Total posts: 1,080
-->
@Greyparrot
Well it's quite simple. Trump has shown himself to be morally depraved, and extorting another country leader seems to be a bar that only he falls under among other first world free country leaders. Since the bar is so low, being better than that is hardly unfounded praise.What the fuck is this supposed to mean? The EU does not care at all about aiding Ukraine. Your moral compass is all fucked up from the viewpoint of a Ukrainian with your unfounded praise of the EU.
Your EU assumptions are typical pontifications of armchair fanboys, ignorant of what's actually going on over there.
Since you've thus far been unable to substantiate what you've been claiming past vague allusions, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're full of shit.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your diatribe assumes Ukraine does not need or want aid from the EU.With so many unreal assumptions, I think we can just stop here. The American lens is myopic indeed.I actually spent a lot of time reading Ukrainian press and reading their social media. Your assumptions about Ukraine and Zelensky have very little basis in reality. The things you think are worth dying for are not the things Ukraine cares about.
Not at all. My diatribe assumes that Ukraine has not been extorted for military aid, which I think is not a reasonable assumption given that the leaders of the EU have not quite shown the signs of moral depravity that Trump has.
Also, you are assuming Zelensky had something to gain from not investigating the corruption from Burisma. Another myopic assumption.Zelensky had plenty of reason to do it with or without Trump's help or encouragement. There may have been notable pressure to keep the corruption investigations censored by the people involved in the corruption (such as Biden). That's a far more likely possibility. That would make Trump's greenlight more politically helpful to Zelensky than Trump, considering Zelensky's political capital revolves around kicking the scum out of Burisma.It's like saying "AOC asked Bernie for a favor" by asking Bernie to pledge free healthcare for illegal immigrants. What a laughable favor for AOC to "ask" for that kind of favor when Bernie would gladly do it without any prodding whatsoever, with or without AOC.The whole "Zelensky was a battered abused child" fake news narrative is one of the most laughable concepts from the perspective of any Ukrainian.
I'm sorry, but this is wishy washy horseshit. I do not trust anyone who says that they know something. I trust people that show they know something. And my confidence in you being able to produce anything tangible went right down that moment you apparently claimed to be able to represent the views of an entire country by "reading Ukrainian press and reading social media".
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Not at all. I maintain that the favour was composed of multiple parts. I'm not denying in the slightest that he asked for an investigation into crowdstrike as a favour.What off course? The origin of this string is to identify what favor Trump was asking for in discussion with Ukraine's Zelensky. You maintain it was a Biden investigation, and can see no other possibility. I disagree, and it appears neither will convince the other. No off course, at all, just an inability to convince.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
We appear to have gone off course.
It's all good with me as long as you understand that Trump did ask Zelensky to investigate the Bidens and this is a favour, explicit or not.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is a terrible assumption. The point is that Zelensky is not lying or deceiving EU leaders, nor "playing the battered child" fake news card. If that approach does not equate to receiving substantial aid from any of the EU nations, then Zelensky has no logical reason to play that card with America either. It's a childish and ethnocentric view to assume the world outside of America operates largely on foreign appeasement, groveling, and deception, because the opposite is actually true.
I made no claim what Zelensky does or does not do in regards to the EU. But it is clear that Zelensky needed aid from America, and that Trump is vindictive towards those who spurn him. The logical conclusion is that Zelensky lied to maintain Ukraine-US relations. The testimony and events of this incident supports this conclusion. Your claim that what he says must be true just because he says it in comparison is baseless
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with your assessment that every political leader either hates or "must hate" Trump and that none of them could possibly actually like Trump and his policies.It's entirely plausible that Zelensky and the Ukrainian people are logically supportive of a president that has been tough against Russia since 2016. Unlike other Administrations.
I made no such assessment. I don't know where you pulled this from. There's a good chance that many leaders are ambivalent towards Trump. I do however believe that some leaders have expressed dislike towards Trump.
I'm not aware of anything that makes the Trump administration particularly tough against Russia. I presume all that has happened is that he's slapped sanctions against Russia, which is pretty much what Obama did no?
Even if your theory was to hold water, why hasn't Zelensky been deceitful with the other EU nations who do nothing but appease Russia? Probably because Zelensky has far more reason to hate Germany than America right now just looking at policies.
I don't know what the relationship between the EU and Ukraine is like. I presume they do offer the Ukraine aid in some form. However to my knowledge the EU leaders have not attempted to extort Ukraine, which certainly reduces the need to lie about the existence of an extortion. Remember, there is good reason to lie when there is a need. If you can't demonstrate a need, then there's hardly a reason to lie.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolutely. I think all politicians will lie to benefit their citizens given the sufficiency of the need.
