Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Togusa wrote: I don't put any stock in those polls. 350 million people and usually they only survey about a million and then try to claim that X about of the rest also agree because evidence. It's bad science.
Err, what? No. Representative sampling is just basic science and experiment design. As long as you are ensuring that your sample is in fact representative of the population then surveys will get sufficiently accurate results to be useful. A survey of 1 million people is more than enough to make this work unless there is bias in how the 1 million people are selected.
How is less than 0.5% of the electorate a large enough sample size to accurately extrapolate the views of 100% of the electorate? That’s like saying half a game for Mike Trout is a representative sample from which you can extrapolate his batting average for the season.
Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.
Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.
Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs.
A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization. A good leader sets the example for others to follow. A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself.
Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities. Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.
If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/16 22:23:01
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Prestor Jon wrote: How is less than 0.5% of the electorate a large enough sample size to accurately extrapolate the views of 100% of the electorate? That’s like saying half a game for Mike Trout is a representative sample from which you can extrapolate his batting average for the season.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.
Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.
Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs.
A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization. A good leader sets the example for others to follow. A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself.
Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities. Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.
If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.
That’s the classiest bitch slap I’ve ever seen.
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
Kilkrazy wrote: Are you saying that Trump supporters are stupid and ignorant, so this was an unfair question?
Or do you mean all Americans?
I don't understand what your claim is meant to mean. It seems extraordinary.
Honestly I do think people who don't know what the holocaust was, are pretty ignorant. The argument is - if you ask a question that people don't understand in a poll - you are going to get some weird answers. Honestly don't think there is much correlation between party affiliation and ignorance. The easiest way to say it is - Americans in general - know less about the rest of the world than people in the rest of the world know about America. This includes current events and history. That is just my opinion - but I am fairly certain "enemy of the people" is not a term most Americans have heard of.
It's a term that Trump uses fairly often.
There is a really good chance he doesn't know the history of it ether.
Most Americans know nothing about any of this stuff. The phrase means nothing to them. It can be interpreted in a lot of ways. Also - the term "the media" is a pretty nonsensical term too. Does that include all media? The mainstream media? Social networks? Twitter? Tabloids? How about Ben Shapiro? I don't think 51% of Republican think Ben Shapiro is an enemy of the people - they love him. It's a nonsensical question. It is designed to get the reaction it did. Which is why it's crap.
You know what, I am pretty sure close to 100% Americans would say yes to? Do you believe the first amendment which protects the right to free speech, expression, religion, and the press, and assembly. Is essential to democracy?
So what does that this result even mean? It is quite literally just telling you republicans don't like the main stream media because it is left slanted. Everyone already knows this. It really does show though - how team based the politics of this nation are.
So now you want to say most Americans know nothing about this stuff, but they are knowledgable enough on the intricacies of socialism and capitalism as pure systems in the socioeconomic sense that their opinion on that matter counts? That hole just keeps getting deeper by the looks of it.
Well then, I'm glad you think that 51% can distinguish between Bennie Shapiro and CNN, how does that change anything about them then viewing at least part of the media establishment as the enemy of the people? How does then just thinking it about a part make that kind of rethoric any better? I'm pretty sure the brutal dictators that used the term also didn't include their own media outlets.
It quite literally tells me that 51% of Republicans consider a significant part of the media an enemy of the people and that 49% doesn't. But keep handwaving away support for that totalitarian terminology. An Ipsos poll tells us 80% of Republicans consider the media biased towards the left, but if that's what people mean to say how come there is a 30% difference between those polls? It seems at least a decent chunck of the difference seems to understand the difference between enemy and bias.
I'm pretty certain most Americans don't actually know the origins of the term "enemy of the people" - most if you say enemy of the state - they will think of Will Smith. Some might even think of trumps comment and just agree with it. It is a dumb questions - there is no doubt the question is rigged to get the reaction it did - so people will look at their poll. This is how most media works today. It is mostly click-bait. Technically - it might actually be the downfall of society. So maybe they are onto something.
