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, July 17, 2017

OTP 17 July 2017: Love is baseball, family. Keep the politics out

This is baseball, and it’s our cocoon, our special time together, protected from the harder realities of life. Here, the sun is always shining, even if it rains.

If you don’t understand that, you’ve probably never lifted a child up over your head to watch adults scramble after a ball or circle the bases after crushing a home run. Or maybe you’ve never slid head first into a mud puddle without a care of how you would get past your mom and into the laundry room. Maybe you’ve never sat for hours on a rickety old bus with ice on your ankle, sprained from sliding into home, but smiling because you were safe.

Maybe you should have; if not, maybe you should try now. You are never not welcome to go sit in the bleachers and cheer on the players at a youth game, even if you cheer for both sides. Leagues always need volunteers. I coached for 35 years after playing, so I know.

(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: July 17, 2017 at 08:54 AM | 3063 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball, ffs, 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 1 of 31 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: July 17, 2017 at 09:46 AM (#5494535)
Bob Gabordi - snowflake.
   2. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 17, 2017 at 09:46 AM (#5494536)
44 years ago this week from columnist Art Buchwald, July 12 1973:
Here are handy excuses for Nixon backers
WASHINGTON --- These are difficult times for people who are defending the Nixon Administration. No matter where they go they are attacked by pseudo-liberals, McGovern lovers, heterosexual constitutionalists, and paranoid John Dean believers.

As a public service, I am printing instant responses for loyal Nixonites when they are attacked at a party. Please cut it out and carry it in your pocket.

1— Everyone does it
2— What about Chappaquiddick?
3— A President can't keep track of EVERYTHING his staff does.
4— The press is blowing the whole thing up.
5— Whatever Nixon did was for national security.
6— The Democrats are sore because they lost the election.
7— Are you going to believe a rat like John Dean or the President of the United States?
8— Wait till ALL the facts come out.
9— What about Chappaquiddick?
10— If you impeach Nixon, you get Agnew.
11— The only thing wrong with Watergate is they got caught.
12— What about Daniel Ellsburg stealing the Pentagon Papers?
13— It happens in Europe all the time.
14— People would be against Nixon no matter what he did.
15— I’d rather have a crook in the White House than a fool.
16— LBJ used to read FBI reports every night.
17— What’s the big deal about finding out what your opposition is up to?
18— The president was too busy running the country to know what was going on.
19— What about Chappaquiddick?
20— People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
21— McGovern would have lost anyway.
22— Maybe the Committee for the Re-Election of the President when a little too far, but they were just a bunch of eager kids.
23— I’m not for breaking the law, but sometimes you have to do it to save the country.
24— Nixon made a mistake, he's only human.
25— Do you realize what Watergate is doing to the dollar abroad?
26— What about Harry Truman and the deep freeze scandal?
27— Franklin D. Roosevelt did a lot of worse things.
28— I’m sick and tired of hearing about Watergate and so is everyone else.
29— This thing should be tried in the courts and not on television.
30— When Nixon gives his explanation of what happened there are going to be a lot of people in this country with egg on their faces.
31— My country right or wrong.
32— What about Chappaquiddick?
33— I think the people who make all this fuss about Watergate should be shot.
34— If the Democrats had the money they would have done the same thing.
35— I never trusted Haldeman and Ehrlichman to start with.
36— If you say one more word about Watergate I'll punch you in the nose.
A --- If the person is bigger than you: "If you say one more word about Watergate I'm leaving this house."
B --- If it's your own house and the person is bigger than you: "What about Chappaquiddick?”
   3. BDC Posted: July 17, 2017 at 10:18 AM (#5494541)
From the department of Unsure Whether I Should Be Outraged (Ft. Worth Star-Telegram):

When the special legislative session starts Tuesday, taxpayers will pay at least $34,580 for every day lawmakers work.

And that’s just to cover the per diem that each legislator will receive, said RJ DeSilva, a spokesman for the Legislative Budget Board.


Since there are 181 legislators, that works out to not quite $200 per diem. Legislative salary in Texas is $7,200 a year (you read that right), so that per diem is fairly essential to cover staying in Austin during a session. Seems $34,580 per day is pretty cheap to pay a legislature for a state the size of most sovereign nations.

OTOH, here's what we're getting for our $34K/day:

Gov. Greg Abbott has chosen 20 bills for lawmakers to consider, ranging from tree ordinances to determining where transgender Texans may use the restroom.




   4. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2017 at 10:32 AM (#5494543)
From the previous thread:

Or again, is it that you [Yankee Clapper] don't think that the description of "enemy foreign power" applies to Russia?

The applicable statute covers all foreign nationals, without any distinction as to whether the foreign national owes allegiance to friend or foe, which, of course, is another reason that it would be absurd to strain to interpret the statute to cover mere receipt - or even "attempted receipt" - of negative information on a political opponent. Apparently Andy agrees with this assessment, so he wants to raise other points, but that wasn't what I was responding to.

You're not Trump's lawyer any more than Ray is. You're just a private citizen posting comments on a baseball site. You're allowed to express non-legal opinions.

Andy simply wants to know whether you considered that meeting between Trump campaign officials and the Russians morally appropriate. Just answer the question.
   5. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 17, 2017 at 10:41 AM (#5494544)
Clapper, #1380/1393 of previous thread:
If people will stop claiming that mere receipt of negative information about a political opponent from a foreign national is a criminal act, I will stop pointing out that is almost certainly incorrect, and that it takes an extremely strained interpretation of the applicable statutes to reach such a result…. The applicable statute covers all foreign nationals, without any distinction as to whether the foreign national owes allegiance to friend or foe, which, of course, is another reason that it would be absurd to strain to interpret the statute to cover mere receipt - or even "attempted receipt" - of negative information on a political opponent. Apparently Andy agrees with this assessment, so he wants to raise other points, but that wasn't what I was responding to.


Alas, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVnQKFs8ykc&t=0m1s


---------


Jess and Joe, #1332 and #1333 of previous thread:
At the very least, this information is being doled out in bits and pieces to keep the Russia ball rolling indefinitely.

Either that or Mueller's investigation will be slow and thorough, as advertised from the beginning. You twat.



The Watergate scandal didn't really gain traction until 9-10 months after the DNC break-in. The revelation of the tapes and Nixon's refusal to release them came more than a year afterwards, the "Saturday Night Massacre" and "I am not a crook" were 16-17 months after, impeachment hearings began nearly 2 years after, and no one was convicted until 2 1/2 years after what they'd done. Using the Daniel Ellsberg break-in as the starting gate adds another 9 months to each of these totals.

