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.

So Trump went on Fox and Friends and dropped this gem about the Attorney General of the United States

“And by the way, he was on the campaign,” Trump said on Fox. "You know, the only reason I gave him the job is because I felt loyalty. He was an original supporter.”

THE. BEST. PEOPLE.

Well for Trump only qualification is loyalty to His Royal Highness Trump I.

Whats most bizarre is just how for most people, a tiny voice in their head would chime in and say "hey ah...that line doesn't really help your case and is gonna make you look like a nepotistic swamp creature"...but that voice just isn't there.

On the other hand now, Sessions finds a modicum of a spine

I can't imagine getting into a public pissing contest with your AG is a good thing after events like those of Tuesday.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

whembly wrote:
Proven over and over again?

Okay... you run with that.

Steele himself said he felt the dossier was mostly correct, and says so, in the dossier. Thus far, the majority of it that could be verified has proven accurate.

Remember that it was intended as a political briefing, not the be all and end all of Donald Trump's activities.

The majority was not verified as proven as accurate. In fact, the only thing that was absolutely verified was Carter Page's trip to Moscow (however his meeting with a GRU contact was hearsay).

However we have Steele admitting parts are unverified (which screams to me as a defensive posture, so we don't know how much, if any *he* verified the contents) and more importantly, BOTH James Comey and Andrew McCabe testified under oath to congress that the content of the Steele Dossier was never verified for accuracy by the FBI. That's problem #1, which was required by the FISA application. Now that they're both fired for cause... their credibility is called into question. But, if they're lying... I can't fathom a reason why they would lie about NOT verifying the content. Furthermore, the OIG is currently reviewing the actions over this ordeal.

The biggest issue i have over this ordeal... is not the fact that Steele got these opposition research from foreign sources, nor do I really care about that the HRC/DNC actually paid for with (without documenting the expense as a campaign expense)... to me, this is de jour of any campaign activities and usually when caught a fine is levied. My issue is if this dossier was used as a pretext to monitor an active campaign with the full might of the government and I'm more concerned of the precedent this sets in the future.

It was the Australian diplomat who was the real start of the investigation when he brought some info to the FBI when Papadopoulos got drunk and let some stuff slip while talking to him.

That has been pointed out to him several times. He just ignores it and comes back in a bit to lie about the dossier being the reason for the investigation.

 skyth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

whembly wrote:
Proven over and over again?

Okay... you run with that.

Steele himself said he felt the dossier was mostly correct, and says so, in the dossier. Thus far, the majority of it that could be verified has proven accurate.

Remember that it was intended as a political briefing, not the be all and end all of Donald Trump's activities.

The majority was not verified as proven as accurate. In fact, the only thing that was absolutely verified was Carter Page's trip to Moscow (however his meeting with a GRU contact was hearsay).

However we have Steele admitting parts are unverified (which screams to me as a defensive posture, so we don't know how much, if any *he* verified the contents) and more importantly, BOTH James Comey and Andrew McCabe testified under oath to congress that the content of the Steele Dossier was never verified for accuracy by the FBI. That's problem #1, which was required by the FISA application. Now that they're both fired for cause... their credibility is called into question. But, if they're lying... I can't fathom a reason why they would lie about NOT verifying the content. Furthermore, the OIG is currently reviewing the actions over this ordeal.

The biggest issue i have over this ordeal... is not the fact that Steele got these opposition research from foreign sources, nor do I really care about that the HRC/DNC actually paid for with (without documenting the expense as a campaign expense)... to me, this is de jour of any campaign activities and usually when caught a fine is levied. My issue is if this dossier was used as a pretext to monitor an active campaign with the full might of the government and I'm more concerned of the precedent this sets in the future.

It was the Australian diplomat who was the real start of the investigation when he brought some info to the FBI when Papadopoulos got drunk and let some stuff slip while talking to him.