Trying to throw it on ignorance doesn't make it any better. And again with the handwaving, you think people don't know anything about this but are qualified to speak on the pros and cons of capitalism and socialism when most Americans have only the most basic of grasps of those concepts heavily influenced by what they think it means? Hell people think this is capitalism, when pure capitalism is so different. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too between polls.
I never actually claimed that most Americans are qualified to speak on the pros and cons of capitalism vs socialism. Though I would argue that these concepts are actually very easy to understand and you'd be hard pressed to find an American that doesn't have a basic understanding of these ideologies. Heck - I wouldn't even call myself qualified to argue it. I prefer capitalism because it works and has spawned the greatest era of success the world has ever known. All socialism does is fail. That is all you really need to know to answer the question.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/16 22:56:28
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Not much he can take that'll affect his six-figure retirement pay. And if he's retired, his security clearance is already suspended and invalid. For the last 4 years.
I get that he's making a bold statement, but it's not like he's actually still serving. It's like me telling a job I quit 9 years ago to dock my pay.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/16 23:08:37
Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) Thursday asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to join a request for Judge Kavanaugh’s Staff Secretary records and to publicly release the documents now. Feinstein is the Judiciary Committee’s Ranking Member, and Leahy and Durbin are also senior members of the committee.
The senators emphasize the fact that documents that are currently “committee confidential” contain information indicating that Kavanaugh misled the Senate during his 2006 nomination hearing.
They write, “We firmly believe that Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination cannot be considered unless these documents are available, including to the public and the Senate as a whole.” The senators strongly urged Chairman Grassley to support their “request for Judge Kavanaugh’s Staff Secretary records and to publicly release documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s time in the White House in the same manner as was done for all previous Supreme Court nominees. The truth should not be hidden from the Senate or the American people.”
The letter can be found at this LINK and the full text is below.
August 16, 2018
Dear Chairman Grassley:
We have repeatedly expressed our serious concerns about the unprecedented lack of transparency and partisan process that is being used to hide Brett Kavanaugh’s record from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate as a whole, and the American people. Although Judge Kavanaugh amassed a substantial record during his five years in the Bush White House, to date, less than 3% of his record has been made available to the Committee, and 98.4% of his record is being withheld from the full Senate and the public. By comparison, for Elena Kagan’s nomination, 99% of her White House records were made available to Congress and the public.
We have stated all along that the unprecedented, partisan process being used for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is a disservice to the Senate and to the American people. Now, we are seeing firsthand the problems that result from attempts to hide Judge Kavanaugh’s record. In particular, from the limited set of documents available, we have already seen records that call into serious question whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful about his involvement in the Bush Administration’s post-9/11 terrorism policies when he testified before this Committee during his 2006 nomination hearing.
As you know, in 2006, Judge Kavanaugh told the Committee under oath that he was “not aware of any issues” regarding “the legal justifications or the policies relating to the treatment of detainees”;[1] was “not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants”[2]; had nothing to do with issues related to rendition;[3] and was unaware of, and saw no documents related to, the warrantless wiretapping program conducted without congressional authorization.[4]
However, at least two documents that are publicly available on the Bush Library website from Judge Kavanaugh’s time as Staff Secretary suggest that he was involved in issues related to torture and rendition after 9/11. In one, just days after the existence of the Office of Legal Counsel “torture memos” was publicly revealed, then-Deputy White House Chief of Staff Harriet Miers forwarded to Judge Kavanaugh a set of talking points addressing the memos and U.S. torture policy.[5] The forwarded email makes clear that then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley had personally asked for Judge Kavanaugh’s review. Similarly, another email shows that Judge Kavanaugh was included on an email chain circulating talking points on rendition and interrogation.[6] These emails and talking points demonstrate why we need access to Judge Kavanaugh’s full record as Staff Secretary.