That said Germany, France and Canada are all a part of global powers and circumstances such that they don't need to bend over for foreign aid. ie NATO, EU
It just so happens that the Ukraine shares a border with Russia, is actively being threatened and is not part of the EU or NATO. Hence they do need to bend over for the US
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
The timeline certainly suggests so. But ultimately the time between the first case and cases in all states probably isn't the best indicator for how contagious a disease is, given the vast variety of factors that can differ between diseases.
I would more trust whatever methods virologists are using to determine how contagious a disease is.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a perfectly sane position to have. If I need something, REALLY need something, you bet your ass I'm going to suck up to you if it makes sure I get it. The only differences is that country leaders have more at stake and personal pride has little value next to the well being of your citizens.
And given that Ukraine is actively being threatened by Russia, I would say that Zelensky has a significant need to be on friendly relations with Trump
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
You are confusing Trump with Biden. Biden dangled $1B to Ukraine, saying, on video, that Ukraine had six hours to fire their prosecutor, or the $1B would be withdrawn. Trump put a temp hold in $139M, about ten X less than Biden's play, but released it well before the deadline for that payment, 9/30/2019. Paid on 9/11. Anything strike you as coincidental about that date, 9/30? No? It happened to be the end of fiscal 2018, and intended for use by Ukraine beginning fiscal 2019, on 10/1. So, the argument that Ukrainian soldiers were endangered by the delay is also a crock of shyte, because earlier payment in fiscal 2018 took the neds of those soldiers to end fiscal year 2018.
No, because this is a topic about Trump's dealings not Biden's.
<br>Oh, for the shame! A president appoints an A.G. who is agreeable to Trump policy. Can you just imagine how unique that is. Face it, bud, you hate everything about Tump and will complain that he brushes his teeth.
Context is important. Ethang5's comments argue that Trump could not have referred the case to the DoJ, because the DoJ had an insurance policy against him getting elected. My comment argues that the DoJ is headed by someone who is sympathetic to Trump's causes and hence, he could've referred the case to the DoJ.
In a vacuum, I don't actually care that Barr appears to be a Trump sycophant because, as you say, appointees tends to be sympathetic towards their appointers
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The fact is, Ukraine cannot afford to upset the leader of the US, especially when said leader tends to be vindictive towards those that "wrong" him. Zelensky being truthful in this matter would actively harm his nation. Being untruthful does not. In fact, being untruthful helps in currying favour in the future.
Zelensky had every incentive to lie for the betterment of Ukraine interests and it's clear as such when you analyze the events and communications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
There are several differences that I think are pertinent
1. Related to your point about media, while I don't know if the media was better or worse in the case of H1N1, dissemination of information is far easier when everyone has a small computer in their pocket in the case of Covid-19
2. Recency bias
3. H1N1 was about as contagious as the common flu. Preliminary information about Covid-19 suggests that it is somewhat more contagious. And of course, this results in the overloading of hospital systems more so than less contagious diseases
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Rather the DoJ headed by the man appointed by Trump and generally seen as biased towards Trump affairs.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh yes absolutely. And the girl with bruises down her back who fervently denies that she is being abused by her father is not being abused. We should absolutely trust those that fear retaliation over the evidence that surrounds the circumstances.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Even if your claim is granted, Biden and his son were involved. How would a US president who is charged with enforcing his country's laws, look into things in Ukraine without the investigation touching Joe and Hunter Biden?
I assume typically cases of suspected high illegality should be referred to the DoJ? Though of course regardless this would've been a non-issue if Trump hadn't been dangling military aid as a bargaining chip
And if they are involved in any illegality, why should they not be investigated? An investigation is not a crime. In fact, an investigation would clear a clean Hunter and Joe.
They should be, given sufficient basis
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
A favour can be composed of multiple actions and expositions related to the favour. The key indicator is whether those actions or expositions stand on their own merit as a favour.
For example,
"The server, they say Ukraine has it." obviously is related to CrowdStrike. It means nothing on its own - exposition related to the favour.
"I would like to have the Attorney General call you, or your people...". Again, means nothing on its own. It clearly an action related to the favour
More specifically, the language "The other thing" is meaningless on its own. It is an "other thing" to something else previously mentioned. Since the "other thing" previously mentioned was the favour, from my perspective it is reasonable to interpret the request into an investigation into Biden as being a secondary request in the overall favour of investigation into ukraine-us dealings.