That has been pointed out to him several times. He just ignores it and comes back in a bit to lie about the dossier being the reason for the investigation.

I acknowledged each point... and it's not a lie.

How 'bout you refute it, rather than employ a poop'n swoop post?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

On the other hand now, Sessions finds a modicum of a spine

I can't imagine getting into a public pissing contest with your AG is a good thing after events like those of Tuesday.

Just as crazy as Holder staying he's Obama's wingman.

I honestly think Sessions is looking for an out here... and ultimately Trump will oblige by firing him.

Whem, you never provide proof for any of your claims. 5 seconds on Google backs up all of what I said about the dossier.

 ScarletRose wrote:

We're acting no differently today in our mentality than the native americans did when settlers headed out west.

I think it would be more accurate to say some people are acting no different today than the racist "panics" over immigrants from Ireland, Italy, China, Japan, etc etc. The fact that people are getting fooled by the same tricks isn't something to be so blase about.

Why? Human nature really doesn't change much over time. At least now we don't have rigid quotas for immigrants from specific countries anymore.

 Wolfblade wrote:
Whem, you never provide proof for any of your claims. 5 seconds on Google backs up all of what I said about the dossier.

I'll provide the source.

(might be later on today, as I'm getting hammered with today today )

 whembly wrote:


I honestly think Sessions is looking for an out here... and ultimately Trump will oblige by firing him.

I think you overestimate Trump way too much here. If he had the balls to fire Sessions, he would have done it already.

What he wants is Sessions leaving from his own.

 skyth wrote:
It's interesting that she was murdered because she told a man to leave her alone while she was jogging. Of course, certain people latch on to the immigrant thing rather than the man committing violence against a woman for saying no.

I don't disagree with your post at all but do you think it would be possible to discuss the problems of cultural assimilation for people from places that place value on machismo and chauvinistic behavior without having such a discussion get bogged down with condemnations of racism and ethnocentrism?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I do think that every person should be aware of their physical surroundings and physical limitations. However, saying every man is a potential rapist/murderer is like assuming every African American in a bad neighborhood is a potential mugger/drug dealer, or every police officer is a potential racist ready to shoot a minority.

The thing is, assuming a random man is harmless will be right over 99% of the time. But that fraction of a percentile casts a long shadow--it's why you have to check that your drink wasn't tampered with if you look away from it in a club, you have to check that your taxi drive is legit, it's why you need to stay in well-lit areas when walking home. When dealing with a strange man, you have to be aware that he could be a bad guy and not take risks until you have a firm reason to trust him.

Because the possible consequences of being caught out when that male stranger is one of that fraction are too dreadful to risk.

Which creates a certain irony to men defending men who cast a bad light on the entire gender. It would be in the average man's best interest to condemn such activity immediately to say 'no, this is not how men are' but so many instead make excuses and thus create the culture of 'oh, this IS how men are' that they then complain about, ignorant to how they themselves have made that attitude mainstream. Taking a step back it is an amusing little cycle of self-flagellation. Of course cycles of social self-harm are kind of humanity's schtick.

.

While I do agree with you somewhat, I have to ask why is this a socially acceptable position to have with some groups, and not others?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's interesting that she was murdered because she told a man to leave her alone while she was jogging. Of course, certain people latch on to the immigrant thing rather than the man committing violence against a woman for saying no.

I don't disagree with your post at all but do you think it would be possible to discuss the problems of cultural assimilation for people from places that place value on machismo and chauvinistic behavior without having such a discussion get bogged down with condemnations of racism and ethnocentrism?

Friend, have you seen the American culture? Most men in the US only value machismo and chauvinistic behavior. Hell we just picked a PoTUS a little while ago almost entirely because of those qualities. So come on man, don't play that "not assimilating" game.

Just remember at the end of the day its just locker talk bruh.

 Easy E wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Can’t really do the copy/paste the whole article thing very well on my phone, but...

