@facethenation:

NEW CBS POLL: nearly all strong supporters of President Trump say they trust him for accurate information, while only 11 percent trust the mainstream media

@peter_wehner:

This is significant. Trump's lies, which are demonstrable/pathological, aren't simply ignored by his supporters; they're embraced/spread. This explains why many Americans seem to be living in two different realities. Trump's effort to annihilate truth has an eager audience.

Gee, who could've ever predicted this?

British farmers worry: Who will pick the fruit after Brexit?

HAREWOOD END, England — After a dozen futile calls to big farms, agricultural lobbyists and labor contractors, we finally found him.

The rarest of the rare, the British berry picker.

Meet Max Hughes, a 20-year-old university student and history major, who is spending his summer harvesting blackcurrants at the Snell family farm in Herefordshire. He rides in the back of a harvester all day, standing beside a Czech migrant and a couple of sun-bronzed Romanian guys, who know very little English.

“No matter, you can’t hear a thing they say over the noise,” Hughes said, gesturing toward the wheeled harvester beside him. Its vibrating metal fingers shake the currant bushes and bring the tart berries via conveyor belt to the sorting table, where Hughes and his teammates discard the leaves, twigs, slugs and occasional mouse — whatever you don’t want to see in a frozen fruit pack.

Britain today is completely dependent on foreign workers to pick its fruit and vegetables. According to the National Farmers Union, an industry lobbying group, of the 60,000 seasonal workers in the fields last year, barely one percent was British. The vast majority come from Eastern Europe, particularly Bulgaria and Romania.

As long as Britain has remained part of the European Union, by treaty its doors have been wide-open to the “free movement” of fellow members, including those seasonal farmworkers who come for four or five months, get paid in British pounds and return home for the winter.

But as Britain prepares to leave the E.U., bringing the era of free movement to a close, farmers have begun to panic: Who will pick the crops next spring?

Already, labor shortages driven by economic shifts have left produce rotting in the strawberry fields and the high-tech, hydroponic poly-tunnels where top-tier soft fruit is produced. Jacqui Green, chief executive of the Berry Gardens growers cooperative, reports a 30 to 40 percent shortfall in labor this year.

“It's pretty grim,” Green said. “And it’s probably going to get worse before it potentially gets better, post-Brexit.” ...

Gee, who could've ever predicted this?

British farmers worry: Who will pick the fruit after Brexit?

5 of the 10 most pro-Brexit constituencies in the referendum were in Lincolnshire, where the main industry is arable farming and they are highly dependant on EU workers to pick fruit and veg as the locals won't do it for the money offered.

On a similar theme, Ebbw Vale in Wales, which receives more EU money per head of population than anywhere else in the UK, is a former coal and steel town of the type ignored by Tory Governments, and which has very few ethnic minority residents, voted 77-23 for Brexit.

Turkeys vote for Christmas.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she hopes to stay on the Supreme Court at least five more years until the age of 90

Justice Ginsburg has said this before, indicating that she wanted to emulate Justice John Paul Stevens, who served to that age. However, just as Ginsburg reneged on her pledge to move to New Zealand, I doubt that she will voluntarily retire in 2023 if Trump or another Republican is in office.

Which means that the entire "agent vs independent contractor" thing is utterly irrelevant to this issue, as SBB said.

Nope. FLTB is not only not a litigator, but is a troll; you shouldn't rely on him.

An employee of mine is involved in a car accident and someone else is killed; that person's family tries to hold me liable as the employer. There are two defenses readily available: (1) he wasn't actually acting in the scope of his employment when he was driving, so I am not liable for his acts; (2) he wasn't negligent in his driving, so neither of us are liable. On summary judgment, I argue the first theory: that he wasn't acting in the scope of his employment, so respondeat superior doesn't apply. By doing so I am most certainly not "conceding" that he was negligent. Sure, obviously if he wasn't negligent then it doesn't matter if he was acting in the scope of his employment. By the same token, if he wasn't acting in the scope of his employment then it doesn't matter if he was negligent. Each is an independent reason that I am not liable; therefore, neither one is "irrelevant."

1. Steele, whether he was an independent contractor or an agent, was acting for the Clinton campaign. This is not in dispute.