In addition, documents that have been produced to the Committee as part of the partisan process that you have brokered with Bill Burck further undercut Judge Kavanaugh’s blanket assertions that he had no involvement in or knowledge of post-9/11 terrorism policies. These documents are currently being withheld from the public at your insistence, but they shed additional light on Judge Kavanaugh’s involvement in these matters and are needed to question him in a public hearing.
After all, Judge Kavanaugh was an Associate White House Counsel on 9/11. Over the next several months and years, the White House sought legal opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel and advised the President on the legality of several controversial programs. For example, just six days after the 9/11 attack, Office of Legal Counsel lawyer John Yoo drafted a memorandum evaluating the legality of a program that would allow warrantless wiretapping of American’s e-mails and phone calls.[7] Mr. Yoo, described in a public Inspector Generals’ report as “‘very well connected’ with officials in the White House,” addressed his memo to Deputy White House Counsel Timothy Flanigan, Judge Kavanaugh’s likely supervisor at the time. It is important for the public and full Senate to understand whether Judge Kavanaugh was involved in their communications, despite having told the Committee in 2006 that he had not seen or heard anything about the President’s warrantless wiretapping program until December 2005.[8]
Whether Judge Kavanaugh misled this Committee in 2006 and his involvement in these White House policies are critically important to our consideration of his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. These are serious questions that could easily be addressed if we were given access to his records. As it stands, however, you have refused to join our request for Judge Kavanaugh’s Staff Secretary records and have sought to keep his White House Counsel documents secret as well.
We firmly believe that Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination cannot be considered unless these documents are available, including to the public and the Senate as a whole. We therefore urge you to join our request for Judge Kavanaugh’s Staff Secretary records and to publicly release documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s time in the White House in the same manner as was done for all previous Supreme Court nominees. The truth should not be hidden from the Senate or the American people.
Sincerely,
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Prestor Jon wrote: How is less than 0.5% of the electorate a large enough sample size to accurately extrapolate the views of 100% of the electorate? That’s like saying half a game for Mike Trout is a representative sample from which you can extrapolate his batting average for the season.
"There's lies, there's damn lies, and then there's statistics." about sums up my opinion on the matter. Especially when it comes to politics and polls.
Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) Thursday asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to join a request for Judge Kavanaugh’s Staff Secretary records and to publicly release the documents now. Feinstein is the Judiciary Committee’s Ranking Member, and Leahy and Durbin are also senior members of the committee.
The senators emphasize the fact that documents that are currently “committee confidential” contain information indicating that Kavanaugh misled the Senate during his 2006 nomination hearing.
They write, “We firmly believe that Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination cannot be considered unless these documents are available, including to the public and the Senate as a whole.” The senators strongly urged Chairman Grassley to support their “request for Judge Kavanaugh’s Staff Secretary records and to publicly release documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s time in the White House in the same manner as was done for all previous Supreme Court nominees. The truth should not be hidden from the Senate or the American people.”
The letter can be found at this LINK and the full text is below.
August 16, 2018
Dear Chairman Grassley:
We have repeatedly expressed our serious concerns about the unprecedented lack of transparency and partisan process that is being used to hide Brett Kavanaugh’s record from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate as a whole, and the American people. Although Judge Kavanaugh amassed a substantial record during his five years in the Bush White House, to date, less than 3% of his record has been made available to the Committee, and 98.4% of his record is being withheld from the full Senate and the public. By comparison, for Elena Kagan’s nomination, 99% of her White House records were made available to Congress and the public.
We have stated all along that the unprecedented, partisan process being used for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is a disservice to the Senate and to the American people. Now, we are seeing firsthand the problems that result from attempts to hide Judge Kavanaugh’s record. In particular, from the limited set of documents available, we have already seen records that call into serious question whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful about his involvement in the Bush Administration’s post-9/11 terrorism policies when he testified before this Committee during his 2006 nomination hearing.