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/2018/08/22/mollie-tibbetts-alleged-killer-iowa-legally-lawyer-missing-student-body-found-brooklyn-trump/1064567002/

I just heard on the radio that the identification and Social Security card that he used for the e-verify process were not his, and that his employer knew him by a different name. Not great evidence that he's here legally.

ABC News (an actual source) had a statement from the farm he worked at stating that they used all current and proper Federal Laws to verify his status and employment.

So, if he was illegal, I point to the weak measures the US has to enforce employment law on employers as a major cause of an "crisis" instead of blaming migrants just looking to improve their lives. If we were serious about "doing something" about illegal immigration, we would start be enforcing the rules on the employers, and especially the large corporations. That would do much more than any wall ever could.

Edit: I was wondering exactly how long it would take for someone to try to make political hay out of this tragic story. Not long.

We already have the e-Verify system set up and available but there's no Federal law that requires all employers to use it and only a handful of states require that it be used (Iowa doesn't require employers like that farm to use it).


https://www.laboremploymentperspectives.com/2013/06/03/e-verify-am-i-required-to-use-it/

According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Web site, “U.S. law requires companies to employ only individuals who may legally work in the United States — either U.S. citizens, or foreign citizens who have the necessary authorization. This diverse workforce contributes greatly to the vibrancy and strength of our economy, but that same strength also attracts unauthorized employment. E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. E-Verify is fast, free, and easy to use – and it’s the best way employers can ensure a legal workforce.” Notwithstanding the USCIS’s assertions, many employers want to know — “Do I have to use it?”
For the most part, the answer is “No.” E-Verify is primarily a voluntary program. However, there are a number of companies that may be required to use E-Verify. For example, some federal contractors are required to use E-Verify. This is not a function of law, but of contract: The contract that the company enters into with the government or the governmental agency may have a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (http://www.acquisition.gov/far/) clause that specifically requires the contractor to enroll in and use E-Verify for the life of the contract. This is FAR 52.222-54 and, as a result of an amendment to Executive Order 12989 issued by President Bush in June 2008, certain new federal contracts are required to include this clause.
In addition, some states have specific laws that require employers in the state to use E-Verify. This is currently the case in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah (for employers with 15 or more employees). Louisiana and Tennessee require E-Verify unless an additional, alternate verification step is completed as outlined under state law. Other states have the E-Verify requirement limited to contractors or public employers. However, the list of states seems to be growing, and there is legislation afoot in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that may mandate E-Verify for all employers (depending on size).

We have Federal and State labor laws and protections and that's a good thing but it also increases the cost of labor. Illegal labor isn't always cheaper in terms of wages it's often the avoidance of paying labor burden costs that make it cheaper. Think of it like this, lots of companies employ white collar contractors who do the same work as full time employees for the same wage or higher wages but they cost the employer less money to hire because they don't have to provide contractors with benefits. Employing illegal immigrants provides employers with a similar benefit, they don't have to pay illegals benefits or payroll taxes so they can hire them for a decent hourly wage (it's really hard to get quality work done for peanuts) and everyone benefits, employers spend less and make more profit, those savings are passed on via lower prices on goods and services to consumers, the people who hire the companies that employ illegal workers also get to save money, the illegal workers get to work and get paid. It's a "victimless" crime where the only entity that really suffers is the government through loss of tax revenue. That's why there's no real push to fix it. Why can't Congress pass a law under the interstate commerce clause requiring every employer with more than X number of employees to use e-Verify with no exceptions? Because actually fixing illegal workers would upset the applecart far more than letting it continue. Employers' costs would increase, prices would increase, there'd be an even greater shortage of labor in several key blue collar industries, profits would shrink, stock prices would fall, etc. So instead of trying to address the problem we just have our two Parties use it a wedge issue to demagogue and drive the base to turnout on election day.

 Easy E wrote:
Someone is still talking about the Steele Dossier?

