing on the information without endorsing it. But as I responded in #2445, while the method of tabulation is bound to be subjective, which can lead to undercounting the raw numbers for everyone, the point is not only the disproportionality of Trump's lying compared to Obama (and Bush), but the 180 degree difference with how they react to the corrections. All politicians may lie, but there's never been a president with such a complete contempt for the entire concept of the truth.
   2488. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2017 at 05:33 PM (#5594070)
Ray (and Gonfalon), this is nothing but classic spin. Obviously all politicians lie to some extent,


Not Obama, according to the ridiculous "study" you cited. 18 lies in 8 years. George Washington lied to his mother more often.

but the point of the article is not only the breathtakingly disproportionate number of lies that Trump has told compared to all of his predecessors, but even more important, his inevitable reaction when his lies are exposed, a distinction that the article spells out quite concisely:


As opposed to Obama, who, after each of the 18 times he lied, said "You got me. I lied about that."

This is what distinguishes you from David, and it's what distinguishes honest conservatives like Gerson and Brooks


"Thanks, Alex. Who are, People Who Agree With Me."

from Trump's dancing monkeys on Fox News and talk radio. You freely acknowledge Trump's serial lying, but you refuse to draw any conclusion from that acknowledgement, other that his lying is part of his political genius!


What conclusion would you like me to draw? He lies. That's the conclusion.
   2489. Greg K Posted: December 17, 2017 at 05:36 PM (#5594071)

In both cases his pants ended up wet. But at least no female coworkers were humiliated by it.

There's a Rabelais joke that I recall reading in one of Robertson Davies' novels about that.

It went something like:
Q: Why do women piss themselves in their clothes?
A: To keep themselves cool.

It always stuck with me, though I've never been able to track down the actual quote (either in the novel, or in Rabelais' stuff). It's been 15 years or so at this point and I'm starting to think I dreamt the whole thing up. Which would make a certain kind of sense as one of the reasons its stuck with me is that I don't entirely get it.

EDIT: It may have been "to keep their thighs cool". Which sounds a bit more like Rabelais.
   2490. DavidFoss Posted: December 17, 2017 at 05:57 PM (#5594077)
As opposed to Obama, who, after each of the 18 times he lied, said "You got me. I lied about that."

Not to that extreme.

The authors of that article were on a show last week. The example they used was George W. Bush. They said that when something W said was fact-checked, his team wouldn't always admit the mistake, but they'd at least have him stop repeating the lie. They'd change the wording to be more accurate or whatever.

Trump just doubles down. If you don't believe his lie, you are partisan or have TDS.

That's your thing. You think that Trump gets to choose his own facts. Fact-checkers are all partisan hacks who are out to smear him. It makes for entertaining campaigns but it's harder to actually govern the country this way.
   2491. Count Posted: December 17, 2017 at 06:16 PM (#5594083)
The article also tried to limit it to "distinct" lies that weren't repeated. It doesn't strike me as a particularly effective method but one of the critiques here doesn't really apply.
   2492. Count Posted: December 17, 2017 at 06:21 PM (#5594084)
Are there other examples of privilege claims over government emails during a transition? I'm not sure how this shakes out under a normal privilege analysis. I don't know if analogizing to a company (where the privilege belongs to the company) makes sense. As far as I know the Trump people haven't pointed to specific emails or examples or produced any sort of privilege log (surely there are some junior associates who would be excited to work on that task).
   2493. Swoboda is freedom Posted: December 17, 2017 at 06:29 PM (#5594085)
You're thinking of Tim Russert, who used to host "Meet the Press."

Tim Russert- good journalist.
Chris Matthews- yells alot.
   2494. tshipman Posted: December 17, 2017 at 06:38 PM (#5594086)
Are there other examples of privilege claims over government emails during a transition? I'm not sure how this shakes out under a normal privilege analysis. I don't know if analogizing to a company (where the privilege belongs to the company) makes sense. As far as I know the Trump people haven't pointed to specific emails or examples or produced any sort of privilege log (surely there are some junior associates who would be excited to work on that task).


Here's a good rundown article from WaPo:

The Trump transition alleges that the handover was done by “career staff at the General Services Administration” and suggested that those employees may have had political motives.

But some legal experts challenged Langhofer’s charge that anything improper occurred.

Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor who teaches white collar crime at George Washington University Law School, said it was not at all surprising that Mueller’s team sought Trump transition emails. “It would be almost prosecutorial misconduct for them not to,” he said. He said it was also not surprising that Mueller would ask GSA for emails sent using government accounts.