As you know, in 2006, Judge Kavanaugh told the Committee under oath that he was “not aware of any issues” regarding “the legal justifications or the policies relating to the treatment of detainees”;[1] was “not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants”[2]; had nothing to do with issues related to rendition;[3] and was unaware of, and saw no documents related to, the warrantless wiretapping program conducted without congressional authorization.[4]
However, at least two documents that are publicly available on the Bush Library website from Judge Kavanaugh’s time as Staff Secretary suggest that he was involved in issues related to torture and rendition after 9/11. In one, just days after the existence of the Office of Legal Counsel “torture memos” was publicly revealed, then-Deputy White House Chief of Staff Harriet Miers forwarded to Judge Kavanaugh a set of talking points addressing the memos and U.S. torture policy.[5] The forwarded email makes clear that then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley had personally asked for Judge Kavanaugh’s review. Similarly, another email shows that Judge Kavanaugh was included on an email chain circulating talking points on rendition and interrogation.[6] These emails and talking points demonstrate why we need access to Judge Kavanaugh’s full record as Staff Secretary.
In addition, documents that have been produced to the Committee as part of the partisan process that you have brokered with Bill Burck further undercut Judge Kavanaugh’s blanket assertions that he had no involvement in or knowledge of post-9/11 terrorism policies. These documents are currently being withheld from the public at your insistence, but they shed additional light on Judge Kavanaugh’s involvement in these matters and are needed to question him in a public hearing.
After all, Judge Kavanaugh was an Associate White House Counsel on 9/11. Over the next several months and years, the White House sought legal opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel and advised the President on the legality of several controversial programs. For example, just six days after the 9/11 attack, Office of Legal Counsel lawyer John Yoo drafted a memorandum evaluating the legality of a program that would allow warrantless wiretapping of American’s e-mails and phone calls.[7] Mr. Yoo, described in a public Inspector Generals’ report as “‘very well connected’ with officials in the White House,” addressed his memo to Deputy White House Counsel Timothy Flanigan, Judge Kavanaugh’s likely supervisor at the time. It is important for the public and full Senate to understand whether Judge Kavanaugh was involved in their communications, despite having told the Committee in 2006 that he had not seen or heard anything about the President’s warrantless wiretapping program until December 2005.[8]
Whether Judge Kavanaugh misled this Committee in 2006 and his involvement in these White House policies are critically important to our consideration of his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. These are serious questions that could easily be addressed if we were given access to his records. As it stands, however, you have refused to join our request for Judge Kavanaugh’s Staff Secretary records and have sought to keep his White House Counsel documents secret as well.
We firmly believe that Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination cannot be considered unless these documents are available, including to the public and the Senate as a whole. We therefore urge you to join our request for Judge Kavanaugh’s Staff Secretary records and to publicly release documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s time in the White House in the same manner as was done for all previous Supreme Court nominees. The truth should not be hidden from the Senate or the American people.
Sincerely,
Are the senators claiming that Kavanaigh lied about having knowledge of the legal opinions and policy regarding torture because he was sent emails that included talking points for the torture policy or because he was involved in creating the legal opinion and policy?
Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) Thursday asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to join a request for Judge Kavanaugh’s Staff Secretary records and to publicly release the documents now. Feinstein is the Judiciary Committee’s Ranking Member, and Leahy and Durbin are also senior members of the committee.
The senators emphasize the fact that documents that are currently “committee confidential” contain information indicating that Kavanaugh misled the Senate during his 2006 nomination hearing.
They write, “We firmly believe that Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination cannot be considered unless these documents are available, including to the public and the Senate as a whole.” The senators strongly urged Chairman Grassley to support their “request for Judge Kavanaugh’s Staff Secretary records and to publicly release documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s time in the White House in the same manner as was done for all previous Supreme Court nominees. The truth should not be hidden from the Senate or the American people.”
The letter can be found at this LINK and the full text is below.