Considering what has transpired since, is it even relevant anymore? Perhaps, if you are trying to create a greater noise to signal ratio ? Who would want to do that before a mid-term?

I mean he's also saying it's the basis of action against trump, which was blown out a while back with the Nunes memo.

Trump is the basis of action against Trump. While I may not have been able to tell you which crimes would catch up to him during his term, it was due to the multitude of them, not due to being unaware of any. The game of it has been more like bingo than clue. The man hasn't been able to get US funding in decades and has long since been a vehicle for money laundering, how that was some how better than Hillary I will never understand.

All Whembly has been doing is adding noise where he thinks he can still get away with it. He's going "Trump supporter of the Gaps" on us. Where we can't already convict someone he can add a little more noise to prop up his beliefs. I'd have to read back a bit to know who, but I was laughing at somebody in this thread the other day talking about how long the investigation was going for. Meanwhile actual political hit investigations by republicans in the last decade have wasted millions and resulted in them looking like right idiots when they actually got to question Hillary rather than charges against her.

All of it posturing because none of the idiots in our government seem to understand information security, and the republicans are actively rejecting even the most basic of election security measures.

Nah, as of yesterday anyone who thinks Trump is innocent of this is lying to themselves. It's just a matter of if we can find proper evidence to convict him of it and will congress actually act in the nation's favor instead of their own. And at this point I'm half wondering if they were intentionally acting like the last election was the only one it'd ever matter if they won, because none of what they're up to now is helping them.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's interesting that she was murdered because she told a man to leave her alone while she was jogging. Of course, certain people latch on to the immigrant thing rather than the man committing violence against a woman for saying no.

I don't disagree with your post at all but do you think it would be possible to discuss the problems of cultural assimilation for people from places that place value on machismo and chauvinistic behavior without having such a discussion get bogged down with condemnations of racism and ethnocentrism?

Friend, have you seen the American culture? Most men in the US only value machismo and chauvinistic behavior. Hell we just picked a PoTUS a little while ago almost entirely because of those qualities. So come on man, don't play that "not assimilating" game.

Just remember at the end of the day its just locker talk bruh.

I'm not saying that American culture is perfect and that there aren't areas of the country where machismo and chauvinistic behavior are valued but there is also a much stronger value for equality in American culture than other cultures in the world which includes Central and South America and Mexico. If we're going to examine why this particular person was able to get so angry at a woman for saying no that he murdered her then we're going to discuss cultural relativism. Something doesn't have to be the only cause or a primary cause to be a contributing cause worth discussing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
LOL...

Joel B. Pollak
✔
@joelpollak
"That may come down to Mr. Cohen's word versus Mr. Trump's."@LannyDavis admitting to @chucktodd on @MSNBC just now that there is no additional evidence he knows about that would corroborate @MichaelCohen212's claim to the judge that @realDonaldTrump directed him to do anything.

4:29 PM - Aug 22, 2018

I figured Cohen had to have something more substantial.

If Cohen had more substantial information then he would have been able to make a better plea deal. He needed to have something really good because the Feds are better off convicting Cohen of campaign finance violations and other crimes and then using him as a hostile witness against Trump to prove Trump's connection to the campaign finance crimes or other crimes than making a deal with Cohen that only serves to undercut his credibility on the witness stand. Convicting Cohen of campaign finance violations proves that those crimes did happen and they happened for the benefit of the Trump campaign which makes tying those criminal acts to Trump much easier than relying on hearsay testimony from Cohen after the Feds give him immunity from charges that were a slam dunk to convict him on.

Intellgence dossiers are hardly ever verified in the sense that Whembly wants, meaning it would stand up as evidence in a court of law. That simply is not how intelligence actually works.

But so what? Who cares about the dossier?

Trump supporters have already shown they are completely happy to ignore 100% verified evidence against Trump.

 Sarouan wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I honestly think Sessions is looking for an out here... and ultimately Trump will oblige by firing him.

