Total posts: 1,971
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
How does does me disputing that the perception of who is responsible forthe inglorious press conference depends on one’s viewpoint of Ukraine’s rights and the USA’s obligations (disputing that theyare intereconnected) exemplify what you wrote?
Because one’s point of view affects one’s perceptions. Doesn’t this basically describe your position on the matter?
“If one sees continually helping Ukraine to repel an invader as “right” and being reluctant to continue helping Ukraine do that as “wrong,” then one will likely view Zelenskyy as the victim of an ambush by two boorish American leaders.”
Iam sure there are people believing most of the blame lies with Zelenskyy, but anything can be believed. Pick some preposterous nonsense and there are people believing it. I believe there is anobjective truth and that these people are wrong.
I think that there was plenty of bad behavior to go around. Again, how one assigns the lion’s share of the blame depends on one’s point of view. You actually go even further by believing that you know what is objectively the case and that you possess the correct, objective view. To me, that is akin to saying, “I know that there are many gullible people who think milk chocolate is better, but the objective truth is that dark chocolate is clearly superior.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, and that should bother you if you're a SGC. But what you're doing here is using it to make your point which is a basic failure of logic. Two wrongs don't make a right, so if you believe in small government you can't use the wrong of the federal government involving itself in the first place to justify the federal government involving itself afterward.
Ah, here is the goalpost creep of yours I referred to earlier and why I insisted on a syllogistic argument from you. Your syllogism made no reference to this. Perhaps you should have a complete “do over” with your attempted argument which revolves around federal subsidies being a threat to state sovereignty.
Why? I've already responded to all of that and you have nothing to say in response except to repeat your original point which has been addressed multiple times already.
The good news for you is: you “made me look!” The bad news is: no, you didn’t previously address my requoted text. You never requoted and directly responded to that portion. You are engaging in thread historical revisionism. It’s not a good look.
Yet again, approving and denying a state program are two very different things. You are not inserting yourself into the process when you approve. You are asserting yourself inn the process when you deny. The latter deserves now scrutiny for obvious reasons.
Requiring approval is requiring involvement or intervention. As I have acknowledged multiple times already, there is a greater legal burden to uphold with a denial than approval, but either way federal intervention is occurring. “You are not inserting yourself in the process when you approve”? That is laughably false.
You have responded to just about all the SGC posts except for post 76. That said, none of them seem all that bothered over both your gripe and the state sovereignty issue underlying your gripe. Perhaps I should take the hint from that fact and take my leave…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That probably came on the heels of his impending impeachment by the Ukraine parliament.
I don’t think that MP is much more than an upstart in the grand scheme of things. I think it is more likely that Trump’s aid suspension provoked Zelenskyy’s change of heart. What I’m asking is: do you see Zelenskyy’s letter as pointing to a way forward toward peace?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's far more likely blaming is the only path to continue the war. And make no mistake, Zelenskyy demonstrated fully that he is determined to continue this war.
What do you make of Zelenskyy’s latest letter to the President signifying his renewed willingness to negotiate a peace settlement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Yes, but what do legal experts know? What really matters is what people opining well outside their field of expertise think about matters of interstate commerce, federal subsidies, and governmental procedure and protocol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Can Trump actually kill it?Congestion pricing was approved under the Federal Highway Administration’s Value Pricing Pilot Program, which allows transportation agencies to implement tolling programs with the goal of decreasing congestion. The federal government is arguing that the city’s congestion-pricing program should not have qualified for approval under the VPPP because it doesn’t feature a toll-free option from drivers wanting to travel in that zone. Duffy’s letter also argues that the tolling program is primarily intended to raise revenue for the MTA rather than to decrease congestion, which he claims puts it at odds with the goals of the federal program.But legal experts appear skeptical that the Trump administration has the authority to roll back the program after it was approved by the previous administration. Robert Glicksman, a law professor at George Washington University Law School, told the New York Times, “If the facts on the ground have not changed, then you have an extra high burden of justifying a reversal of position. They can’t just say: ‘Sorry. We changed our mind.’ They have to explain why.”
Thanks for your substantive and informative post. The law professor’s legal opinion here:
“If the facts on the ground have not changed, then you have an extra high burden of justifying a reversal of position.”