The Iran-Contra crimes weren't revealed until nearly a year after the plot began, Reagan acknowledged them 16 months after it (following an initial denial and a 3-month period of silence), it was more than a year and a half before Oliver North's testimony, Robert MacFarlane pled guilty two and a half years after, Caspar Weinberger wasn't indicted until six years had passed, and both men were among those pardoned by GHW Bush more than seven years after the original arms sales.

Something to chew over the next fifty times you see someone wailing in cable news exasperation, "After all these months, they've found nothing!"


------------


This A+ line belongs to a Facebook user named Matthew Wynn: "A rapist is hiding in the Bushes"
   6. Greg K Posted: July 17, 2017 at 10:50 AM (#5494548)
Gov. Greg Abbott has chosen 20 bills for lawmakers to consider, ranging from tree ordinances to determining where transgender Texans may use the restroom.

Is that like, firing trees out of a cannon? Because I could get behind that.
   7. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: July 17, 2017 at 10:52 AM (#5494551)
Something to chew over the next fifty times you see someone wailing in cable news exasperation, "After all these months, they've found nothing!"


When they redefine "nothing" every day, it does become somewhat quixotic.
   8. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 11:17 AM (#5494559)
Or again, is it that you [Yankee Clapper] don't think that the description of "enemy foreign power" applies to Russia?

The applicable statute covers all foreign nationals, without any distinction as to whether the foreign national owes allegiance to friend or foe, which, of course, is another reason that it would be absurd to strain to interpret the statute to cover mere receipt - or even "attempted receipt" - of negative information on a political opponent. Apparently Andy agrees with this assessment, so he wants to raise other points, but that wasn't what I was responding to.

You're not Trump's lawyer any more than Ray is. You're just a private citizen posting comments on a baseball site. You're allowed to express non-legal opinions.

Andy simply wants to know whether you considered that meeting between Trump campaign officials and the Russians morally appropriate. Just answer the question.


Of course it's morally appropriate.

And once more: one might perhaps have an extremely expansive interpretation of the relevant statutes to deem "or anything of value" in the context of the statutes to cover oppo research. It would be an uphill battle to convince a court of that and it would lead to a cartoonish result, but, yes, one might interpret the statute that broadly. But there is NO interpretation of the statute that would distinguish between foreign nationals of an "enemy foreign power" vs a "non-enemy foreign power." That legal argument is frivolous.

Again: "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." That's all that's going on here. And it's quite... immoral.

   9. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 11:20 AM (#5494561)
If people will stop claiming that mere receipt of negative information about a political opponent from a foreign national is a criminal act, I will stop pointing out that is almost certainly incorrect, and that it takes an extremely strained interpretation of the applicable statutes to reach such a result.

Who's claiming that?


Who's claiming that?

The voices in his head. It's huckster spin job bullshit 101. When the world continually presents you the indefensible from "your team," make up #### that you can "defend" and pretend that's what people are talking about instead.


Sorry, but no. People here have been claiming that being eager to receive oppo research from a foreign national and meeting with the same for that purpose is a criminal act. TShipman, for one, and others.
   10. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: July 17, 2017 at 11:20 AM (#5494562)
It's morally appropriate for Trump and company to do whatever they with whomever they want for purposes of political gain, but it's wholly immoral for anyone else to attack or otherwise seek their expulsion based on such actions.

That's pretty much the Trumpkin view on all matters in a nutshell.
   11. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 11:23 AM (#5494563)
When they redefine "nothing" every day, it does become somewhat quixotic.


Or idiotic. Clapper's post from the other thread bears repeating as a great example of this idiocy:

1344. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 16, 2017 at 02:41 PM (#5494335)

It does seem that we are a long way from "the Russians hacked the election" when we end up with "Don, Jr. took a meeting, nothing happened".
   12. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 11:24 AM (#5494564)
Of course it's morally appropriate.


...because someone called him Hitler.
   13. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 11:35 AM (#5494570)
Ray seems deeply confused about the difference between technically legal* and morally appropriate. Clapper does too. I suspect most Trumpkins now share this confusion, which will only last until a Democratic politician** is the topic, then morals, optics, appropriate and all those other fun terms will magically resurface, rising again like the Phoenix. It will be another resurrection story.

* I am not saying everything done WAS legal necessarily, but that is the story they are going with for now.
** Well OK, any liberal anywhere from any point in time, as necessary to construct a defense for some GOP action or attack a Liberal somewhere in the universe for something.
   14. dog poop god (SS) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 11:40 AM (#5494572)
Mueller's investigation will be slow and thorough,

The problem's not the investigation -- read the circa link last page -- but the leaks emanating from it that work against investigation free from political influence.

I'm willing to go with Mueller's findings/conclusions. I won't be surprised at indictments for obstruction in one shape or another, a Comey specialty that's a hole card in any investigation. But I doubt he'll uncover any Russians under the covers.
   15. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM (#5494574)
Of course it's morally appropriate.

...because someone called him Hitler.

And just think of the agony poor little Barron Trump must have gone through when he logged onto his favorite baseball site, and saw David referring to the only father he's ever had as "ClownHitler". It was a traumatic experience that I doubt he'll ever recover from.
   16. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2017 at 11:50 AM (#5494580)
Ray seems deeply confused about the difference between technically legal* and morally appropriate. Clapper does too.

Let's just say that Ray and Clapper have made situational morality into an art form, reminiscent of Jackson Pollack's method of painting.
   17. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 11:50 AM (#5494581)
Of course it's morally appropriate.

...because someone called him Hitler.


Having nothing to do with someone calling Hitler, but nice strawman. Having everything to do with it being morally appropriate. It's legal, everyone has always known that campaigns will seek out dirt on political opponents from absolutely anywhere, there's been no showing that campaigns haven't consistently engaged in this type of conduct for a great many years, whether foreign nationals of enemy powers or non-enemy powers, there's the Hillary campaign's alleged ties to the Ukraine, and it would be immoral NOT to take a meeting with someone who you think has relevant and important information about someone running for President of the United States.
   18. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM (#5494591)
Having everything to do with it being morally appropriate. It's legal, everyone has always known that campaigns will seek out dirt on political opponents from absolutely anywhere,


I'm almost afraid to ask, but it might be good to put Ray on the record to see how far he's willing to go to defend this morally bankrupt President. Would it have been morally appropriate for Thomas Dewey to meet with agents of Nazi Germany in 1944 for the purpose of getting dirt on FDR? Would it have been morally appropriate for George McgGovern to meet with agents of South Vietnam in 1972 for the purpose of getting dirt on Nixon? Would it have been morally appropriate for George McClellan to meet with agents of the CSA in 1864 for the purpose of getting dirt on Lincoln?