I think you overestimate Trump way too much here. If he had the balls to fire Sessions, he would have done it already.

What he wants is Sessions leaving from his own.

He's probably just giving Sessions enough time to write a love letter like the one Pruitt wrote.

 Sarouan wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I honestly think Sessions is looking for an out here... and ultimately Trump will oblige by firing him.

I think you overestimate Trump way too much here. If he had the balls to fire Sessions, he would have done it already.

What he wants is Sessions leaving from his own.

Don't know if he needs his cajones when other Republicans are signaling they'd be okay with it:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-23/graham-says-he-expects-trump-to-oust-sessions-after-elections



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Intellgence dossiers are hardly ever verified in the sense that Whembly wants, meaning it would stand up as evidence in a court of law. That simply is not how intelligence actually works.

Because the FISA warrants requires verification in order to continue surveillance on US citizen.

But my concern goes further than that. Think about it, the previous administration orchestrated a clandestine intelligence operation to surveil an opposition political party's campaign based on that dossier. That dossier was raw intelligence, with a lot of hearsay. Because the surveillance isn't just Page, it's also sweeps up anyone that he comes in contact with... they say that because of the sensitive nature, there's a "high bar" in which the FBI would need to meet in order to do something like this.

However, so far... I don't think it's been met. (I've said 'so far' as much of the documents are still classified/redacted).

But so what? Who cares about the dossier?

Trump supporters have already shown they are completely happy to ignore 100% verified evidence against Trump.

100% verified? Really?

I'm going to ask for citation.

Because this looks exactly like confirmation bias is in the works, not unlike how the US and UK intelligence convinced themselves that Iraq had WMDs.

I'm worried that someone like TRUMP will have his people do the same thing in 2020.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Someone is still talking about the Steele Dossier?

Considering what has transpired since, is it even relevant anymore? Perhaps, if you are trying to create a greater noise to signal ratio ? Who would want to do that before a mid-term?

I mean he's also saying it's the basis of action against trump, which was blown out a while back with the Nunes memo.

The handling of how the Nunes memo transpired is something be desired yes, but man the mud flinging from both side has be epic.

Furthermore, re-read the Nune memo. Then, look at that released Page warrant application:
Several notable facts.
•P. 2 Nunes is correct, the initiating ‘info’ came from State.
•P. 5 The ‘instigator’ was Clapper.
•P. 8. Timing onset suspicions confirmed. The ‘surveillance’ started 3/16, NOT with the official opening of ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ on 7/31/16.
•P. 53 ‘verified in accordance with FBI 4/5/2001 policy.’ However both Comey and McCabe testified under oath to congress otherwise.
•Pp. 63 and 65. Attested to by Comey and Yates. Both in violation of 18USC1018, felonious false attestation by federal officials. They'll never get convicted because that specific statute requires intent.
...I'll list more if I find them.

Trump is the basis of action against Trump. While I may not have been able to tell you which crimes would catch up to him during his term, it was due to the multitude of them, not due to being unaware of any. The game of it has been more like bingo than clue. The man hasn't been able to get US funding in decades and has long since been a vehicle for money laundering, how that was some how better than Hillary I will never understand.

All Whembly has been doing is adding noise where he thinks he can still get away with it. He's going "Trump supporter of the Gaps" on us. Where we can't already convict someone he can add a little more noise to prop up his beliefs. I'd have to read back a bit to know who, but I was laughing at somebody in this thread the other day talking about how long the investigation was going for. Meanwhile actual political hit investigations by republicans in the last decade have wasted millions and resulted in them looking like right idiots when they actually got to question Hillary rather than charges against her.

...huh?

All of it posturing because none of the idiots in our government seem to understand information security,

That's bs and a weak cop-out. Anyone else who has done what HRC and her staff have done would've, at the minimum, lost their jobs. So, we're dealing with two (or more tiers) of Justice here...

and the republicans are actively rejecting even the most basic of election security measures.