August 16, 2018
Dear Chairman Grassley:
We have repeatedly expressed our serious concerns about the unprecedented lack of transparency and partisan process that is being used to hide Brett Kavanaugh’s record from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate as a whole, and the American people. Although Judge Kavanaugh amassed a substantial record during his five years in the Bush White House, to date, less than 3% of his record has been made available to the Committee, and 98.4% of his record is being withheld from the full Senate and the public. By comparison, for Elena Kagan’s nomination, 99% of her White House records were made available to Congress and the public.
We have stated all along that the unprecedented, partisan process being used for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is a disservice to the Senate and to the American people. Now, we are seeing firsthand the problems that result from attempts to hide Judge Kavanaugh’s record. In particular, from the limited set of documents available, we have already seen records that call into serious question whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful about his involvement in the Bush Administration’s post-9/11 terrorism policies when he testified before this Committee during his 2006 nomination hearing.
As you know, in 2006, Judge Kavanaugh told the Committee under oath that he was “not aware of any issues” regarding “the legal justifications or the policies relating to the treatment of detainees”;[1] was “not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants”[2]; had nothing to do with issues related to rendition;[3] and was unaware of, and saw no documents related to, the warrantless wiretapping program conducted without congressional authorization.[4]
However, at least two documents that are publicly available on the Bush Library website from Judge Kavanaugh’s time as Staff Secretary suggest that he was involved in issues related to torture and rendition after 9/11. In one, just days after the existence of the Office of Legal Counsel “torture memos” was publicly revealed, then-Deputy White House Chief of Staff Harriet Miers forwarded to Judge Kavanaugh a set of talking points addressing the memos and U.S. torture policy.[5] The forwarded email makes clear that then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley had personally asked for Judge Kavanaugh’s review. Similarly, another email shows that Judge Kavanaugh was included on an email chain circulating talking points on rendition and interrogation.[6] These emails and talking points demonstrate why we need access to Judge Kavanaugh’s full record as Staff Secretary.
In addition, documents that have been produced to the Committee as part of the partisan process that you have brokered with Bill Burck further undercut Judge Kavanaugh’s blanket assertions that he had no involvement in or knowledge of post-9/11 terrorism policies. These documents are currently being withheld from the public at your insistence, but they shed additional light on Judge Kavanaugh’s involvement in these matters and are needed to question him in a public hearing.
After all, Judge Kavanaugh was an Associate White House Counsel on 9/11. Over the next several months and years, the White House sought legal opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel and advised the President on the legality of several controversial programs. For example, just six days after the 9/11 attack, Office of Legal Counsel lawyer John Yoo drafted a memorandum evaluating the legality of a program that would allow warrantless wiretapping of American’s e-mails and phone calls.[7] Mr. Yoo, described in a public Inspector Generals’ report as “‘very well connected’ with officials in the White House,” addressed his memo to Deputy White House Counsel Timothy Flanigan, Judge Kavanaugh’s likely supervisor at the time. It is important for the public and full Senate to understand whether Judge Kavanaugh was involved in their communications, despite having told the Committee in 2006 that he had not seen or heard anything about the President’s warrantless wiretapping program until December 2005.[8]
Whether Judge Kavanaugh misled this Committee in 2006 and his involvement in these White House policies are critically important to our consideration of his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. These are serious questions that could easily be addressed if we were given access to his records. As it stands, however, you have refused to join our request for Judge Kavanaugh’s Staff Secretary records and have sought to keep his White House Counsel documents secret as well.
We firmly believe that Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination cannot be considered unless these documents are available, including to the public and the Senate as a whole. We therefore urge you to join our request for Judge Kavanaugh’s Staff Secretary records and to publicly release documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s time in the White House in the same manner as was done for all previous Supreme Court nominees. The truth should not be hidden from the Senate or the American people.
Sincerely,
Are the senators claiming that Kavanaigh lied about having knowledge of the legal opinions and policy regarding torture because he was sent emails that included talking points for the torture policy or because he was involved in creating the legal opinion and policy?
Did... Did you read it?