And please note I am not equating Russia today with Germany in 1944, but merely exploring if there is any limit that you would find not to be OK, and then we can discuss where that line is and why it is there but not here.
   19. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM (#5494592)
Ray seems deeply confused about the difference between technically legal* and morally appropriate.


I'm not, and it's amusing that the TDSers can't even wrap their minds around someone not signing on to their derangement, to the point where they assume that the person not operating in the throes of derangement must be "confused."

You can call me immoral for not believing your craziness; it would be a silly conclusion, but at least it's a conclusion that aligns with the fact that I don't find anything immoral about meeting with an enemy foreign power in the hopes of obtaining oppo research on a candidate for U.S. president. In fact as I've argued it's the only moral thing to do. How morally bankrupt to decline information that you think would be relevant and important to the US election.

   20. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:10 PM (#5494594)
Once again, it bears repeating, and we're about at the end of transitioning from stage 3 to stage 4:

The 5 stages of Trumpism

1. It never happened. Fake News!

2. OK, it happened, but it's not a big deal.

3. OK, it was a big deal, but it's not illegal.

4. OK, it was illegal, but Hilary something something Obama something.

5. You lost! Get over it, you sore loser/snowflake/libturd/cuck/beta-male!
   21. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:12 PM (#5494598)
Massive majority of Americans say Trump is 'unpresidential' and his tweets are insulting as his approval rating hits a historic 70-year low

* President Donald Trump is facing a crushing set of new poll numbers
* More than half of Americans say they like him less as they learn more about him
* Overall approval rating in ABC News-Washington post poll is just 36 per cent
* But more than 4 in 5 Republicans still approve of his job performance


A new SEVENTY YEAR LOW of 36 percent! I understand that if his "approval rating" falls below 30 percent Hillary takes over. So the TDSers do need to watch this number carefully. Very carefully. I can see why they can't look away.
   22. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:15 PM (#5494599)
Having nothing to do with someone calling Hitler, but nice strawman. Having everything to do with it being morally appropriate. It's legal, everyone has always known that campaigns will seek out dirt on political opponents from absolutely anywhere, there's been no showing that campaigns haven't consistently engaged in this type of conduct for a great many years, whether foreign nationals of enemy powers or non-enemy powers, there's the Hillary campaign's alleged ties to the Ukraine, and it would be immoral NOT to take a meeting with someone who you think has relevant and important information about someone running for President of the United States.

It would be immoral for Nazi doctors NOT to perform brutal, torturous experiments on helpless subjects for the greater benefit of mankind.
   23. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:17 PM (#5494600)
A new SEVENTY YEAR LOW of 36 percent! I understand that if his "approval rating" falls below 30 percent Hillary takes over. So the TDSers do need to watch this number carefully. Very carefully.


A couple more items to the list of things Ray is confused about - like Presidential approval.

Note: Has everyone noticed the only people who bring up Hillary are Trumpkins (and well, Trump). Pretty amazing.
   24. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:17 PM (#5494601)
A new SEVENTY YEAR LOW of 36 percent! I understand that if his "approval rating" falls below 30 percent Hillary takes over. So the TDSers do need to watch this number carefully. Very carefully. I can see why they can't look away.

Reading this post directly after point 5 of post 20 is epically hilarious.
   25. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5494603)
it would be immoral NOT to take a meeting with someone who you think has relevant and important information about someone running for President of the United States.


Ray, you really, truly, don't seem to understand the basic concepts of morality. Really at all. I doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
   26. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5494604)
Ray seems deeply confused about the difference between technically legal* and morally appropriate. Clapper does too. I suspect most Trumpkins now share this confusion


You can summarize pretty much every Ray and/or Clapper post at this juncture by replacing their entire output with "there's no there, there!" or "it really depends on what the definition of "is" is..."
   27. simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:25 PM (#5494606)
Gov. Greg Abbott has chosen 20 bills for lawmakers to consider, ranging from tree ordinances to determining where transgender Texans may use the restroom.

Is that like, firing trees out of a cannon? Because I could get behind that.


Ummmm ... are "ordinances" & "ordnances" synonyms in Canadaspeak?
   28. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:26 PM (#5494609)
A new SEVENTY YEAR LOW of 36 percent! I understand that if his "approval rating" falls below 30 percent Hillary takes over. So the TDSers do need to watch this number carefully. Very carefully. I can see why they can't look away.


Awwww... snowflakes reduced to scattered flurries.
   29. dog poop god (SS) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:27 PM (#5494610)
The 5 stages of Anti-Trumpism

1. Russia!

2. Treason!

3. Impeachment!

4. Outrage!

5. Look at his terrible poll numbers...
   30. simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:28 PM (#5494611)

Ray, you really, truly, don't seem to understand the basic concepts of morality. Really at all.


It's almost as if he's ...

Oh. Wait. We're not supposed to say that.
   31. dog poop god (SS) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:30 PM (#5494613)
It would be immoral for Nazi doctors NOT to perform brutal, torturous experiments on helpless subjects for the greater benefit of mankind.


Brutal, torturous analogy.
   32. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:33 PM (#5494616)
Brutal, torturous analogy.


Such things are to be expected when enough people choose a brutal, torturous anus for President.
   33. dog poop god (SS) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:34 PM (#5494617)
A new SEVENTY YEAR LOW of 36 percent!


Average
   34. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:34 PM (#5494618)
Brutal, torturous analogy.


Perhaps. How about addressing #18?
   35. dog poop god (SS) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:37 PM (#5494619)
   36. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:40 PM (#5494622)

Average


Good Lord! Talk about lies, damned lies, and statistics. Imagine if he started at -80 and was now -79? He'd be the most popular President in his first 175 days ever! Or something.
   37. dog poop god (SS) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:40 PM (#5494623)
How about addressing #18?

At war in all three hypotheticals.

Also, North Vietnam.
   38. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:43 PM (#5494625)
Loons slow to desert big loon they elected to be loony.

Film at 11.
   39. dog poop god (SS) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:46 PM (#5494627)
Studying the Nixon-Kissinger White House should be first stop on the amoral train.

The Blood Telegram

Britain did leave us quite the imperialist mess, with an assist to France in SE Asia.

   40. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:47 PM (#5494628)
At war in all three hypotheticals.

Also, North Vietnam.


Yeah, North Vietnam obviously.