… sounds eerily familiar. Oh, yes— way back in my post #40:
“To be fair, I will say that there is probably a bigger legal burden to uphold with disapproval than simple approval. That will be for the courts to decide. ”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
You are confusingtwo things: Whether Trump is right to pressure Ukraine into an unfavourable and unfair deal or whether he has treated Zelensky inapropriately. To the latter the answer is clearly yes. The former is debatable.
I’m not confusing those two things; I’m actually accounting for both, and how both are interconnected. Your response actually seems to exemplify precisely what I describe.
It is clearly bad for the free world (something The USA used to care about), but Trump doesn’t care about that (unless he is even against the free world). He cares about himself and the USA and for them his rampage may be good.
When the USA “cared about the free world,” it was also lambasted as overly interventionist and perhaps even imperialist by the free world. Now that the US is trying to be less of the free world’s policeman, and trying to incentivize free nations to have a bigger stake in protecting that freedom, it gets a reaction such as yours. “Damned if you do; damned if you don’t.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
This is one of those instances where one can frame the event in two very different, even contradictory ways depending on one’s point of view. The respective framings can both be factually correct, too, but the conclusions drawn will be quite different. If one sees continually helping Ukraine to repel an invader as “right” and being reluctant to continue helping Ukraine do that as “wrong,” then one will likely view Zelenskyy as the victim of an ambush by two boorish American leaders. If one sees brokering peace sooner rather than later as “right” and allowing Ukraine to continue dying against superior forces as “wrong,” then one is more likely to view Zelenskyy as being overconfident in his position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
NY is a donor state so it doesn't need the federal government to subsidize anything, just let NY keep its own money and let them handle their own problems. That's what small federal government means.
Now it sounds like you are properly channeling the SGC mindset.
If federal subsidies are involved then it's all good.
“All good” might be an overstatement. More like it is the reality of the situation.
This is, once again, a local solution to a local problem. If you believe in small government it is not the job of the president of the United States to "save" residents of a city from the governing solutions of their local elected leaders.
I will just copy/paste what I have already written earlier:
“The Biden Administration was the first to be involved when it approved congestion tolling as you pointed out. This constitutes federal involvement in a city matter, but again, it’s because of the federal subsidies involved. To my knowledge, conservatives nationwide didn’t complain about the Biden Administration’s involvement for this reason. This should cover the Biden Administration’s involvement both in regards to P1 and P2. No violation of state sovereignty, in other words.”
SGCs didn’t cry foul then, but you believe they should cry foul now?
A few actual SGCs have chimed in on this in this thread. What is your feedback on their views?
Created:
Posted in:
The House Speaker didn’t tear up Trump’s speech this time, so that’s something…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
They gave a girl a standing ovation because she got a ball spiked on her head in waterpolo
Only along partisan lines. The Democrats remained seated and quiet. Also, the accident occurred in volleyball. I am reminded of the water volleyball incident in “Meet the Fockers” though…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
From "If we can create it" it doesn't logically follow that we can explain it.
If we can engineer consciousness, and that isn’t a small “if,” it stands to reason that we can eventually figure out where the chasm between non conscious and conscious was bridged. But I agree that just because we can combine things towards a certain result does not mean we know exactly why that is the case— which is precisely why I wrote that it will “challenge the idea of” rather than “solve” the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Literally every state constitution in the union includes a clause that says the state constitution is subject to the US constitution,…
Yes, it’s called one of the major outcomes of the Civil War.
so according to your logic the very concept of states rights and small federal government doesn't exist since it's all subject to whatever the federal government says.
Incorrect. According to my logic, or simply “logic,” a federal subsidy means that the federal government is involved by the very nature of a federal subsidy. Again, I don’t see why this is such a problem for you, both ethically and conceptually. Rather than seek to understand, you would rather presume what SGCs believe and call them hypocrites for not falling in line with your presumption.
He literally said in his tweet that "all of New York is SAVED". I don't understand why you need that in a syllogism to understand that that has absolutely nothing to do with the reason the government is in a position to deny the program.
Perhaps his tweet means something else in the TDS addled mind. Perhaps you can explain further than merely quoting his tweet? To me, that means “all of New York is saved [from the undue burden of governmental price gouging]”
You pretend you're arguing in good faith but this just isn't serious.