Its because very few of his information has been given to the senate to allow them to confirm him or read up on him. Very little infact has been made public so they are asking "What is there? can we have it? So we can confirm?"
Its a simple request.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
To be honest it's not a simple request. Not realistically.
I don't know how others see it, but it seems obvious to me that the Democrats have been gauging the water since Kavanaigh was named. Because they can't tell if it will hurt them in November or not, they're instead looking for reasons to drag out and stall the confirmation, waiting to see if waters become clear enough to make a one or the other choice on simply refusing to confirm Trump's appointee like the GOP refused Obama's.
Not much he can take that'll affect his six-figure retirement pay. And if he's retired, his security clearance is already suspended and invalid. For the last 4 years.
I get that he's making a bold statement, but it's not like he's actually still serving. It's like me telling a job I quit 9 years ago to dock my pay.
If he were serving such could fall under a violation of article 88 of the UCMJ from my understanding.
As for pay, well, Brennan was retired as well and hardly in a position where money will be an issue either.
Either way, retired or not, that's a voice that shouldn't be handwaved away.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Either way, retired or not, that's a voice that shouldn't be handwaved away.
Of course not. But, a lot of my experience with some of the higher brass in the Armed Forces- that doesn't always mean they know what they're talking about in regards to everything. Or that they're all particularly brilliant in any way. Years ago, a certain General deployed an obscene amount of troops to a hostile area. Because he wanted to prove he could deploy this obscene amount of troops, not because they were really needed in any way. Water, food, living space, medical supplies- all in short supply for several months- we're talking Motrin for actual serious injuries that required serious pain management beyond that.
Not to mention, even after that was sorted- troops sat in a miserable hell-hole for a year with absolutely no purpose- I mean, there was absolutely nothing these guys could do but walk circles with a rifle- which, regardless of how you may see it- isn't the most useful thing for someone that costs that much money to train, feed, house, clothe, care for, and deploy. No purpose to their deployment at all, nothing for them to do unless someone invented busywork. Literally just sitting there every day, miserable, sweating and counting the days to go home until someone came along and got ideas to bide their time while they were there. Not only was it a tremendous waste of taxpayer funds, but this removed a lot of guys from their families and placed them in harm's way for absolutely no other reason than some big-wig wanted to prove a point and show off.
Of course, he 'retired' and had all the pomp and such for being such a brave leader and what-have-you, just like any high-ranking officer that screws up. Unless they find them doing something completely horrid, the worst that happens is a few digits change in their six-figure retirement and they get to invest in that beach home a few years early.
While I'm certain that's not comparable to the Good Admiral there, he has his opinions and those can be challenged but do have some weight to them- I've always said "Show me the most respected commander, and tell me of all the great things he's overseen... so I can go shake hands with the NCO's, Warrant Officers, and the XO that made those things actually happen without it becoming a complete clusterf**k."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/16 23:58:23
LordofHats wrote: To be honest it's not a simple request. Not realistically.
I don't know how others see it, but it seems obvious to me that the Democrats have been gauging the water since Kavanaigh was named. Because they can't tell if it will hurt them in November or not, they're instead looking for reasons to drag out and stall the confirmation, waiting to see if waters become clear enough to make a one or the other choice on simply refusing to confirm Trump's appointee like the GOP refused Obama's.
Yeah... that's spot on.
My senator McCaskill is basically even-steven with her opponent in a very Trumpy state. They're desparately trying to read the tea leaves to see if her 'NO' vote would impact her chances. I can see that for those other senators in other Trumpy states too.
Trying to throw it on ignorance doesn't make it any better. And again with the handwaving, you think people don't know anything about this but are qualified to speak on the pros and cons of capitalism and socialism when most Americans have only the most basic of grasps of those concepts heavily influenced by what they think it means? Hell people think this is capitalism, when pure capitalism is so different. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too between polls.