So, war. Is that your bright line? Does it have to be a declared war? Because Vietnam wasn't. Would it have been OK for McGovern to meet with Soviet or Chinese agents? Would it have been OK for Trump to meet with Syrian, Taliban, or ISIS agents? Would it have been OK for Mondale to meet with Libyan or Sandinista agents? Dukakis to meet with Iranian agents? Bill Clinton to meet with Iraqi agents?
   41. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:50 PM (#5494633)
Oh, Perros is on the blood-on-our-hands tip again?

I'm sure he'll enjoy reading this, then....
   42. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:51 PM (#5494634)
You can call me immoral
No, you've shown yourself to be completely amoral.
   43. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM (#5494636)
A new SEVENTY YEAR LOW of 36 percent!

Average
1. As my dear departed father used to say, "It's tough to fall out of bed when you sleep on the floor".

2. It's only "average" if you count the guy who pardoned Nixon (-74); so, yay he hasn't dropped as far as Ford?
   44. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:54 PM (#5494638)
No, you've shown yourself to be completely amoral.


Hey now. Taxes = slavery is a kind of morality.
   45. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 12:58 PM (#5494640)
A circle jerk by the TDSers, mocking those whose opinions differ from theirs. I know I'm shocked.
   46. Hot Wheeling American Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:00 PM (#5494642)
Do you not mock the opinions of others?
   47. Greg K Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:00 PM (#5494644)
Ummmm ... are "ordinances" & "ordnances" synonyms in Canadaspeak?

One can dream.
   48. dog poop god (SS) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:01 PM (#5494645)
Underlying these analogies lies a
desperate desire for war with Russia
.

But that's our defining bloodlust as a nation, Democrats and Republicans alike.

You who support the murder of children, spare me your moral outrage over Junior's tete-a-tete with a Russian lawyer.
   49. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:01 PM (#5494646)
A circle jerk by the TDSers, mocking those whose opinions differ from theirs. I know I'm shocked.
Do we once again need to list all of the things you've called those who disagree with you?
   50. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:01 PM (#5494647)
Do you not mock the opinions of others?


It depends on the definition of "circle jerk" and "TDS", I guess...
   51. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:03 PM (#5494648)
Do you not mock the opinions of others?

It depends on the definition of "circle jerk" and "TDS", I guess...

And more to the point, he is being mocked, not for a difference in opinion. But for the clear and obvious lack of understanding of the basic concept of morality.

You get mocked if you make a really vapid and stupid argument. Pretty much no matter what your opinion is.
   52. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:05 PM (#5494649)
A circle jerk by the TDSers, mocking those whose opinions differ from theirs. I know I'm shocked.


So, no interest in #18? I will take your silence in addition to inferences from your other posts, that it's all good.
   53. dog poop god (SS) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:07 PM (#5494652)
the blood-on-our-hands tip again?


You cannot accept that a lot of bad stuff is American, so lather, rinse, repeat. Over and over and over again.

Out, damned spot! Out, I say!—One, two. Why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky!—Fie, my lord, fie! A soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?
   54. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:08 PM (#5494654)
And more to the point, he is being mocked, not for a difference in opinion. But for the clear and obvious lack of understanding of the basic concept of morality.


My argument that it's moral is at least the following:

1. It's legal.
2. Everyone has always known that campaigns will seek out dirt on political opponents from absolutely anywhere.
3. There's been no showing that campaigns haven't consistently engaged in this type of conduct for a great many years, whether foreign nationals of enemy powers or non-enemy powers.
4. There's the Hillary campaign's alleged ties to the Ukraine -- which to be clear I think are perfectly fine even if true and perfectly moral, which is part of why Don Jr's meeting was perfectly fine and moral.
5. It would be immoral _not_ to take a meeting with someone who you think has relevant and important information about
someone running for President of the United States.

What's your argument that it's immoral? Then we can compare.

   55. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:10 PM (#5494656)
I actually think it is telling his decline has been average since becoming President. It shows a couple interesting things about Trump.

First of all despite winning and surprising everyone, Trump is not immune to the typical "rules" of politics. For a while many (no me, but others) thought because of his ability to behave as he did during the campaign and still win nomination and then the presidency he had found a magic formula to avoid normal politics and their consequences. A normal drop shows that is bunk. His campaign was abnormal, but so far his presidency (at least in terms of how Presidential popularity function) has been fairly normal (or worse, see below).

Second, even a normal drop is not nearly as good as it might appear. There are two generic forces that act on Presidential popularity. First (as discussed) it tends to drop after being elected. The reasons for that are pretty obvious. However the other force is the regression to the mean (which was also mentioned in the 538 article). Popular presidents tend to drop in popularity and unpopular presidents tend to rebound. Again this should be pretty obvious as to why. But relatively unpopular Trump did not rebound after being elected, much if at all, but instead continued his slide down. For someone with the starting point of Trump, a "normal" drop in popularity is a really bad sign, not a good one.

Finally, always remember that all this is happening in context. The US economy continues to chug along, there have been no real external crises either foreign or domestic, and finally He and his party control the Federal Government. Ignoring self inflicted wounds (saying and doing dumb things, getting entangled in dumb scandals, supporting unpopular legislation) this has been a very favorable environment for GOP President Trump. And still he has had a "normal" decline in popularity. Again, not a terribly good sign.
   56. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:12 PM (#5494657)
You cannot accept that a lot of bad stuff is American, so lather, rinse, repeat. Over and over and over again.


I accept plenty of "bad stuff" is American.

The difference between you and me is that upon accepting that bad stuff, I prefer to see America and leaders learn from and improve upon their actions i/r/t that "bad stuff".

Whereas you wallow in your nihilistic crapulence in support of a guy making worse the sorts of things you claim to abhor.
   57. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:15 PM (#5494658)
My argument that it's moral is at least the following:

1. It's legal.
2. Everyone has always known that campaigns will seek out dirt on political opponents from absolutely anywhere.
3. There's been no showing that campaigns haven't consistently engaged in this type of conduct for a great many years, whether foreign nationals of enemy powers or non-enemy powers.
4. There's the Hillary campaign's alleged ties to the Ukraine -- which to be clear I think are perfectly fine even if true and perfectly moral, which is part of why Don Jr's meeting was perfectly fine and moral.
5. It would be immoral _not_ to take a meeting with someone who you think has relevant and important information about
someone running for President of the United States.


1. Has little to nothing to do with morality. Morality and legality are not the same.
2. Has little to nothing to do with morality. Knowledge that "everyone does it" does not make something moral.
3. Has little to nothing to do with morality, since "everyone does it" is not a defense of immoral action, and it is impossible to prove a negative.
4. Has little to nothing to do with morality concerning Trump's campaign. Again "everyone does it" is not a defense of immoral actions.
5. An assertion based on no framework for morality I am familiar with, except perhaps "Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing."
   58. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:15 PM (#5494661)
3. There's been no showing that campaigns haven't consistently engaged in this type of conduct for a great many years, whether foreign nationals of enemy powers or non-enemy powers.