That’s pretty rich considering your shenanigans. If you were arguing in good faith, you would have conceded at least something by now.
Going back to my initial post to you, post 37:
the toll program is subject to federal approval because there have been a number of projects on various roads in lower Manhatten that have received federal subsidies.
“As you know and acknowledge the above to be true, I’m not sure how you can argue this is a case of federal overreach.”
As it turns out, I have indeed gotten the answer to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Matrix is both a science fiction and a fantasy movie.
Don’t even try to outdo the mind-blowing content in this thread.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lawsuits are also the weapon OF woke culture. Regarding my Atlas example, they were doomed to be sued regardless— they would have been sued for firing the pilot but instead were sued for keeping the pilot.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, this is why I found United’s stated goal of having its pilot group proportionally represent the entire US demographic so distressing. It’s fine to want to cast a wider net in recruitment but not to micromanage and predetermine what that net will ultimately catch.
Aviation has been in a high workforce demand period since the high early retirement period of the COVID pandemic. The most safety sensitive occupations are pilot, ATC, and mechanics. If there were ever positions in which DEI initiatives should be given a back seat, it would be those.
There was a fatal accident with an Atlas cargo plane several years ago. One of the accident pilots appeared to be… “artificially sustained” by Atlas. It can be tough for an airline, as fired employees almost always file lawsuits of wrongful termination— especially DEI congruent employees. In this case, the pilot’s family is suing Atlas for allowing their poor son to fly when he wasn’t a safe pilot! This is why I call DEI/antiracism/woke “the tiger which eats its own tail”— it sets up a lose/lose proposition at every turn…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
Wow, that’s impressive. This will challenge the idea of “the hard problem of consciousness.” What exactly is consciousness, what causes it, and can humans create it? If we can create it, intentionally or not, is it really that hard of a problem? I remember reading about an experiment where robots were given a program which was designed to evolve and mutate on its own. What resulted were robots which acted heroically and selflessly and others which acted selfishly out of pure self preservation. It was a mind-blower.
The movies which come to my mind which have raised and explored these concepts are 2001, AI, and The Matrix.
Created:
-->
@Vader
The NTSB as described in the post #1
Are you saying that the NTSB is claiming that federal workforce cuts are causal factors to the current accidents?
Created:
-->
@Vader
You are correct— there are actually less aviation accidents this year than the same period last year. The problem is that the recent accidents are very high profile with many more fatalities than previously. Still, the fallacious nature of said analysis you are criticizing holds true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can often tell what people arguing online do NOT do for a living. For example, one can tell that RR is not an attorney. I remember an article about a financially struggling college graduate (the all too common high debt, trouble finding a lucrative job story), and I wrote in the comments “well, I can certainly tell she didn’t major in economics!” Boy, the angry bee response I got from the abundant lefty readers!
Created:
-->
@Vader
Yes, it’s a pretty classic “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy. It usually takes at least a few years for an administration’s policies to actually yield results, good or bad.
But who exactly is claiming this, and what is the relevance of your NTSB references?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As Devil's advocate: technically, choices and options nullify the standard for price gouging. For example, if somebody charged you 20 dollars for a gallon of gas, but you could get it cheaper a few miles away, it doesn't meet the standard for gouging. If you are the only station within 100 miles, that would probably meet the standard due to lack of realistic choices. The position of New York is that there is a choice, you can use the subway, or we can charge whatever we want for use of the roads. That's your choice. Now, maybe a court will look at this and declare a subway option to be separate, but NOT equal to a highway choice. Who knows?
Sure. One extenuating factor here is commerce, however. One could argue that the tolls pose an undue burden on cargo trucking which obviously cannot take the subway.
My larger point is that this is a pretty pedantic matter (very unlike abortion and homosexual marriage, which are national issues not involving federal subsidies) so the motive and procedural basis behind the DOT disapproval is obscure and esoteric and not easily examined by the layperson. But Trump tweeted about it, so it must be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Ok. I just don't take this explanation as genuine, I take it as an ad hoc. Again, Trump made clear why he was intervening and it's not for any reason that gives the federal government the power to step in.