“It’s not your personal email. If it ends in .gov, you don’t have any expectation of privacy,” he said.

But he said if Trump’s team had a valid legal claim, there is a standard avenue to pursue — they would file a sealed motion to the judge supervising the grand jury and ask the judge to rule the emails were improperly seized and provide a remedy, like requiring Mueller’s team to return the emails or excluding their use in the investigation.

“You go to the judge and complain,” he said. “You don’t issue a press release or go to Congress. It appears from the outside that this is part of a pattern of trying to undermine Mueller’s investigation.”

Eliason said he could think of “no apparent privilege” that would apply to emails sent between private citizens who have not yet joined the government, as Trump’s team suggested.

   2495. McCoy Posted: December 17, 2017 at 07:15 PM (#5594097)
Was in LA for the weekend. Flew back today. Got to about the Georgia border when they informed us that the power was out at the airport. Diverted us to Memphis. We quickly grabbed a rental and are driving to Atlanta. Our flight has been delayed until 7am. Outside of tupelo now, about 4 hours to go.
   2496. BDC Posted: December 17, 2017 at 07:33 PM (#5594110)
Safe trip, McCoy. Also watch the ####### road and stop looking at your phone every time there's a notification from BBTF:OTP :)
   2497. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2017 at 07:39 PM (#5594112)
from Trump's dancing monkeys on Fox News and talk radio. You freely acknowledge Trump's serial lying, but you refuse to draw any conclusion from that acknowledgement, other that his lying is part of his political genius!

What conclusion would you like me to draw? He lies. That's the conclusion.


Try David's conclusion instead: If you were in a swing state, you should've voted for Clinton. And if you're not, at least acknowledge that that's the only option if you were in such a state, at least if you mean what you say about Trump.

Any other alternative simply means you don't take Trump's contempt for the truth seriously. You're saying "I know Trump is a world class liar on a scale that no previous president has been----BUT SO WHAT?"

Or to put it in RayWords: You just don't care.
   2498. dlf Posted: December 17, 2017 at 07:45 PM (#5594113)
Was in LA for the weekend. Flew back today. Got to about the Georgia border when they informed us that the power was out at the airport. Diverted us to Memphis. We quickly grabbed a rental and are driving to Atlanta. Our flight has been delayed until 7am. Outside of tupelo now, about 4 hours to go.


Lots of construction on I20 right at the AL-GA border. Driving through there yesterday they had speed traps on the GA side of the line through the construction area.
   2499. DavidFoss Posted: December 17, 2017 at 07:47 PM (#5594114)
Outside of tupelo now

The brand new I-22. I like new highways.
   2500. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: December 17, 2017 at 07:50 PM (#5594116)
Ray's "I don't care" directly translates to "What, me worry?".
Page 25 of 27 pages ‹ First  < 23 24 25 26 27 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThat's my secret, Captain. I'm always OMNICHATTER, for April 26, 2018
(98 - 7:08pm, Apr 26)
Last: AT-AT at bat@AT&T

NewsblogOT - 2017 NFL thread
(2119 - 7:05pm, Apr 26)
Last: f_cking sick and tired of being 57i66135

NewsblogOTP 2018 Apr 23: The Dominant-Sport Theory of American Politics
(1000 - 7:04pm, Apr 26)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogJung Ho Kang Receives Visa, Set To Rejoin Pirates
(3 - 6:53pm, Apr 26)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April - June 2018)
(461 - 6:53pm, Apr 26)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogOT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition)
(2808 - 6:50pm, Apr 26)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

NewsblogTampa Bay Rays promote LHP Jonny Venters
(13 - 6:23pm, Apr 26)
Last: Leroy Kincaid

NewsblogBrewers first baseman Eric Thames goes on DL with torn thumb ligament
(18 - 5:57pm, Apr 26)
Last: Hank G.

NewsblogRaissman: Mike Francesa returning to WFAN in the 3 pm - 7 pm time slot, sources tell News
(113 - 5:52pm, Apr 26)
Last: Swoboda is freedom

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(1649 - 5:51pm, Apr 26)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogRonald Acuna hits first homer | MLB.com
(7 - 5:31pm, Apr 26)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Marlins voting thread
(19 - 4:56pm, Apr 26)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogRonald Acuna being called up by Braves | MLB.com
(56 - 4:43pm, Apr 26)
Last: Hank G.

NewsblogPujols' Age Revisted
(90 - 4:17pm, Apr 26)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogThe Greatest Season That Never Was
(27 - 3:49pm, Apr 26)
Last: SoSH U at work

Page rendered in 0.6823 seconds
47 querie(s) executed