Ahhh, yes -- the old prove a negative.... always a fun gambit for the logically deficient.
   59. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:18 PM (#5494662)
Ray, #21:
Massive majority of Americans say Trump is 'unpresidential' and his tweets are insulting as his approval rating hits a historic 70-year low
* President Donald Trump is facing a crushing set of new poll numbers
* More than half of Americans say they like him less as they learn more about him
* Overall approval rating in ABC News-Washington post poll is just 36 per cent
* But more than 4 in 5 Republicans still approve of his job performance


A new SEVENTY YEAR LOW of 36 percent! I understand that if his "approval rating" falls below 30 percent Hillary takes over. So the TDSers do need to watch this number carefully. Very carefully. I can see why they can't look away.

Seventy years takes us back to the end of World War 2, which is nearly the entirety of the polling era.

Donald Trump tweeted past the graveyard today about that very poll: "almost 40 percent is not bad at this time."

In fact, 36% approval is bad for any time. It's spectacularly bad (and unprecedented) for a president who is coming up on 6 months in office.

For context, 36% is just below George W. Bush's entire second-term average. Everyone remembers the lovefest that was George W. Bush's second term, right?

As for the "historic 70-year low" cited by the Daily Mail, I have to assume the Mail is silently referring to "at this point of a presidency," since Truman, Nixon and Bush Jr. each dipped noticeably below 36%. Some of the Daily Mail's professional analytic precision there. 36% is nowhere near the lowest approval rating at any time over the last 70 years. But it's easily the worst for a "honeymoon period," as one can easily surmise from the cruelly clear Twitter chart linked in #33.

Also, a Republican president having the support of "more than 4 in 5 Republicans" is terrible.

Ray scoffs at Trump's malnourished popularity polling because, hey, what other option has he got? Remember, Trump calls anything and everything fantastic, amazing, huge, tremendous, great, the best. And he's calling this poll "not bad at this time."

A president's popularity correlates to the amount of legislative cooperation he can extract from Congress, and the amount of accomplishment he can parlay that into. Also, it measures the changing width of the protective buffer that any president has, and will need for the inevitable bad news that comes along. But other than that, sure, an approval rating is just a meaningless number, no biggie. OMG derangement ha ha.


Watching Ray obstinately pose as The Man Who Will Not Blink for the next three and a half years is going to be something.

(Pssst. Art Buchwald's list of scandal excuses, quoted in post #2, wasn't supposed to be a crib sheet for future generations.)
   60. Greg K Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:19 PM (#5494664)
Good Lord! Talk about lies, damned lies, and statistics. Imagine if he started at -80 and was now -79? He'd be the most popular President in his first 175 days ever! Or something.

I don't know...to use baseball as a helpful analogy:

Jose Bautista's OPS in April was .554. It is now .760 (+.216)
Aaron Judge's OPS in April was 1.161. It is now 1.089 (-.072)

It wouldn't be ridiculous to say Jose Bautista is having a better season than Aaron Judge.


   61. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:25 PM (#5494669)
My argument that it's moral is at least the following:


1. It's legal. "Legal" isn't in the same solar system as "moral". If you had any morals, you'd know that.

2. Everyone has always known that campaigns will seek out dirt on political opponents from absolutely anywhere. Yeah, "everyone else does it" didn't work with my parents when I was 6 years old. Also, not an argument for "moral".

3. There's been no showing that campaigns haven't consistently engaged in this type of conduct for a great many years, whether foreign nationals of enemy powers or non-enemy powers. Typical of your MO, you want someone to prove a negative - how exactly does one "show campaigns haven't done this"? And again, even if they did do the same thing, see #2 - still doesn't make it "moral".

4. There's the Hillary campaign's alleged ties to the Ukraine -- which to be clear I think are perfectly fine even if true and perfectly moral, which is part of why Don Jr's meeting was perfectly fine and moral. Still leaning on "everyone else does it".

5. It would be immoral _not_ to take a meeting with someone who you think has relevant and important information about someone running for President of the United States. No it wouldn't, especially since Putin's Russia has been shown to lie, cheat, and steal it's way to whatever ends it wants. A meeting with a known good source would be OK; a meeting with a source known to want to do harm to the US is not.

Your post, and your 5 reasons listed for the "morality" of the meeting, underline why it's more correct to call you "amoral". Through your arguments, it's obvious you have no idea what is or isn't moral.
   62. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:25 PM (#5494670)
   63. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:26 PM (#5494671)
My argument that it's moral is at least the following:


Those aren't moral arguments, Ray. You are as out of your depth here as Andy is with regard to the details of IP law.
   64. BrianBrianson Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:26 PM (#5494672)
2. Everyone has always known that campaigns will seek out dirt on political opponents from absolutely anywhere.


We know this isn't true. We know that Gore turned over Bush's rehersal tape to the FBI, rather than watch it, when it got mailed to him. We (probably) don't know most of what we're missing, either.
   65. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:27 PM (#5494673)
1. Has little to nothing to do with morality. Morality and legality are not the same.
2. Has little to nothing to do with morality. Knowledge that "everyone does it" does not make something moral.
3. Has little to nothing to do with morality, since "everyone does it" is not a defense of immoral action, and it is impossible to prove a negative.
4. Has little to nothing to do with morality concerning Trump's campaign. Again "everyone does it" is not a defense of immoral actions.
5. An assertion based on no framework for morality OI am familiar with, except perhaps "Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing."


6. The moral thing to do would be to ask one's self "Why is this hostile foreign power so eager to help me win the presidency? Perhaps a little self reflection of my proposed policies may be in order."
   66. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:30 PM (#5494680)
Those aren't moral arguments, Ray. You are as out of your depth here as Andy is with regard to the details of IP law.


Andy knows he is not a lawyer.
   67. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:30 PM (#5494681)
We know this isn't true.


Don't confuse Ray's cynical assertions of what "is known, Khaleesi" with boring old facts.
   68. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:31 PM (#5494683)
1. It's legal. "Legal" isn't in the same solar system as "moral". If you had any morals, you'd know that.
2. Everyone has always known that campaigns will seek out dirt on political opponents from absolutely anywhere. Yeah, "everyone else does it" didn't work with my parents when I was 6 years old. Also, not an argument for "moral".