Well, it is genuine, but your feelings about an argument outside of the strength of that argument are hardly pivotal. What is pivotal here is the presence of a federal subsidy, making the program “subject to federal approval.” If Trump’s tweet is “genuinely” pivotal to your argument, you should have incorporated it into your syllogism. If you took the views of SGCs onboard in this thread, instead of merely hurling unsubstantiated accusations of hypocrisy, you would see how pivotal a federal subsidy is to issues between the federal government and the states.
Again, this is a meaningless tautology. 'The government can step in here, so if they do there's no violation of state sovereignty'. This argument can be used to justify every federal encroachment of state sovereignty there's ever been. For decades we heard repeatedly when it came to abortion is that it should be left up to the states, that it was a violation of state sovereignty to force every state to allow it, gay marriage as well. Well the SC had the constitutional authority to decide otherwise, so no violation.
Your example doesn’t involve a federal subsidy, Mr. “These two things are not the same.” I don’t know why this concept is proving so difficult for you to grasp.
I've already explained why the price gouging argument fails.
And I provided a definition which refuted your explanation.
My accusation is mostly based on Trump's own words. That's not bias, it's basic logic.
Then you need to create a syllogism around Trump’s tweet. “I’m not biased” is merely an empty claim. Even with a syllogism it might still be an empty claim, but at least it can then be exposed to proper examination.
Created:
Posted in:
Here’s a balanced article on why Zelensky backed out of signing the peace agreement and what is at stake. For you “tl;dr” types, it isn’t even that long:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Where did you copy that summary? That seems to sum up my understanding of what’s to be gained here. I think Zelensky will return to the negotiating table, hat in hand so to speak… after he has tragically lost more of his countrymen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I've laid it out step by step multiple times in this thread. But if P's and C's is what it will take then here it is;P1: Conservatives champion the principal that the federal government should be small and allow states to figure out solutions to their own problemsP2: A president of the United States deciding that it is his role to impose his will with regards to an American city's local affairs is a blatant violation of the principal of P1C1: Conservatives should be against the actions described in P2C2: Conservatives failure to reconcile the contradiction between P1 and P2 is hypocrisy
Now, this is what I’m talking about! Thanks for laying out your argument in clear terms. I actually have an issue with both your premises. Your P1 might be true as a stand-alone claim, but not in the context of issues such as this one. That is because this issue involves a federal subsidy, and even small government conservatives, to my knowledge, don’t have a problem with federal intervention when federal subsidies are involved. Perhaps they wish for no federal subsidies in most cases?
The Biden Administration was the first to be involved when it approved congestion tolling as you pointed out. This constitutes federal involvement in a city matter, but again, it’s because of the federal subsidies involved. To my knowledge, conservatives nationwide didn’t complain about the Biden Administration’s involvement for this reason. This should cover the Biden Administration’s involvement both in regards to P1 and P2. No violation of state sovereignty, in other words.
Seeing as how the federal government does indeed have a say in a matter such as this, it is common, acceptable, and not a breach of protocol for an incoming administration to reassess the decisions of a previous administration. Therefore, it is not uncommon, unacceptable, nor a breach of protocol for the Trump Administration to reassess Biden’s approval (via his DOT). Again, no violation of state sovereignty.
The purpose of discussing issues such as this in a debate forum is to provide and defend your opinion. If all you're going to do is appeal to legal authority then you have nothing to contribute to this thread, and as far as I am concerned only further demonstrate my point. I somehow suspect that if a democratic president decided to assert himself into a red state's local affairs in this way you would have very strong opinions about it, but on this you have nothing.
Ah, there’s your dismissiveness… and your stubbornly mistaken presumption that I have BDS; it’s all part of your charm. Anyway, my point is that I can admit that I don’t know enough about the motives behind the current DOT’s disapproval other than it appearing to be over price gouging concerns, which seem valid to me. You have given me no reason to believe that you know any more about any impropriety involved than I do. You merely have speculation, extreme bias, and a Trump tweet (as shocking as that is) to motivate your accusation. THAT is why I humbly admit that that aspect of this matter is for the courts to decide. I’m trusting the relevant experts to investigate whether there is any impropriety or not.