Finally, it should be noted that favours need not be explicitly expressed to be considered favours. It is clear that Trump has requested an investigation into Biden and whether or not you decide to bundle that under the "I would like you to do us a favor", taken on its own it is a favour of its own accord.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm not describing two separate favours. If I asked you to go to the shop for me to buy me apples and then later before you left I said can you also buy me oranges, I'm not asking for a favour to go to the shop and buy me apples, and then another favour to go to the shop and buy me oranges. The interaction should be correctly parsed to mean the favour is going to the shop, to buy both apples and oranges.
Same thing here. The favour is to investigate incidences involving both ukraine and US parties. First crowdstrike, then burisma.
The amount of degrees of separation is irrelevant. In my example, if we happened to discuss aliens before I also asked you to buy me oranges, it should be clear that the oranges refers to the favour of going to the shop.
In this case, the language "if you can look into it" to me refers to some sort of an investigation. The only other time an investigation was referenced to in the conversation was in relation to the favour. "The other thing" also indicates this, because it only makes sense in the context of an investigation into something else that was already asked to be investigated, which was crowdstrike.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The reasonable interpretation is that the favor was a two part request to look into aspects of Ukraine-US incidences. The first incidence was obviously CrowdStrike, the second was Burisma. This is indicated by the language "The other thing" and "so if you can look into it" in reference to Biden.
The notion that looking into Biden was not a part of the favor is an incredibly charitable interpretation of the conversation such that I find it difficult to believe that you'd apply the same charitability to any other conversation that did not involve Trump.
Trump gets unfairly bashed over many issues. But at the same time, he should be fairly criticized for his missteps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The distinction being made is that the theory of evolution in "On the origin of species" has long since been iterated and improved upon into the current modern theory of evolution (by other contributors apart from Darwin). While they refer to the same subject matter, they are not equivalent or "the same".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I disagree. Greyparrot made reference to the existence of a SCOTUS decision that indicates that congress has zero constitutional authority to subpoena Trump.
Nowhere in his text do I find that decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What does that have to do with SCOTUS ruling that congress does not have the constitutional authority to subpoena the executive branch?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What SCOTUS ruling was this and how does it address the US v Nixon ruling?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
There's no panic over malaria because unless you're living near the equator, which is not most internet dwellers, you aren't even remotely at risk for it. It's an irrelevant factor for most 1st world societies. Coronavirus however has a very real chance of infecting and killing your great aunt Sally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes?
It's definitely new
It reportedly has a R0 of 2-3 whereas the common flu has a R0 of 1.3
It reportedly has a mortality rate of anywhere between 0.2% to 14.8% depending on your age whereas the common flu is around 0.1%
Created:
Posted in:
Probably the fact that it's new, more infectious and more deadly than common seasonal respiratory viruses
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
To test the efficacy of prayer, one would need to establish some sort of a god that is being prayed to. Since the concept of a god is inherently unscientific, it follows that testing the efficacy of prayer is also unscientific.
That said this is clearly intended as a philosophical argument against the efficacy of prayer, so your quibbles are ultimately pointless
Created:
Posted in:
I do note that the context for raising the corporate tax rate is to restore it back to the pre-Trump %35, rather than randomly raising it to %35 at a whim.
In which case I think the prudent measure would be to examine the effects of the lower corporate tax rate under Trump and weigh the relative benefits to the negatives.
Created:
Posted in:
Only in the sense that evolution is compatible with the idea of a flying hippo-like creature that poops out rainbows
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Humans are not applying energy to directly melt the ice in the context of climate change. That analysis does not make sense in the context of climate change. It only makes sense in the context of dishonestly throwing numbers at people ignorant of the mechanics of climate change and misleading them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Accusing me of degeneracy and sexism just because I've proposed a legitimate and completely viable solution that necessarily must favour one gender is completely offensive, you reprobate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Opting for an invasive surgery on women just so that men can have sex is very sexist you pig.
There are plenty of options to deal with a man's sex drive. For example, drugs to suppress sex drive and the extraction of sperm before castration
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
That's true enough. However the removal of the fallopian would be an invasive surgery while the removal of the penis would be non-invasive. Hence clearly we should opt for the penis removal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Only for the first 2 months. After that, the unintended pregnancy rate is 0%, unless it grows back, which is super rare (about 1/2000 chance in a lifetime). Vast majority of abortions don't happen under this plan, and unintended pregnancies are gone too.
1/2000 is still significant
How would guys pee out then? Pee poisoning might be an issue if guys can't pee out. Why remove the whole penis when that is not necessary to achieve the goal of sterilising the male to prevent abortions? Just a mandatory vastectomy ought to do it.