Source please?

Nah, as of yesterday anyone who thinks Trump is innocent of this is lying to themselves. It's just a matter of if we can find proper evidence to convict him of it and will congress actually act in the nation's favor instead of their own. And at this point I'm half wondering if they were intentionally acting like the last election was the only one it'd ever matter if they won, because none of what they're up to now is helping them.

Outside of Trump's base, those who held their nose and voted for Trump knew well of his baggage and couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton. So, the real question is, in light of recent revelation... will Trump's paying off banging hot chicks be even a factor in the midterm or 2020?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's interesting that she was murdered because she told a man to leave her alone while she was jogging. Of course, certain people latch on to the immigrant thing rather than the man committing violence against a woman for saying no.

I don't disagree with your post at all but do you think it would be possible to discuss the problems of cultural assimilation for people from places that place value on machismo and chauvinistic behavior without having such a discussion get bogged down with condemnations of racism and ethnocentrism?

I think it's because "if the person isn't supposed to be there, then that person would be alive" mindset here... Just like the murder of Katie Steinle, people tend to focus a lot on 'what ifs'.

Look at Trayvon Martin ordeal... Zimmerman didn't need to be THAT GUY who wants to act like a hall monitor... and if he had listened to the 911 tech, Trayvon would still be alive.

...
...
...
Also, while ridiculous, I'd pay ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD if Trump would say "If I had another daughter, she'd look like Mollie Tibbett". The amount of brain aneurysm would be apocalyptic.

 whembly wrote:

Outside of Trump's base, those who held their nose and voted for Trump knew well of his baggage and couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton. So, the real question is, in light of recent revelation... will Trump's paying off banging hot chicks be even a factor in the midterm or 2020?

I read an article talking about midterms in America are often used by people to vote for or against the current line of the presidency. I think it will be a factor here as well : for or against Trump.

Not sure however all the Trump voters feel the same when they voted first in 2016 and now. A lot of things happened, after all, and I would understand if some get tired of the neverending drama. Those who voted to have a continuous show and nothing else, I agree they are more than happy with the current situation. About the "not Hillary" option...well...if Trump gets out the rough way, it would be president Mike Pence, wouldn't it ? Pence is definitely not Hillary as well.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Can’t really do the copy/paste the whole article thing very well on my phone, but...

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/2018/08/22/mollie-tibbetts-alleged-killer-iowa-legally-lawyer-missing-student-body-found-brooklyn-trump/1064567002/

I just heard on the radio that the identification and Social Security card that he used for the e-verify process were not his, and that his employer knew him by a different name. Not great evidence that he's here legally.

ABC News (an actual source) had a statement from the farm he worked at stating that they used all current and proper Federal Laws to verify his status and employment.

So, if he was illegal, I point to the weak measures the US has to enforce employment law on employers as a major cause of an "crisis" instead of blaming migrants just looking to improve their lives. If we were serious about "doing something" about illegal immigration, we would start be enforcing the rules on the employers, and especially the large corporations. That would do much more than any wall ever could.

Edit: I was wondering exactly how long it would take for someone to try to make political hay out of this tragic story. Not long.

We already have the e-Verify system set up and available but there's no Federal law that requires all employers to use it and only a handful of states require that it be used (Iowa doesn't require employers like that farm to use it).

That's my point Prestor. If we were really serious about doing something about illegal immigrants, we wouldn;t be talking about a wall, we would be talking about requiring the use of E-verify and ICE going after employers instead of migrants. Since the politicians are not really serious and only use it as a tool to rile up voters, we aren't going to actual do anything serious and instead just deport random migrants looking for a better life and let the employers exploiting that desire off the hook. Deporting a migrant only leaves room for the next one to get a job again, and thus keeping the circle of cheap labor and illegal migrants willing to fill it in place.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I do think that every person should be aware of their physical surroundings and physical limitations. However, saying every man is a potential rapist/murderer is like assuming every African American in a bad neighborhood is a potential mugger/drug dealer, or every police officer is a potential racist ready to shoot a minority.