Morality and legality often overlap. They don't always, but they often do. This rebuttal is sixth grade level. Of course they're not always the same. I didn't argue that they were.

And yes, "everyone does it" is certainly an argument for morality. It doesn't HAVE to be moral because everyone does it, but, like in item 1, everyone doing something is an indicator of morality. (In any event, "Everyone can do X instead of Trump" is not exactly the strongest of arguments.)

Are you guys confused in that you don't understand the structure of the argument? I was highlighting multiple arguments that together indicate morality.

   69. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:31 PM (#5494684)
If people will stop claiming that mere receipt of negative information about a political opponent from a foreign national is a criminal act, I will stop pointing out that is almost certainly incorrect, and that it takes an extremely strained interpretation of the applicable statutes to reach such a result.

Who's claiming that?
The voices in his head. No. Real people, like election law expert Prof. Rick Hasen, are.
   70. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:37 PM (#5494685)
No. Real people, like election law expert Prof. Rick Hasen, are.


That's the dishonesty. The left including people posting here spend days arguing X. Then after X has been shown to be a silly argument they go, "Who's arguing that?"

   71. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:38 PM (#5494686)
Of course they're not always the same. I didn't argue that they were.


And yet, you persist with "It's legal." as your #1 talking point WRT the morality of the action. Jesus christ on a popsicle stick, do you ever read what you write?
   72. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:43 PM (#5494687)
And yet, you persist with "It's legal." as your #1 talking point WRT the morality of the action. Jesus christ on a popsicle stick, do you ever read what you write?


Do _you_ ever read what I write? You must, because you took the time to snip part of it out.

In the part you snipped I wrote:

"Morality and legality often overlap. They don't always, but they often do."
   73. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:44 PM (#5494688)
We know this isn't true. We know that Gore turned over Bush's rehersal tape to the FBI, rather than watch it, when it got mailed to him. We (probably) don't know most of what we're missing, either.


Don't forget Arne Vinick finding Matt Santos's briefcase and turning it over to him.
   74. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:45 PM (#5494690)
We know this isn't true. We know that Gore turned over Bush's rehersal tape to the FBI, rather than watch it, when it got mailed to him.


Assumes facts not in evidence.
   75. DavidFoss Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:48 PM (#5494691)
Assumes facts not in evidence.

The stories of the returned notebook and calling the FBI ran in the NYTimes and USAToday (and probably everywhere else) before the debates. The Bush team at least knew to revise their strategy rather then rely on any tricks or surprises that were in the book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/01/us/the-2000-campaign-the-inquiry-fbi-widens-investigation-into-debate-leak.html

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0010/01/sun.06.html

   76. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:53 PM (#5494693)
Ray's argument that adultery is moral is at least the following:

1. It's legal.
2. Everyone has always known that spouses will seek out nookie from absolutely anywhere.
3. There's been no showing that spouses haven't consistently engaged in this type of conduct for a great many years.
4. There's the other spouses alleged infidelities -- which to be clear I think are perfectly fine even if true and perfectly moral, which is part of why my nookie was perfectly fine and moral.
5. It would be immoral _not_ to have sex with someone who you think is sexy and wants to have sex with you.
   77. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:55 PM (#5494696)
We know this isn't true. We know that Gore turned over Bush's rehersal tape to the FBI, rather than watch it, when it got mailed to him.


Assumes facts not in evidence.


IDK... the fact that they DID turn it over to the FBI is evidence that they didn't. The statements by everyone involved saying they did not is evidence that they didn't. The fact that Gore didn't exactly do well in the debates seems to be further evidence they didn't.

Just the standard Ray double standard...

Trump can do no wrong, NotTrump can do no right.
   78. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 01:55 PM (#5494697)
So, war. Is that your bright line? Does it have to be a declared war? Because Vietnam wasn't. Would it have been OK for McGovern to meet with Soviet or Chinese agents? Would it have been OK for Trump to meet with Syrian, Taliban, or ISIS agents? Would it have been OK for Mondale to meet with Libyan or Sandinista agents? Dukakis to meet with Iranian agents? Bill Clinton to meet with Iraqi agents?
Just imagine the howls if Hillary Clinton were secretly meeting with agents of the Chinese government for the express purpose of getting information about Trump's taxes that he was refusing to disclose. (After all, we know about several major Chinese hacks of the U.S. government in recent years.) "Lock her up" would not have been the chant at Trump rallies; "execute her for treason" would've been.
   79. madvillain Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:02 PM (#5494700)
And yes, "everyone does it" is certainly an argument for morality.


I love it. I honestly never thought I'd see the day that Terrell Pryor and RDP offer the same standard of morality. Plus, it gives me an excuse to trash O$U at the same time:

Pryor, who completed 14 of 21 passes for 174 yards and a touchdown against Navy, didn't think Vick was getting a fair shot.

"Not everybody is the perfect person in the world," Pryor said of Vick. "Everyone does -- kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me. I just feel that people need to give him a chance."



   80. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:03 PM (#5494701)
About that weekend police shooting in Minneapolis:
The Minneapolis police officer who shot and killed a woman on the city’s south side over the weekend has been identified as Mohammed Noor.

His attorney, Tom Plunkett, confirmed Monday that Noor fired his weapon, killing Justine Damond. In a statement, Plunkett said: “We take this seriously with great compassion for all persons who are being touched by this.”

The fatal shooting happened late Saturday night near the intersection of 51st Street and Washburn Avenue South, in the city’s Fulton neighborhood.

Sources tell WCCO-TV that Damond called 911 over a possible assault, and when Noor and another officer arrived at the scene in a squad car, she spoke to them near an alley. At some point, Noor, who was in the squad’s passenger seat, reached over and shot Damond.

What exactly led to the shooting remains unclear.

No weapons were recovered from the scene, according to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the agency called in to investigate the shooting. A cellphone was found near Damond’s body.

Damond, who grew up in Australia, was a meditation teacher and life coach. In videos posted to YouTube, she recalled moving to Minnesota for love. Friends and family described her as a gentle soul.

Although Noor and the other officer were wearing body cameras, they were not turned on during the shooting, the BCA said. Also, the squad’s dashcam camera didn’t capture what happened.
A Somali-American police officer shoots dead an Australian immigrant under questionable circumstances? I suspect this is going to get way ugly...
   81. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:03 PM (#5494702)
But for the clear and obvious lack of understanding of the basic concept of morality.