2. If he did nothing wrong then whichever he was -- independent contractor or agent -- is irrelevant to Hillary's culpability or lack thereof. And so your tortured respondeat superior analogy is a distraction. If you actually believed that Steele did nothing wrong then do you know what your argument with respect to Hillary would be? It would be that even if she knew what Steele was up to and/or was controlling him it doesn't matter; since _he_ did nothing wrong then even if she knew of it or controlled it _she_ did nothing wrong.

Example which shows this in practice: I think the Don Jr. meeting is a nothingburger and that the campaign did nothing wrong by taking the meeting. So I have argued on these pages -- maybe Baravelli can find it -- that it doesn't matter whether Trump Sr. knew or didn't know about the meeting because knowing about or directing a nothingburger meeting is itself a nothingburger.

You haven't argued that w/r/t Clinton-Steele. Why not? One wonders. Instead you've hid behind independent contractor, you've hid behind "The campaign hired an American company who hired someone who hired Steele and therefore because these artificial walls of separation were constructed Hillary is protected." Why would you argue something like that, instead of just saying flat out "Whether Hillary knew what Steele was up to or directed Steele is irrelevant; since Steele did nothing wrong then Hillary couldn't have."

This is how we know that you're simply playing to the people in this thread who aren't able to follow the issues here but who know - they just know - that Trump's campaign did something wrong but Hillary's didn't.

Turkeys vote for Christmas.

Newsweek: TRUMP-SUPPORTING SOYBEAN FARMERS SAY THEY'LL GLADLY SUFFER 'TO THE DEATH' FOR HIS TRADE WAR

I doubt that she will voluntarily retire in 2023 if Trump or another Republican is in office.

What if it's 2024?

You're trying to take it as a given that they're NOT advancing the Russian government's agenda when they leak to Steele. You haven't the foggiest clue about that. Nor to my knowledge does the dossier say that. Instead the dossier characterizes them as I quoted in 1369.

Right; the dossier felt the need to conceal their identities, something that would be unnecessary if the Russian government wanted this info out. Even more importantly, if Putin wanted to put out this information about Trump, why on earth would he tell people to tell a British business intelligence guy? Why not just send the info to Wikileaks?

EDIT: Also what Shipman said in 1389.

Senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure (Source A).

Former top level Russian intel officer still active inside the Kremlin (Source B), via trusted compatriot.

That's not how I'm describing Steele's sources; that's how Steele described them. And you and Shipman can huff and puff all you want and you won't be able to change that. So all of your "if this then why on earth that?" thought experiment arguments pale in comparison to the fact that the way these sources are described in the dossier makes them sound like current or former Russian government officials closely connected to the Kremlin, and your "hey, well, maybe they weren't acting on behalf of the Russian government" is just rank speculation on your part -- unfounded, and unable to outweigh the way Steele described his own sources.

I doubt that she will voluntarily retire in 2023 if Trump or another Republican is in office.

What if it's 2024?

New here? Supreme Court Justices don't voluntarily retire during presidential election years.

You haven't argued that w/r/t Clinton-Steele. Why not? One wonders. Instead you've hid behind independent contractor, you've hid behind "The campaign hired an American company who hired someone who hired Steele and therefore because these artificial walls of separation were constructed Hillary is protected." Why would you argue something like that, instead of just saying flat out "Whether Hillary knew what Steele was up to or directed Steele is irrelevant; since Steele did nothing wrong then Hillary couldn't have."

David has in fact argued that. You just choose to ignore it.

There was no wrongdoing by Steele. There was no wrongdoing by the Clinton campaign in this matter. This is all bog standard stuff that you are choosing to try to conflate for purposes of muddying the waters. As you have been told ad nauseum.

There was no wrongdoing by Steele. There was no wrongdoing by the Clinton campaign in this matter.

I actually agree with that; when judged by _my_ standards, neither Clinton nor Trump (nor Don Jr. et al) did anything wrong (*).

However, when judged by YOUR standards in which you conclude wrongdoing for Trump and his campaign, then what Hillary and her campaign did was not only wrongdoing as well but was far worse.