The thing is, assuming a random man is harmless will be right over 99% of the time. But that fraction of a percentile casts a long shadow--it's why you have to check that your drink wasn't tampered with if you look away from it in a club, you have to check that your taxi drive is legit, it's why you need to stay in well-lit areas when walking home. When dealing with a strange man, you have to be aware that he could be a bad guy and not take risks until you have a firm reason to trust him.

Because the possible consequences of being caught out when that male stranger is one of that fraction are too dreadful to risk.

Which creates a certain irony to men defending men who cast a bad light on the entire gender. It would be in the average man's best interest to condemn such activity immediately to say 'no, this is not how men are' but so many instead make excuses and thus create the culture of 'oh, this IS how men are' that they then complain about, ignorant to how they themselves have made that attitude mainstream. Taking a step back it is an amusing little cycle of self-flagellation. Of course cycles of social self-harm are kind of humanity's schtick.

While I do agree with you somewhat, I have to ask why is this a socially acceptable position to have with some groups, and not others?

I do not understand the question. What is the position you are referencing? I do not see how I expressed a position that applies to some groups but not others.

Stevefamine wrote:So when do you think Trump will get booted?

Are you ready for our good man Pence

I'm looking forward to it. I'm honestly hoping that he doesn't take office until two years of Trump are up, that way we can have Pence in the main seat for a full 10.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I do think that every person should be aware of their physical surroundings and physical limitations. However, saying every man is a potential rapist/murderer is like assuming every African American in a bad neighborhood is a potential mugger/drug dealer, or every police officer is a potential racist ready to shoot a minority.

The thing is, assuming a random man is harmless will be right over 99% of the time. But that fraction of a percentile casts a long shadow--it's why you have to check that your drink wasn't tampered with if you look away from it in a club, you have to check that your taxi drive is legit, it's why you need to stay in well-lit areas when walking home. When dealing with a strange man, you have to be aware that he could be a bad guy and not take risks until you have a firm reason to trust him.

Because the possible consequences of being caught out when that male stranger is one of that fraction are too dreadful to risk.

Which creates a certain irony to men defending men who cast a bad light on the entire gender. It would be in the average man's best interest to condemn such activity immediately to say 'no, this is not how men are' but so many instead make excuses and thus create the culture of 'oh, this IS how men are' that they then complain about, ignorant to how they themselves have made that attitude mainstream. Taking a step back it is an amusing little cycle of self-flagellation. Of course cycles of social self-harm are kind of humanity's schtick.

While I do agree with you somewhat, I have to ask why is this a socially acceptable position to have with some groups, and not others?

I do not understand the question. What is the position you are referencing? I do not see how I expressed a position that applies to some groups but not others.

I meant that in general terms. It's socially acceptable to see all men as potential rapist/murders. Heck, some airlines have policies prohibiting men from sitting next to children. But thinking that all Muslim immigrants hate Christians or could be murders is considered considerably wrong. Seeing poor people as potential criminals is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

Stevefamine wrote:So when do you think Trump will get booted?

Are you ready for our good man Pence

I'm looking forward to it. I'm honestly hoping that he doesn't take office until two years of Trump are up, that way we can have Pence in the main seat for a full 10.

Many people wouldn't like Pence in general, but I seriously doubt ANYONE wouldn't think it's an improvement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Can’t really do the copy/paste the whole article thing very well on my phone, but...

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/2018/08/22/mollie-tibbetts-alleged-killer-iowa-legally-lawyer-missing-student-body-found-brooklyn-trump/1064567002/

I just heard on the radio that the identification and Social Security card that he used for the e-verify process were not his, and that his employer knew him by a different name. Not great evidence that he's here legally.