My point remains that absent the proper authorities deciding the DOT’s disapproval being decided improperly, there is otherwise no violation of state sovereignty here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You decide who you think is in charge here.
Every airline captain has come across a copilot or (actually more common) a flight attendant who thought they were in charge. Eventually, that person comes up against something called reality.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Have a good one.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Childish
Oh, the irony. And complete confirmation of my prediction. Way too much “my people do no wrong, whereas your people do no right” cultism for me… or anyone, I would predict…
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Say, is an Iraqi whose house got destroyed by an American strike entitled to compensation from the US government? No.
Yes:
Created:
-->
@Yassine
These are not legally binding whatsoever. Yes, any organization has a guide, manual, rulebook... even the one that kills 25 million innocent people, or all those ones that killed collectively half a billion people. Say, is an Iraqi whose house got destroyed by an American strike entitled to compensation from the US government? No. There is no Human rights in the West, rather National rights promoted as Human rights... US Law does not protect the rights or provide any legal recourse to non-nationals.
But that wasn’t your original claim:
'Best' assumes a reference of conduct in war. There is none anywhere in US Law, or for any other western country.
Then you move the posts to the opposite of what you just said:
Yes, any organization has a guide, manual, rulebook
Do you not see your contradiction?
So, there IS a reference of conduct in war according to your 2nd claim. Also, the US makes efforts to follow international law, even if it isn’t “legally binding.” As for rules of engagement (ROE), a soldier can be court martialled and sent to prison for not following them. That seems pretty legally binding to me.
Suspicion doubly confirmed…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Complete and total bullshit.
That describes the relevance of your retort to what I was saying, yes.
You downplayed my argument as mere hair splitting, so I responded with 2 sets of contrasting examples explaining the significance (the opposite of hair splitting) followed by reemphasizing how the same logic of those two examples applies to the example at hand.
But I was talking about the structural similarity between a president and that president’s administration. That is the hair splitting I was referring to, not what you were talking about, which was proper vs improper reasons for the approval process.
8 paragraphs in response to your one sentence talking point rebuttal all for you to tell me I didn't respond to what you said. That's absurd.
It’s basic English.
“Regarding improper procedure, I already addressed that in post 40 and 43.”
No, you really didn't. Your response was to simply point to "subject to federal approval" as if that ends the conversation. It doesn't, because you're appealing to something you yourself don't believe.
Hmm… looks like I DO need to mention it a third time for the reading or, even worse, the honesty impaired. To reiterate from my posts 40 and 43:
“To be fair, I will say that there is probably a bigger legal burden to uphold with disapproval than simple approval. That will be for the courts to decide.”
“”subject to federal approval” means exactly what it says. That fact means there is no violation of state sovereignty here, unless the courts find that the DOT is disapproving the measure for improper reasons, as I have already acknowledged.”
Again, this is basic English.
you're appealing to something you yourself don't believe.
What are you even talking about? It would help if you actually said what that “something” is rather than making fuzzy references.
The topic of this conversation isn't whether the government has the right to cancel the program, we're talking about whether it is right. So repeating over and over again that the program was subject to federal approval does nothing to address the topic of this thread.
Maybe if you could construct a syllogism or even a polysyllogism making your case clearly. So far, you have hollow accusations and ipse dixit (ie “because I say so”) fallacy.
If Biden had tweeted his approval over his DOT approving congestion tolls, that would mean what to you exactly?Well, if he ended the tweet with "long live the king" I would have definitely taken issue with that.
How about “God save the Queen, man!”
Putting on my small government states rights hat, I would not have been the least bit concerned over the Biden administration approving the program because approval means allowing the state to carry out its own solution to its own problem. It's when you deny it that there is legitimate concern, depending on the reason why you denied it. For an extensive dive into why that is, see my last post.
Yes, and I said that is for the courts to decide earlier. You know, the experts on legal procedure. And you just denied I acknowledged that, so I had to copy/paste me acknowledging it. The things I have to do because of your inevitable antics…
A president of the United States determines that a traffic program is an improper use of federally subsidized roads - Procedural and therefore Proper (setting aside why the hell would a president involve himself personally in this decision, especially after it has already been made and the program already took effect)Yet you are crying foul over this possibility and wondering why small government conservatives aren’t calling this out.No. You didn't read the example. Note the bold.