(*) Well, I'm not a big fan of peddling the oppo research your British spy claims he got from the Russians to the FBI, but this is politics and politics are sleazy. One thing is clear however: this is worse than what we know the Trump campaign did. Hell, the silly Don Jr. meeting didn't even produce anything, and they came to him. Not so for what Steele claims to have turned up, and Steele -- hired by someone who was hired by someone who was hired by the Clinton campaign -- went to them.

I think it's important that standards are applied consistently to both campaigns. Otherwise it's just intellectual dishonesty and abject hackery.

There was no wrongdoing by Steele. There was no wrongdoing by the Clinton campaign in this matter.

Those are both assumptions. For all anyone here knows, Steele's dossier could be a fabrication as to its key details, knowingly commissioned by the Clinton campaign. It's also possible that both were aware they were being played by the Russians, but didn't care as long as they obtained material usable against Trump.

Those are both assumptions. For all anyone here knows, Steele's dossier could be a fabrication as to its key details, knowingly commissioned by the Clinton campaign. It's also possible that both were aware they were being played by the Russians, but didn't care as long as they obtained material usable against Trump.

And it's possible that the Illuminati are behind it all.

But here on planet earth, we make assumptions based off reporting by reputable outlets.

Those are both assumptions. For all anyone here knows, Steele's dossier could be a fabrication as to its key details, knowingly commissioned by the Clinton campaign. It's also possible that both were aware they were being played by the Russians, but didn't care as long as they obtained material usable against Trump.

And it's possible that the Illuminati are behind it all. But here on planet earth, we make assumptions based off reporting by reputable outlets.

What reporting has established the veracity of Steele's dossier, or that he didn't knowingly utilize info supplied by Russian intelligence?

NEW CBS POLL: nearly all strong supporters of President Trump say they trust him for accurate information, while only 11 percent trust the mainstream media

Sigh. Again we see the same mistake. "Strong supporters of President Trump" are a self-selected group. That they trust him is what makes them strong supporters. Strong supporters of Lyndon LaRouche or L. Ron Hubbard or O.J. Simpson also trust LaRouche, Hubbard, or O.J., respectively. The relevant consideration is how big that group is, not the tautological fact that the group meets the group's definition.

5 of the 10 most pro-Brexit constituencies in the referendum were in Lincolnshire, where the main industry is arable farming and they are highly dependant on EU workers to pick fruit and veg as the locals won't do it for the money offered.

On a similar theme, Ebbw Vale in Wales, which receives more EU money per head of population than anywhere else in the UK, is a former coal and steel town of the type ignored by Tory Governments, and which has very few ethnic minority residents, voted 77-23 for Brexit.

Turkeys vote for Christmas.

Or, as the saying goes, "'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party."

2. If he did nothing wrong then whichever he was -- independent contractor or agent -- is irrelevant to Hillary's culpability or lack thereof. And so your tortured respondeat superior analogy is a distraction. If you actually believed that Steele did nothing wrong then do you know what your argument with respect to Hillary would be? It would be that even if she knew what Steele was up to and/or was controlling him it doesn't matter; since _he_ did nothing wrong then even if she knew of it or controlled it _she_ did nothing wrong.

Example which shows this in practice: I think the Don Jr. meeting is a nothingburger and that the campaign did nothing wrong by taking the meeting. So I have argued on these pages -- maybe Baravelli can find it -- that it doesn't matter whether Trump Sr. knew or didn't know about the meeting because knowing about or directing a nothingburger meeting is itself a nothingburger.

You haven't argued that w/r/t Clinton-Steele. Why not? One wonders.

You simply repeated your same fallacious argument over again. (FLTB is rubbing off on you on substance, and Andy is rubbing off you on style. When you say something wrong, and someone refutes it, then simply repeating it doesn't actually advance the discussion any.) Not only that, but your fallacious argument is based on an incorrect premise, as I have repeatedly said that there's nothing wrong with what Steele did.


(Your analogy to the Trump Tower Treason doesn't work, because Trump Sr.'s campaign did know about it. So if it was wrong -- as every sane person knows it was -- then the campaign (even if not Trump Sr. personally) )was involved in wrongdoing. And while Trump Sr. can't be impeached because of wrongdoing by his campaign, he personally engaged in wrongdoing when he tried to cover it up.)