ABC News (an actual source) had a statement from the farm he worked at stating that they used all current and proper Federal Laws to verify his status and employment.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/suspect-iowa-womans-slaying-hardworking-050313954.html

His employer has now verified that he was using a stolen identity.

Well, I said that men who do such crimes cast a bad light on the whole gender, generally speaking. Society sees that it does, wether we like it or not. I also said that men defending other men who commit such crimes reinforces that steryotype, which it does. Finally I said that these same men will often complain about that negative steryotype while being ignorant of their role in creating it. None of that suggests the image created is justified, only that it occurs. If anything the core of the conclusion relies on that steryotype being bad and innocent men aiding to inflict it on themselves, which is a pretty strong implied statement that such a steryotype is not a good thing.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Stevefamine wrote:So when do you think Trump will get booted?

Are you ready for our good man Pence

I'm looking forward to it. I'm honestly hoping that he doesn't take office until two years of Trump are up, that way we can have Pence in the main seat for a full 10.

Many people wouldn't like Pence in general, but I seriously doubt ANYONE wouldn't think it's an improvement.

Look at what he's done fiscally in Indiana. A state with a deficit turned into a two year surplus, and apply that to the entire nation. How could anybody NOT want that?

 Just Tony wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Stevefamine wrote:So when do you think Trump will get booted?

Are you ready for our good man Pence

I'm looking forward to it. I'm honestly hoping that he doesn't take office until two years of Trump are up, that way we can have Pence in the main seat for a full 10.

Many people wouldn't like Pence in general, but I seriously doubt ANYONE wouldn't think it's an improvement.

Look at what he's done fiscally in Indiana. A state with a deficit turned into a two year surplus, and apply that to the entire nation. How could anybody NOT want that?

I'm guessing a lot of people that notice an "R" next to his name.

 Just Tony wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Stevefamine wrote:So when do you think Trump will get booted?

Are you ready for our good man Pence

I'm looking forward to it. I'm honestly hoping that he doesn't take office until two years of Trump are up, that way we can have Pence in the main seat for a full 10.

Many people wouldn't like Pence in general, but I seriously doubt ANYONE wouldn't think it's an improvement.

Look at what he's done fiscally in Indiana. A state with a deficit turned into a two year surplus, and apply that to the entire nation. How could anybody NOT want that?

Because anyone can turn our deficit into a surplus if they cut spending enough. The whole point is we don't just want to cut spending. And Pence, and the rest of the Republican party were right on line with the massive tax cuts for the rich that increased our deficit even more. And he's not about to stick by his guns there because he's already compromised plenty over Trump.

Besides, I quite like not having "religious freedom" BS shoved down my throat so that people can discriminate against icky gay people.

Trump is a horrific person and a moron but he's also not very effective at doing what he wants too. Nor does he appear to think I need to be put in "conversation therapy".

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nor does he appear to think I need to be put in "conversation therapy".

To be far, Pence hasn't endorsed it either. He just thinks that bigoted s should have a right to refuse service if they say "Jesus" loudly enough.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well, I said that men who do such crimes cast a bad light on the whole gender, generally speaking. Society sees that it does, wether we like it or not. I also said that men defending other men who commit such crimes reinforces that steryotype, which it does. Finally I said that these same men will often complain about that negative steryotype while being ignorant of their role in creating it. None of that suggests the image created is justified, only that it occurs. If anything the core of the conclusion relies on that steryotype being bad and innocent men aiding to inflict it on themselves, which is a pretty strong implied statement that such a steryotype is not a good thing.

Um... I'm not seeing anyone defending this guy's behavior, or anyone else that's done it. I just don't like being thrown into a categorized group because of something that is beyond my control. And that is my point. Society as a whole denounces that same philosophy when it is used on most groups.

So your argument against can be distilled to the "Pence's Grand Imperial Army of Christ taking people to the FEMA... er, I mean LGBTQ+ Death Camps" conspiracy theory? Good to know