I never actually claimed that most Americans are qualified to speak on the pros and cons of capitalism vs socialism. Though I would argue that these concepts are actually very easy to understand and you'd be hard pressed to find an American that doesn't have a basic understanding of these ideologies. Heck - I wouldn't even call myself qualified to argue it. I prefer capitalism because it works and has spawned the greatest era of success the world has ever known. All socialism does is fail. That is all you really need to know to answer the question.
Thank you for proving my point, because this already completely ignores the basic reality that capitalism is tempered and restrained by socialism in modern society. Declaring capitalism to be the winner and socialism a failure when modern society got to this point of succes by mixing the two shows its not easy to understand. People think its easy to understand, but 5 seconds on google is going to help people understand a term like enemy of the people far better than even the basics of either pure socioeconomic system or what a better mix might be.
I'm still amazed that somehow they have the awareness to link socialism to the evil commies and the bad stuff they did (as you seem to be indicating), but are completely ignorant on one of the infamous terms evil commies, among others, threw around. 51% of Republicans just found it ok to use that kind of language, which should be worrying.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/08/17 05:37:21
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Either way, retired or not, that's a voice that shouldn't be handwaved away.
Of course not. But, a lot of my experience with some of the higher brass in the Armed Forces- that doesn't always mean they know what they're talking about in regards to everything. Or that they're all particularly brilliant in any way. Years ago, a certain General deployed an obscene amount of troops to a hostile area. Because he wanted to prove he could deploy this obscene amount of troops, not because they were really needed in any way. Water, food, living space, medical supplies- all in short supply for several months- we're talking Motrin for actual serious injuries that required serious pain management beyond that.
This is an interesting example but how is it relevant to the current case? The Director of the CIA isn't even a military position.
Do you genuinely believe Trump has carefully considered Brennan's behaviour and banned him on the reasonable grounds of national security? The White House was unable to produce a single example of a leak or undue admission of secrets from Brennan to justify revoking his security classification.
Don't you think it is more likely that Trump is lashing out at a vocal critic in a way intended to hurt and damage him?
Prestor Jon wrote: How is less than 0.5% of the electorate a large enough sample size to accurately extrapolate the views of 100% of the electorate? That’s like saying half a game for Mike Trout is a representative sample from which you can extrapolate his batting average for the season.
And not just for polling. This kind of thing comes up all over the place in science, where you test a sample and extrapolate your results to a much larger population.
Carbon dating, for example. You take a tiny piece of something amd measure how much Carbon-14 is present and use that to age the entire find. Or core samples, taking a drilled out tube from the earths surface and analysing its structure to determine how it was made and extrapolating that over a wide area and time scale. Or drug trials. Or measurements of radio/microwave/x-ray output of a star or black hole. And so on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/17 07:21:41
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Prestor Jon wrote: How is less than 0.5% of the electorate a large enough sample size to accurately extrapolate the views of 100% of the electorate? That’s like saying half a game for Mike Trout is a representative sample from which you can extrapolate his batting average for the season.
And not just for polling. This kind of thing comes up all over the place in science, where you test a sample and extrapolate your results to a much larger population.
Carbon dating, for example. You take a tiny piece of something amd measure how much Carbon-14 is present and use that to age the entire find. Or core samples, taking a drilled out tube from the earths surface and analysing its structure to determine how it was made and extrapolating that over a wide area and time scale. Or drug trials. Or measurements of radio/microwave/x-ray output of a star or black hole. And so on.
That said, it does generally work better in science than polling, statics assume that the relatively small portion of a truly random sample of the whole can represent the total and frankly the easiest way to get poll results you want is to fix that a bit. You can compensate a bit, but that involves making some pretty large assumptions that are also great ways to skew numbers.
Not to mention that in science, if your underlying assumptions and what question you're answering are incorrect (not to mention your calculations), you get crucified.
From political polls on the other hand, one usually only sees the results, rarely the questions asked or the calculations used to get the results. When I do see the questions that were asked they tend to be overly binary or between nonsensical options a lot of the time. Like the above discussion point where the media is either an enemy of the people or a foundation of democracy. Completely binary and hence utterly useless except as a scare tactic to divide people.