Penis removal does not imply bladder, urethra or kidney removal. Pee need not necessarily come out of a penis. You'll note that women have no problem peeing despite completely lacking penises.
The removal of penises completely negates the ability to have sex (and therefore natural pregnancies and abortions). Clearly, there is a higher imperative to save lives than there is for carnal pleasure, hence this trade off is worth it.
As stated before, mandatory vasectomies aren't a perfect solution, while penis removal is. There is still the chance that the vas deferens will grow back. And when it does, 1 out of every 2000 men in their lifetime will find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Given the current world population and assuming for a 1:1 ratio of men to female, this means that there will be 1.875 million unintended pregnancies, of which many will lead to abortions because they were all unintended.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
A Homosexual is defined by Merriam-webster as...
"a person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex"
It has everything to do with attraction
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Word definition legitimacy is fortunately not predicated upon you finding the word definition pleasing, and instead is quite sensibly predicated upon etymology and common parlance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Not accepting the definition of a word simply because you don't like the definition or the implication of the definition is just childish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That is a false equivalency. Guitarists and thieves are defined by their respective acts. Homosexuality is not. It is instead defined by attraction to the same gender.
The terms you are looking for are MSM and WSW (Men/Women who have sex with Men/Women). In which case you are correct. Someone who is simply attracted to their own sex is not a MSM/WSW but they are by definition homosexual.
Created:
Posted in:
Vasectomies still have a failure rate. I suggest removing the penises of males at birth. This will ensure that there are absolutely no more unwanted pregnancies (and hence abortions).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
By definition, what makes a homosexual a homosexual is their attraction to the same gender.There is no such thing as an innate homosexual. Are people born thieves? Are people born pianists?What makes a homosexual? Behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Let's say I make $14.50 (double minimum) There is no way in hell and employer will raise that wage to $30.
What do you mean by double minimum? If you're working one job and currently earning double the minimum wage, that wage will be bumped to the minimum threshold of $15, not doubled again to $30
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Disclaimer; I did not watch the video
However was there a reason she gave that justifies going through a back-channel rather than official channel, and why that justifies extorting a foreign nation?
I can understand wishing to investigate the Bidens if you think they've done wrong. I just can't understand why you'd do it in such a corrupt manner and leave yourself to liability like this
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
In what concrete way?
Character and fleshed out policy positions.
Hillery was Sec of state! How much progress did she make with North Korea? China? Iran? Mexico? Israel? Saudi Arabia? How were our borders while she was in office? How was the economy?
What progress did she make with those countries in comparison to what progress did you expect to her to make with those countries? What was her progress like in comparison to former secretaries of states and how is this progress measured? What does her position as secretary of state have to do with the borders and the economy?
You dodged every question in my post, so I will assume you didn't want to answer them.But I will suspect you knew answering them honestly would contradict your claim that she was better.
"Would have" questions aren't relevant when discussing who was the better candidate at election time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
How is Trump "bad"? Please tell me you don't think the economy would have been better under Hillery? Or that she would have dealt with Iran better. Or the our borders would not be wide open under her presidency?Not personally liking Trump does not mean Trump is a bad president. Where is the logic behind this sentiment??
For the most part, what made him a bad candidate in my books were
1. His flawed character
2. His broad statements that had very little actual substance behind them
Hillary had her flaws, but in terms of being an effective politician and leader, she was miles ahead of Trump
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It's actually rather tragic when your election system forces you to vote for a bad candidate, just because the other candidate is that much worse
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Uhhh no? Taking military action is in neither country's best interests. The downing of the plane was a tragic accident and should be settled with reparations towards the families of the deceased.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
But there are other methods of deterring crimes and defending yourself. Why then guns as a fundamental right?Well, people are certainly killed by guns, but guns also help deter crimes and defend oneself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you have a right to own property, slaves were considered property, you don't have a right to own slaves, it's not in the constitution and I have never seen anywhere stated or articulated that owning a slave is an inalienable right.
Oh, in that case we can just go back to fundamentals. You asserting that a right is inalienable is not a justification for the right. Nor is saying that it's "existed for hundreds of years".
LOL yeah when seconds count the police are minutes awayPOLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU, FEDERAL COURT AFFIRMS YET AGAINwhat do you think now?
I think that there are multiple ways that the government protects us from harm that you have apparently missed. For example, building codes, licenses and regulations. Personally I didn't even think of the police but even if they can't respond to immediate threats and they don't have an obligation to protect you, it's clear that do keep the public safe in some form.
Created: