Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

I think the Icelandic need to look into a governmental instrument developed by the French to dissuade corruption. It could use some updating, I suppose.

I was replying to the link and then in the middle of typing, I realized that it was The Onion, lol......

[mainiac]

And the only people who can call an embargo would lose access to their secret accounts. If something comes of this, it probably isn't going to come from the top.

You are saying that the US president and congressional leadership are on the take?

I no longer trust anyone at this point. If they aren't hiding money themselves, they're probably connected to someone who is. And they've said that there are US people involved, they've just not released that part of the information yet.

But you said they would lose access to their secret accounts.

Seriously man.  How can we be informed if we dont check our beliefs from time to time?  You seem to be saying that the US president and congressional leadership are personally concerned with money squirreled away in a bank account in Iceland illegally by themselves or someone who is taking care of them.  That they care more about such accounts then their office and responsibility.

And you diagnosed it as the problem that prevents this corruption from being addressed.  That's the important part.  If you are right, then the course of action to solve this would be blaming politicians and putting them in prison.  If you are wrong, then the way to clean this up is different, it's a thorny regulatory problem.  But, and here is the important part: if you are wrong but you dont adapt your beliefs then you will misdiagnose the problem.  You are jamming up the democratic process.

[Gentlefish]

Posting to watch the inevitable p_role uprising.

[smirk]

I wonder if a Clinton name on that list would swing things towards Bernie. Wouldn't that be funny?

It might well swing things toward Bernie anyway. Any big US names whatsoever showing up on the list have a good chance of feeding right into this election's anti-establishment fever, cranking it up to 11 and then breaking off the knob.

[mainiac]

So what is "cranking it up to 11?"  A 10 point swing in the national tracking numbers?  A 20 point swing?

[Baffler]

And the only people who can call an embargo would lose access to their secret accounts. If something comes of this, it probably isn't going to come from the top.

You are saying that the US president and congressional leadership are on the take?

I no longer trust anyone at this point. If they aren't hiding money themselves, they're probably connected to someone who is. And they've said that there are US people involved, they've just not released that part of the information yet.

But you said they would lose access to their secret accounts.

Seriously man.  How can we be informed if we dont check our beliefs from time to time?  You seem to be saying that the US president and congressional leadership are personally concerned with money squirreled away in a bank account in Iceland illegally by themselves or someone who is taking care of them.  That they care more about such accounts then their office and responsibility.

And you diagnosed it as the problem that prevents this corruption from being addressed.  That's the important part.  If you are right, then the course of action to solve this would be blaming politicians and putting them in prison.  If you are wrong, then the way to clean this up is different, it's a thorny regulatory problem.  But, and here is the important part: if you are wrong but you dont adapt your beliefs then you will misdiagnose the problem.  You are jamming up the democratic process.

What are you even on about? You seem to be implying that I can't see the future so I should just not even bother giving any opinion, it might be wrong after all. You talk about changing my opinion in light of new evidence, but I think it's a little bit premature to accuse me of ignoring the facts when none are available. Or are you just saying that there's no such thing as corruption at the higher levels of the US government? Because if so, I don't think that's the case. And those are just the people who were convicted, it doesn't even touch things like the revolving door, and other practices that are technically legal and not much else. Do I think they would straight up refuse to do their duty under direct sunlight? No. But I do think that they'll do as much they think they can get away with to keep their friends out of trouble, regardless of whether or not they deserve it.

[smirk]

So what is "cranking it up to 11?"  A 10 point swing in the national tracking numbers?  A 20 point swing?

A Spinal Tap reference, actually =P

Not gonna guess at exact numbers because I am in no way Nate Silver. It's not unreasonable to expect a bleed-off of support from establishment candidates, though, perhaps less from people switching to a different candidate and more from people simply getting fed up and deciding not to vote. Barring dramatic revelations it almost definitely won't break Hillary's lock on the Dem nomination, but it will be another thing to worry about. I'm guessing the Republican side is going to get thrown, though. Kasich will probably take a hit simply for his establishment cred, but there's a good chance that Trump will be either named in the papers himself or tied closely to one or more folks who are. We could be looking at Hillary v Cruz O_o

[/VagueSpeculation]

[mainiac]

What are you even on about?

Reading your post and saying it's cynical as fuck and not substantiated.

You seem to be implying

Well rest easy cuz I'm not.

[Baffler]

Reading your post and saying it's cynical as fuck and not substantiated.

What, specifically, do you doubt? Is it the corruption part? Is it the dragging their feet thing? What was it about the examples of precedent for those things I gave that makes them irrelevant?

I guess if you're just mindlessly writing me off that's fine too. I won't lose sleep over it.

[Parsely]

What are you even on about?

Reading your post and saying it's cynical as fuck and not substantiated.

There's no need to get rude. Not to mention he actually cited evidence. I might be inclined to consider the merits of your argument if you offered some, but right now you're just being mean and a little confusing.

[mainiac]

Reading your post and saying it's cynical as fuck and not substantiated.

What, specifically, do you doubt? Is it the corruption part? Is it the dragging their feet thing? What was it about the examples of precedent for those things I gave that makes them irrelevant?

I doubt part where you said that they wouldn't take action because they would lose access to their secret accounts.  If you say one ridiculous thing, saying 10 reasonable things afterwards doesn't make that ridiculous thing more reasonable.  I'm not objecting to you saying that corruption exists in government.  I'm not objecting to you saying there are problems with special interest influence.  I'm objecting to the thing I was harping on, not the things I've said bugger all about.

I will offer a second objection.  I object to you trying to put words in my mouth.

Not to mention he actually cited evidence.

He cited evidence?

And the only people who can call an embargo would lose access to their secret accounts. If something comes of this, it probably isn't going to come from the top.

Please, clarify for me where the evidence is.

[Shadowlord]

You seem to be implying that I can't see the future so I should just not even bother giving any opinion, it might be wrong after all.

I CAN SEE THE FUTURE

THE SUN WILL EXPAND INTO A RED GIANT IN APPROXIMATELY 5 BILLION YEARS

In unrelated news,

Extreme temperatures linked to climate change could cause an additional 11,000 heat-related deaths in the United States in the summer of 2030, according to a report released Monday by the Obama administration.

That's just the most obvious of many health effects of climate change outlined in the report, part of a year-old effort by the White House to highlight the immediate effects of rising global temperatures.

...

Scientists expect a cumulative rise in average temperature of 3 or 4 degrees Celsius by 2030. But John Holdren, Obama's chief science adviser, noted that even small changes in average temperatures can ripple into even larger extremes.

Officials said the study was extensively peer-reviewed, and even looked at whether some of the effects of climate change would be offset. "Because of the science we have in this report and the modeling that was done, we can say that the increase in heat-related deaths far exceeds the decrease in cold related deaths. And we know that because of science," said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.

[MaximumZero]

"...we know that because of science."

Welcome to the modern age!

[Baffler]

I doubt part where you said that they wouldn't take action because they would lose access to their secret accounts.  If you say one ridiculous thing, saying 10 reasonable things afterwards doesn't make that ridiculous thing more reasonable.  I'm not objecting to you saying that corruption exists in government.  I'm not objecting to you saying there are problems with special interest influence.  I'm objecting to the thing I was harping on, not the things I've said bugger all about.

I will offer a second objection.  I object to you trying to put words in my mouth.

Maybe if you had more to offer than vague dismissal and rambling on about my clogging up democracy you would get a less hostile reaction. But I can actually respond properly to this one! And you're right. In a pedantic, squint your eyes and ignore the context sort of way, but it's something. Enjoy it, you've earned it.

[mainiac]

You want pedantic?  Bro, I can give you pedantic.

No I'm not right, because it was a line of questioning.