Bran Dawri wrote: the media is either an enemy of the people or a foundation of democracy.
Which kinda leads us to the problem, free press is one of the foundations of democracy. It's not really an optional thing if we're going to pretend to have a democracy where people have any idea what's going on. And we have a president acting otherwise whenever an outlet does any less than bow to him.
Apparently Randolph county in Georgia is closing most of their polling places (they are closing 7 out of 9). Funny how they are closing the ones where most of the african americans voted...
skyth wrote: Apparently Randolph county in Georgia is closing most of their polling places (they are closing 7 out of 9). Funny how they are closing the ones where most of the african americans voted...
Have you got a link to an article for that, I would quite like to read it.
Kilkrazy wrote: This is an interesting example but how is it relevant to the current case? The Director of the CIA isn't even a military position.
Neither is 'retired guy that worked at University and hasn't had a clearance for the last 4 years', but we considered that relevant enough.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you genuinely believe Trump has carefully considered Brennan's behaviour and banned him on the reasonable grounds of national security? The White House was unable to produce a single example of a leak or undue admission of secrets from Brennan to justify revoking his security classification.
Clearance. Not classification. Items, information, materials have classification. Individuals have clearances.
Considering that one quick way to lose a security clearance is to openly speak against anyone or directly align yourself in opposition to your chain of command, including the President... yeah. I'm pretty sure. I've seen them stricken away for even less.
Kilkrazy wrote: Don't you think it is more likely that Trump is lashing out at a vocal critic in a way intended to hurt and damage him?
Two birds, one stone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/17 14:44:53
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Bran Dawri wrote: Not to mention that in science, if your underlying assumptions and what question you're answering are incorrect (not to mention your calculations), you get crucified.
From political polls on the other hand, one usually only sees the results, rarely the questions asked or the calculations used to get the results. When I do see the questions that were asked they tend to be overly binary or between nonsensical options a lot of the time. Like the above discussion point where the media is either an enemy of the people or a foundation of democracy. Completely binary and hence utterly useless except as a scare tactic to divide people.
Indeed. Polls are useless if the sampling method was done incorrectly, and it gets done incorrectly all the time. And not just due to error, but because you can manipulate the questions to lead the answers. Or even how you ask someone if they want to take the poll in the first place.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Bran Dawri wrote: the media is either an enemy of the people or a foundation of democracy.
Which kinda leads us to the problem, free press is one of the foundations of democracy. It's not really an optional thing if we're going to pretend to have a democracy where people have any idea what's going on. And we have a president acting otherwise whenever an outlet does any less than bow to him.
Either way, retired or not, that's a voice that shouldn't be handwaved away.
Of course not. But, a lot of my experience with some of the higher brass in the Armed Forces- that doesn't always mean they know what they're talking about in regards to everything. Or that they're all particularly brilliant in any way. Years ago, a certain General deployed an obscene amount of troops to a hostile area. Because he wanted to prove he could deploy this obscene amount of troops, not because they were really needed in any way. Water, food, living space, medical supplies- all in short supply for several months- we're talking Motrin for actual serious injuries that required serious pain management beyond that.
This is an interesting example but how is it relevant to the current case? The Director of the CIA isn't even a military position.
Do you genuinely believe Trump has carefully considered Brennan's behaviour and banned him on the reasonable grounds of national security? The White House was unable to produce a single example of a leak or undue admission of secrets from Brennan to justify revoking his security classification.
Don't you think it is more likely that Trump is lashing out at a vocal critic in a way intended to hurt and damage him?
I think he was actually compelled to do it by the most sane member in congress. It was considered for months.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Yet it wasn't a binary either or question, as there were 3 options
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Don't you think it is more likely that Trump is lashing out at a vocal critic in a way intended to hurt and damage him?
Yes.
Just like it's bad with the Obama administration weaponized the government against their critics (IRS scandal, spying on reporters, spying on congress, etc...).
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