The courts will decide if this was proper procedure or not. Not you or me.
“Price gouging doesn’t qualify as an improper use of federally subsidized roads?”
The toll into NY from Jersey and into Queens from the Bronx was up to $16 the last time I crossed them. The congesting pricing toll in lower Manhatten is $9. This is a terrible argument.Also that's not even price gouging. Price gouging is when you inflate the cost of something as a means of exploiting people for profit.
Here’s a definition of price gouging:
“an act or instance of charging customers too high a price for goods or services, especially when demand is high and supplies are limited.”
The shoe seems to fit.
“You conflate prosecutorial independence with a regulatory approval matter. It is simply laughable.”
You are the one who asserted that the structural hierarchy of an agency reporting to a president means there is no difference between that agency making a decision and the president making that decision himself. So all I did was adopt that same logic to the justice department. If the logic holds then it doesn't make a difference whether we're talking about prosecutorial independence because according to your stated argument there is no such thing.
So, you’re doubling down on laughable. Do you even know what prosecutorial independence is and why it’s independent? That sending someone to jail is quite different from turning down a toll program? “These two things are not the same.”
My gripe is that republicans are hypocrites. This example is a clear indication of that.
But you haven’t constructed a cogent argument to that end (that, or I have dismantled it already.) Doubling down on your baseless accusation instead. It’s true because you say so.
Not hard to understand.
Your posts usually show intelligence, creativity and adaptability but are also fluid (as a result of said adaptability) and therefor lack consistency, clarity, and rigor. It actually seems as though your arguments thrive on murkiness and goalpost creep so that you can readily accuse your opponent of strawmanning you when your fuzzy and fluid argument is inevitably impossible to pin down. Using a rigorous syllogistic format would certainly help in making your arguments more concrete, which might explain why you avoid doing so.
If you insist on avoiding the construction of your argument/rebuttal in a syllogistic format, I will have to assume that either you are unable or unwilling to do so. In either case, your argument can then be disregarded as too unclear and incoherent to address effectively.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Suspicion confirmed, but I do have a lingering question about your claim here:
- 'Best' assumes a reference of conduct in war. There is none anywhere in US Law, or for any other western country.
I’m not sure what you even mean with this claim— what about international laws of warfare, the US Law of War, and US Rules of Engagement?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
The average American also works more than people in prison. The solution? Put more people in prison. Vote Republican.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The difference between a political decision and a procedural decision is not hair splitting. The basis of the decision is the very thing that often determines whether it is proper or not.A manager decides to award a contract to Party A because they're the best suited for the job - Proper.A manager decides to award a contract to Party A because their spouse owns the company so they can benefit personally - Corruption.A federal judge rules against Party A because their position is found to be in violation of the constitution - ProperA federal judge rules against Party A because he belongs to an advocacy group and thought this would be a great opportunity to advance his cause - ImproperThis isn't hair splitting.
It is unfortunate that you spent this much of your precious free time not addressing anything I said in the post you’re responding to. Regarding improper procedure, I already addressed that in post 40 and 43. Do you need me to mention it a third time? If Biden had tweeted his approval over his DOT approving congestion tolls, that would mean what to you exactly?
A president of the United States determines that a traffic program is an improper use of federally subsidized roads - Procedural and therefore Proper (setting aside why the hell would a president involve himself personally in this decision, especially after it has already been made and the program already took effect)
Yet you are crying foul over this possibility and wondering why small government conservatives aren’t calling this out. So, conservatives nationwide didn’t call out the Biden Administration for approving it, but you expect them to call out a Republican administration for disapproving it? To the point of being hypocritical for not doing so?
A president of the United States decides to cancel a city's traffic program because he decided the program was not best for the city even though the local officials who were elected to deal with these very problems determined otherwise - Political and therefore Improper (if you believe in states rights and small government)
Price gouging doesn’t qualify as an improper use of federally subsidized roads? (Hence, my response above)
This isn't hair splitting, and if it were Biden personally interfering in a red states affair's in this exact way you wouldn't need me to write a 20 paragraph thesis to get it.