Newsweek: TRUMP-SUPPORTING SOYBEAN FARMERS SAY THEY'LL GLADLY SUFFER 'TO THE DEATH' FOR HIS TRADE WAR

"In total, four farmers were included on the CBS panel."

You can't get more rigorous than that!

and your "hey, well, maybe they weren't acting on behalf of the Russian government" is just rank speculation on your part -- unfounded, and unable to outweigh the way Steele described his own sources.

It doesn't need to "outweigh" anything, because the way Steele described them in no way contradicts what I said. And it's not at all rank speculation; it's informed deduction.

Those are both assumptions. For all anyone here knows, Steele's dossier could be a fabrication as to its key details, knowingly commissioned by the Clinton campaign.

Right, that's FLTB's even-numbered day argument. But if it's a fabrication by Steele, then it's not collusion with the Russians.

It's also possible that both were aware they were being played by the Russians, but didn't care as long as they obtained material usable against Trump.

One can't be aware that one is being played; if one is aware, then definitionally one is not being played. But it's not clear what this possibility even means. If the Russians were telling the truth then they weren't being played; if the Russians were lying, then why would this constitute "material usable against Trump" any more than Steele simply fabricating it would?


Your argument is off track. The only possibility other than the straightforward one is that Steele/Clinton were not aware they were being played: the Russians fed disinformation to Steele. But if that's what happened, then it doesn't constitute collusion -- just gullibility by Steele. And we're back to the issue of why the Russians would take that convoluted approach rather than just releasing the disinformation directly.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she hopes to stay on the Supreme Court at least five more years until the age of 90

Justice Ginsburg has said this before, indicating that she wanted to emulate Justice John Paul Stevens, who served to that age. However, just as Ginsburg reneged on her pledge to move to New Zealand, I doubt that she will voluntarily retire in 2023 if Trump or another Republican is in office.

Reading is fundamental. Or I guess in the case of YC, dishonesty is fundamental.

She said "at least" 5 more years. As in 5 or more. It is not actually reneging if she stays longer than 5 years... Of course, won't stop YC from calling her a dishonest fraud 5 years from now, if she does.

FLTB is not only not a litigator

Click your heels three times and it might come true, but unfortunately it won't help the people who have been on the other side lo these past couple decades.

Don't be jealous of David's cult leader abilities, Ray. You're unifying the board in your own special way.

If he offers you Kool-Aid, my advice would be to say "No," though one suspects that if he said, "Great job on that fellate Iran thing, GB -- you really showed them!!," you'd quickly line up for a double.

And it's not at all rank speculation; it's informed deduction.

You spelled "delusion" wrong.

And we're back to the issue of why the Russians would take that convoluted approach rather than just releasing the disinformation directly.

That's not an "issue," it's TDS. There's nothing remotely "convoluted" about intelligence types doing things obliquely rather than directly.

The only possibility other than the straightforward one is that Steele/Clinton were not aware they were being played: the Russians fed disinformation to Steele. But if that's what happened, then it doesn't constitute collusion

Yes, it would -- in the very same way you and the other cultists have claimed the Trump, Jr. meeting was "collusion" even though he was played by being promised something and not getting it.

How they defend President Steamed Hams

Click your heels three times and it might come true, but unfortunately it won't help the people who have been on the other side lo these past couple decades

The only reason you found yourself on the other side is because you had the stamp.

I submitted a new thread for the new week. Watch for it, learn it, live it, love it.

How they defend President Steamed Hams

Another example of why truth is frequently stranger than fiction.

But then their ultimate defense of Trump's lying is little more than an endlessly repeated chorus of "What of it?". This has been Ray's main rhetorical device ever since the day he stumbled upon Scott Adams, and he shows no sign of letting up.

The only reason you found yourself on the other side is because you had the stamp.

Hey, my son thinks he's a policeman. Dresses up like one, carries the gear, goes around handing out tickets and violating people's rights, etc. Doesn't make him crazy.

Of course, he's seven, so...

Did you explain to him that the primary job of the police is to enforce the will of the propertied class against the proletariat?

The new thread is up and running. Go to it! Right now :)