My argument that it's moral is at least the following:

1. It's legal.
Irrelevant to morality, especially if one is a libertarian.
2. Everyone has always known that campaigns will seek out dirt on political opponents from absolutely anywhere.
Made up fact, which is also irrelevant to morality. ("Mom, everyone else was doing it.")
3. There's been no showing that campaigns haven't consistently engaged in this type of conduct for a great many years, whether foreign nationals of enemy powers or non-enemy powers.
This is the same made up, irrelevant point as #2, except not-so-cleverly-phrased as a demand to prove a negative.

4. There's the Hillary campaign's alleged ties to the Ukraine -- which to be clear I think are perfectly fine even if true and perfectly moral, which is part of why Don Jr's meeting was perfectly fine and moral.
Just a regurgitation of point #2.
5. It would be immoral _not_ to take a meeting with someone who you think has relevant and important information about someone running for President of the United States.
Just insane and a demonstration of the original premise about an obvious lack of understanding of the basic concept of morality. ("As a lawyer, it would be immoral not to bribe the judge hearing our case.")

EDIT: Cokes. Needed to read further. But couldn't not reflexively respond to Ray's insane post.
   82. Greg K Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:04 PM (#5494703)

Don't forget Arne Vinick finding Matt Santos's briefcase and turning it over to him.

Which was followed by Santos making Vinick Secretary of State...highly suspicious if you ask me. I've always suspected Vinick found something in there to later blackmail Santos with.
   83. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:05 PM (#5494704)
They don't always, but they often do


You do understand that you just refuted your entire strategy here, right? If legality and morality CAN, but do not ALWAYS overlap, then one can not answer the question "why is this moral" with "because it's legal." Because we have already established that simply be legal doesn't make it moral, because legality and morality do not ALWAYS overlap.

No. Of course you don't understand that. It doesn't advance your rhetorical agenda.
   84. DavidFoss Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:05 PM (#5494706)
Here's a story from September 23rd:

http://nypost.com/2000/09/23/fbi-thinks-bush-person-may-have-sent-gore-debate-tape/

The FBI was called on September 13th. The first debate was on October 3rd.

This ran through a couple of news cycles before the debate. Bush had time to change his strategy and Gore knew that his strategy would likely change and the public knew about the whole thing.
   85. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:05 PM (#5494707)
"Lock her up" would not have been the chant at Trump rallies; "execute her for treason" would've been.


And Ray and Clapper would be the BTFers shouting the loudest.
   86. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:06 PM (#5494709)
Assumes facts not in evidence.


Your entire five point bullet list assumes facts not in evidence, Ray.
   87. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:08 PM (#5494711)
My argument that it's moral is at least the following:

Those aren't moral arguments, Ray. You are as out of your depth here as Andy is with regard to the details of IP law.


With the difference being that after the relevant IP cases were cited to me, I was willing to concede my mistake and change my opinion. I've yet to see Ray do that on any topic.
   88. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:08 PM (#5494712)
1. It's legal.

Irrelevant to morality, especially if one is a libertarian.

2. Everyone has always known that campaigns will seek out dirt on political opponents from absolutely anywhere.

Made up fact, which is also irrelevant to morality. ("Mom, everyone else was doing it.")


Neither of those things are irrelevant to morality. They don't necessarily align with morality, but that's not the same thing as being irrelevant to morality. They're relevant to the inquiry.

   89. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:09 PM (#5494713)
IDK... the fact that they DID turn it over to the FBI is evidence that they didn't.
This is great. As is #76. And about a dozen others in this thread.

Ray, you are defending the indefensible and it's making OTP a much funnier place than it usually is. Thank you for your contribution to my Monday morning.
I actually think it is telling his decline has been average since becoming President. It shows a couple interesting things about Trump.
Wonder what it would look like if we took those poll numbers and extrapolated out to the 1 year point, 2 year point, 3 year point etc. It would be fun (though unlikely) if it projected that his approval would actually go negative before the next election.
   90. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:11 PM (#5494716)
"Morality and legality often overlap. They don't always, but they often do."

#57 and #61 do a good job at addressing the full list, and why it really does not stand as a defense of morality. But to add to this, you are the one using it as a reason why Trump's actions are not immoral. This is the "Gee it's hot today" as evidence of climate change. Legality and morality fail to overlap often enough, that this is not a sufficient defense of morality. And more to the point, they are separate enough concepts, that trying to raise one as a defense of the other, shows why you are incapable of actually making a coherent argument. Morality needs to stand on its own, based on principles, standards, and societal norms. "It's legal therefore it's moral" is the principle of somebody who cannot construct a coherent moral framework of his own.

What's your argument that it's immoral? Then we can compare.

As I said, no point going through your list point by point again, it has been addressed by others. But since it was addressed to me, and nobody (as of my typing, who knows when I hit refresh) has addressed this part yet I will. It is actually not particularly difficult to do, for somebody who has a coherent moral framework, to come up with reasons why you should not take this meeting:

1. You are getting this information from a known bad actor, with a history of known bad acts, and no way of knowing how they got it. It is perfectly moral (although possibly illegal) to buy some weed. It is however immoral to buy drugs knowing they come from a cartel with a history of violence, brutality, and exploitation of victims.

2. You will have little to no way of verifying the information presented. Which means if you use it, you do not know if you are lying or making false accusations based on it. I know this administration tells more lies than before breakfast, than Pinocchio does in the entire story. But still, most people seem to agree that lying and making false accusations is immoral.

3. As a known enemy, you know they do not have the interests of your country at heart. Quite the opposite. You know the country you are ostensibly running to serve. So there is every reason to believe they are doing this to hurt your country.

4. It may open you up to blackmail or other hugely negative consequences. You might not think this meeting is a big deal, but given all the media fallout, it is safe to say enough people do. So it could be used against you. It may even be a setup to put you in an even worse position. Again, this can harm the country. Putting the country at risk for your own political gain, is very much a textbook example of immorality.

   91. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:13 PM (#5494717)
Neither of those things are irrelevant to morality. They don't necessarily align with morality, but that's not the same thing as being irrelevant to morality.
They're neither necessary nor sufficient for morality, which means they're irrelevant. Telling us that X is legal gives us no information about whether X is moral.
   92. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:13 PM (#5494718)
"Lock her up" would not have been the chant at Trump rallies; "execute her for treason" would've been.

That's hardly a hypothetical cry.

Trump Adviser Al Baldasaro: Execute Hillary Clinton for ‘Treason’
“Anyone that commits treason should be shot,” Al Baldasaro, an adviser to the Trump campaign for veterans issues, told The Daily Beast. “I believe Hillary Clinton committed treason. She put people in danger. When people take confidential material off a server, you’re sharing information with the enemy. That’s treason.”