No, I would see the “subject to federal approval” part and get the gist right away— unlike some people. You must be confusing me for someone with Biden Derangement Syndrome.
If it were proven that Biden was in regular contact with Jack Smith and personally instructed him to file charges against Trump would you have any issue with that, or would you be lecturing all the right wingers on how the DOJ servers at the pleasure of the president?
OMG… this coming from Mr. “These two things are not the same.” You conflate prosecutorial independence with a regulatory approval matter. It is simply laughable.
If I am wrongly interpreting how conservatives have been appealing to states rights and small government all these years, the way to address that is to explain how conservatives view the matter and explain how these two things are different. You haven't even attempted to do that, all you've done is strawman my arguments and now claim I'm misrepresenting the right.
I haven’t even attempted to do that? *knock, knock* Hello, McFly?? Simple negation and ipse dixit fallacy at its best (or worst). And I am not intentionally strawmanning your argument. I’m trying to make sense out of your gripe here. It’s like pulling teeth getting you to state your argument in a clear and consistent manner. That’s why I recommend you use a syllogistic format. We share precious few points of reference other than the post of yours I initially quoted— “subject to federal approval.”
Created:
-->
@Sunshineboy217
Reagan never officially condemned Soviet military actions when he was going through peace talks with them. He lessened his “evil empire” rhetoric during said peace talks.
Yeah, I guess that is true, but I think he eased off when Gorbachev was the premier. Some even argue that Gorbachev was more responsible for the Soviet Union’s downfall than Reagan.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thanks for the article. For me, this is a tussle between piss poor optics and the possibility of savvy, expedient statesmanship. This is where the concept of political capital comes in. I think Trump just used a lot of it. Time will tell…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No.First of all, we have agencies that handle that. You know, as in people who do this for a living and therefore understand what's actually involved in these decisions. There is no reason whatsoever that the President of the United States would be personally involved in any of this, and there is no evidence Biden had anything to do with it.So no, "Biden" didn't approve anything.My position is; the fact that the federal agency that handles this approved it gives us good reason to believe the program met the criteria that would have otherwise caused it to be denied.
This is merely hair splitting (no offense, Lex) based upon your apparent ignorance of the fact that the head of the DOT is a cabinet level position who serves “at the pleasure of” the POTUS. If the DOT approved the congestion tolling program under Biden, it is structurally the same as Biden himself approving the program, whether the president in question chooses to tweet about it or not.
What I'm arguing is that my ideological opponents do not fall in line with their own stated position. That's what hypocrisy means, and I've repeated that point over and over and over again in this conversation.You did get the last part right though. A hypocrite is someone who does have a flaw in their character, that's why the word carriers weight.
*sigh* More hair splitting. Allow me to clarify which hair is which: when I say “your position” on this matter, I mean the position which you impute to small government conservatives— which is YOUR opinion regarding how conservatives should view the matter, rather than how conservatives might actually view the matter.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Russia doesn't want any more territory than the one it has held onto for the past 3 years. If they were going to take more land, they had 3 years to do it instead of bleeding Ukraine with constant artillery shellings. Some hardliners wanted more territory like Prigozhin, and they killed him for it.
I think Putin is playing a longer game than that. I know nothing about Prigozhin, so I welcome any references you have on that situation.
This has always been about the spoils of war, and Europe is far more pissed it will not be at the spoils table than it is credibly worried about Putin. EU has made zero moves to ramp up their militaries, signalling there was never a need to do so.
I’m not sure what spoils the EU was expecting out of this. Military budgets are the most expedient things to skimp on when peace is taken for granted, and a nation such as the USA has historically had your back. NATO wouldn’t mean much without the USA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There appears to be another binary frame that Lex is simultaneously trying to construct: that a Republican is either irresponsible or a hypocrite. Irresponsible if he holds to his allegedly damaging values or a hypocrite if he doesn’t hold to his values. Heads; Lex wins! Tails; Republicans lose!
Created:
-->
@Sunshineboy217
This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I am for peace through strength, not appeasement. Reagan was able to negotiate with the Soviets while still calling it “the evil empire.” If this emboldens Russia to acquire more territory or China to blockade Taiwan, it will be a foreign policy failure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This is false. The federal government (as in the entity) needed (past tense) to be involved in the approval process. It was, and it past the test that was required. That's done, we're beyond that.