Baldasaro was expanding on a violent call he made Tuesday, when he called for Clinton to be “put in the firing line” over her mishandling of classified emails. He made these remarks on the Jeff Kuhner Show, Buzzfeed reported.

But Trump’s adviser, who is also a state representative in New Hampshire, is not the only one at the convention who believes that Clinton should be executed for treasonous acts.

West Virginia lawmaker Michael Folk said earlier this week that Hillary Clinton should be “hung on the mall in Washington, DC” for treason. And on the campaign trail, reports show that Trump supporters have repeatedly called for her death.

The mood at the Republican National Convention has turned decidedly ugly—on stage, primetime speaker Chris Christie conducted a mock trial of Clinton, playing to the crowd to convict her, and the crowd repeatedly called for her to be put in jail. Ben Carson tried to tie Clinton to Lucifer in his Tuesday night address.

Baldasaro called for Clinton to be sent directly to the afterlife. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he argued, a conviction for treason could result in execution. ...
   93. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:13 PM (#5494719)
#57 and #61 do a good job at addressing the full list, and why it really does not stand as a defense of morality. But to add to this, you are the one using it as a reason why Trump's actions are not immoral. This is the "Gee it's hot today" as evidence of climate change. Legality and morality fail to overlap often enough, that this is not a sufficient defense of morality. And more to the point, they are separate enough concepts, that trying to raise one as a defense of the other, shows why you are incapable of actually making a coherent argument. Morality needs to stand on its own, based on principles, standards, and societal norms. "It's legal therefore it's moral" is the principle of somebody who cannot construct a coherent moral framework of his own.


See the bolded part there? You agree with me on that part of the inquiry. That's my "everyone does it" argument as being relevant to the morality inquiry. Something doesn't HAVE to be moral just because everyone does it, but that is a strong argument for it, or at least (again) is relevant to the inquiry.
   94. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:15 PM (#5494722)
and nobody (as of my typing, who knows when I hit refresh) has addressed this part yet I will.


I made your point #3 in post 65. But yours was a good and thorough counter argument.
   95. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:17 PM (#5494725)
"Lock her up" would not have been the chant at Trump rallies; "execute her for treason" would've been.


The voices in your head are not real.

That's hardly a hypothetical cry.

Trump Adviser Al Baldasaro: Execute Hillary Clinton for ‘Treason’


? That relates to her mishandling of classified information. While it's stupid to call what she did treason, it doesn't have anything to do with the notion of locking her up because she took David's hypothetical meeting with the Chinese.
   96. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:17 PM (#5494726)
They're neither necessary nor sufficient for morality, which means they're irrelevant. Telling us that X is legal gives us no information about whether X is moral.


And I flat disagree.
   97. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:17 PM (#5494727)
Are you guys confused in that you don't understand the structure of the argument? I was highlighting multiple arguments that together indicate morality.
Except that you don't. Absolutely none of the 5 points in your argument are individually moral, and they certainly don't add up to being moral.

Legality has absolutely nothing to do with morality. Some laws are accidentally moral, but those that are purposely moral often fail.

"Everyone else does it" has nothing to do with morality. On the contrary, it's an excuse used by those who have nothing else to stand on.

"Someone else did something equally bad" is just a straw man. If HRC did something similar, that has absolutely no bearing on whether DJT or DJT,Jr acted morally. (Besides, as Ukraine isn't actively involved in sabotaging our government, if HRC did something similar* it still wouldn't be "equally bad").

*Beside the fact that it wasn't HRC or one of her campaign associates (as opposed to DJT,Jr) that was involved, and the fact that what the Russians had was stolen and what the Ukrainians had was part of an official public investigation.
   98. Morty Causa Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:17 PM (#5494728)
IDK... the fact that they DID turn it over to the FBI is evidence that they didn't. The statements by everyone involved saying they did not is evidence that they didn't. The fact that Gore didn't exactly do well in the debates seems to be further evidence they didn't.

Just the standard Ray double standard...

Trump can do no wrong, NotTrump can do no right.


Ray requires absolute proof from his adversary. For himself, ipse dixit is gold.
   99. DavidFoss Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:19 PM (#5494729)
About that weekend police shooting in Minneapolis:

This is so weird. I know people that live practically right there. That is not a bad neighborhood at all. Its only a few blocks from the lake, only a few blocks from the creek and only a few blocks from the cake-eaters in Edina. The only thing I can think of is that there are a few auto repair shops that share the same alley.
   100. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:20 PM (#5494731)
2. You will have little to no way of verifying the information presented. Which means if you use it, you do not know if you are lying or making false accusations based on it. I know this administration tells more lies than before breakfast, than Pinocchio does in the entire story. But still, most people seem to agree that lying and making false accusations is immoral.


The Access Hollywood tape was an example of something that was easily verifiable.

The NYT seemed to think it was able to sufficiently verify Trump's leaked tax return.
Page 1 of 31 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJim Palmer on Mark Belanger and Omar Vizquel: The Hardball Times
(120 - 2:19pm, Nov 21)
Last: Buck Coats

NewsblogJoe Morgan Wants To Keep Steroid Cheats Out Of Baseball Hall Of Fame | MLB | NESN.com
(24 - 2:17pm, Nov 21)
Last: cmd600

NewsblogOTP 20 November 2017: Sheriff’s official suspended 10 days over Cubs World Series sneak-in
(282 - 2:17pm, Nov 21)
Last: . . . . . . . . . .

NewsblogMore on WAR – Joe Blogs – Medium
(199 - 2:13pm, Nov 21)
Last: Blanks for Nothing, Larvell

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(206 - 2:12pm, Nov 21)
Last: PepTech

NewsblogGabe Kapler's only season as a manager gave hints for how he will lead Phillies
(32 - 2:11pm, Nov 21)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1477 - 2:01pm, Nov 21)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogThird time through the order isn’t a charm, and Mets are ready to deal with it | Newsday
(2 - 1:57pm, Nov 21)
Last: Adam Starblind

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Phillies Voting Thread
(6 - 1:55pm, Nov 21)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogProspectus Feature: Bill James vs. The Noise - Baseball Prospectus
(7 - 1:11pm, Nov 21)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

Sox TherapyEnd of an Era
(6 - 11:51am, Nov 21)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

Gonfalon CubsLooking to next year
(202 - 11:40am, Nov 21)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogTeams set 40-man rosters ahead of Rule 5 Draft
(7 - 11:38am, Nov 21)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogJudge and Altuve | Articles | Bill James Online
(61 - 11:10am, Nov 21)
Last: Rally

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(245 - 10:51am, Nov 21)
Last: JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head

Page rendered in 0.7106 seconds
47 querie(s) executed