Ok. So, because Biden had already approved the toll program, Trump should not be getting involved. Is that your position?
You believe in small government and states rights correct? If not, this thread doesn't apply to you.
That’s a more nuanced matter for me. I am neither strongly for big or small federal government. If I wish to play “devil’s advocate” my own position isn’t even relevant. What is relevant is the strength of your argument, or lack thereof. You are actually going so far as to argue that if your ideological opponents do not fall into line with your position, they must have a flaw in their character. That is called bullying (and binary thinking).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump was not creating a "constitutional crisis" using Federal authority to approve tolls impacting a federal highway system"
At least this would be a coherent line of thought as opposed to the mere assertion of “you either agree with me that Trump’s intervention is wrong or you’re a hypocrite!”
As I like to say, there are only two types of thinking: binary and non-binary.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Very well put question. I assume this is a genuine question, so I am gunna answer genuinely. But I will ask you similar questions, how do you believe Israel wages war? Is this consistent with Christian/Western/American... values? Is this morally justifiable according to you?
Thanks for your comprehensive answer! I asked out of genuine curiosity and not to critique or cross examine your answer. I suspect that if I answer in kind, you will seek to criticize, take exception, and maybe even have a good laugh at my expense; I’m just not in the mood to go to great effort for it to result in bickering back and forth. What I will say is that the Bible does not really give much instruction at all about how war should be waged. The Old Testament has a little bit, but is mainly a history of war rather than a how-to manual. The New Testament has none to my knowledge. IMO, the Bible is a book at war with itself— by that I mean contradictory and open to interpretation. For example, Jesus famously said, “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.” But… obviously some disciples WERE carrying swords!
The West seems to get its rules of warfare from historic warriors such as Hammurabi and from the history of warfare itself. Do western forces follow the rules? Yes and no depending. If I were to sum up the conduct of American forces at least, we do the best we can based upon the circumstances. I cannot speak for the Jewish/Israeli rules of conduct, but I imagine they overlap a fair amount with the US and Western Europe. I don’t agree with everything Israel does, but neither do many Israelis! And I live in a nation surrounded by allies, not potential adversaries as Israel does. As I said earlier, Israel has to strike a contradictory balance between valuing all human life and “Never again.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
My point is this:
The Trump Administration is actually required to be involved in the NYC toll program approval process.
If you already know the above to be the case, then I really don’t know what point you are trying to make. Perhaps you could structure it as a syllogism for the most clarity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Wow— that’s a lot of words you’re saying to still not be addressing this:
Even if the DOT approved, that would still constitute federal involvement in the matter. What you don’t seem to realize is that the federal government’s involvement is actually REQUIRED— that is what “subject to federal approval” means.
Sometimes you have real complaints about Trump. This, however, isn’t one of those times. There is much lower hanging, much bigger fruit than this.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
- I saw your question, I shall answer it shortly.
Excellent; thanks.
You know Hamas are Sufis right?
Uh no, I did not realize that. I had assumed, it seems incorrectly, that Sufis are not very political, and Hamas is nothing if not political. My rudimentary search immediately found that article indicating that Hamas has persecuted Sufis. So, would you say that this article is on the right track?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, logic much.
It doesn’t seem like it.
Even if the DOT approved, that would still constitute federal involvement in the matter. What you don’t seem to realize is that the federal government’s involvement is actually REQUIRED— that is what “subject to federal approval” means. You just see it as “wrong” because the federal government’s requisite involvement isn’t going the way you wish.
The scale of a wrong can only be determined after you figure out what the wrong is.
You have yet to make your case that it is “wrong” (odd word/concept to bring into a strictly regulatory matter, but whatever).
Created:
-->
@WyIted
It’s odd that he boasts so eagerly on Hamas’ behalf, especially considering this fact:
“When Hamas assumed power in 2006, it shut down many Sufi zawiyas (meeting places) on the pretext that they posed a danger to society.”
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Do you believe that Hamas fights Israel in a fashion consistent with Allah’s directives? I ask in order to learn both how you believe Hamas wages war and how you believe Allah directs wars to be fought.
Created: