MSC
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MSC
-
-
27 minutes ago, iNow said:
Yes. I’ve been having exactly the same thought for about 2 weeks now, but without all the logistical backup data you shared here. I think it’s inevitable especially with what’s happening in Israel and Bibi meeting Trump in DC on Monday
Not only that; it's part of the would be dictators road map to autocratic control.
He's about the employ the; cause a war and use it to label internal dissenters as seditious and unpatriotic and make the conversation about how people are only criticising the leader due to wanting to stop the war, strategy. Also, wartime powers.
-
4 hours ago, KJW said:
don't see this as a matter of choosing sides. I see this as a possibility that is available to Trump at the end of his second term. I chose this side of the debate only as a counterbalance to the commonly stated view that Trump is ineligible for a third term as President.
You don't see it as a matter of choosing sides, yet a few sentences later you explicitly state "I chose this side" and your reasoning for why kind of strikes as bordering on arguing in bad faith. What do you really actually think? Nobody asked anybody to be devils advocate or to balance out anything in this discussion, so is that all you're doing or do you really personally believe he is eligible for a third term as president?
My other question; why do you believe that viewing Trump as ineligible is the common view? Who's common view specifically?
Side bar; don't take me trying to call you out on a few things as a sign that you don't have my respect, you do and I am finding this discussion interesting and I appreciate you taking the time to respond thoughtfully, and the accusation of bad faith is specifically that you may be unaware that it comes across as such, not that you're maliciously trying to mislead because I know you're not. Just bringing it to your awareness that your stated reason for picking that side comes across as a bad faith argument because it infers that you're not sharing what you actually feel about it.
3 hours ago, TheVat said:It is possible, given TPs ability to intimidate people, mobster style. Our best protection might be expressed by this equation:
(Present Year - 1946) X (kg annual average cheeseburger intake x BMI) X (annual average miles traversed in golf cart/miles walked) = Imminent Death Rating.
So, let's say it is late 2028, so we start with 82, multiply by (260 kg cheeseburgers X BMI of 30) so that's 7800, and then multiply by 400 golf cart miles / 1 mile walked...which gives us an IDR of...
(82 * 7800 * 400) = 255,840,000 for the IDR
Basically anything over 100,000,000 is high risk. Over 200,000,000 is "how are you even still here?"
(DISCLAIMER: Equation is not based on real medical research, and is offered only for purposes of whimsy)
You missed pie! How can you calculate anything to do with beef burgers without pie?!
4 hours ago, iNow said:Of course, and refusal to accept that possibility is another example of a failure of imagination.
Explicitly stating the possibility in a discussion isn't the same as not being able to imagine it. Rather I can imagine it, and so fight it, because the idea of him having a third term, nay another day of oxygen, is horrible.
-
-
21 hours ago, KJW said:
I had already posted this link to an article from the Cornerstone Law Firm:
https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/
I also found this article from the University of Minnesota Law School:Peabody, Bruce G. and Gant, Scott E., "The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment" (1999). Minnesota Law Review. 909.
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1908&context=mlr
See page 55 / 73 of the PDF (page 618 of the text).
QuoteAt the time the Twelfth Amendment was written there was, of course, no Twenty-Second Amendment; therefore, the Twelfth Amendment could not have originally meant to preclude someone from being Vice President who had been elected President twice. Rather, the Twelfth Amendment's Reference to "eligibility" likely pointed only to the "eligibility" provision of Article II, Section 1, clause 4, which states that
Excerpt from the second link you shared, see this interpretation is disturbing to me because it negates the idea of a living document and flies in the face of article V of the original Constitution establishing amendment power, where it makes clear the only limits it place on said amendment power was a temporary prohibition on changes to clauses 1 and four of section 9 of article I.
The mistake I often see people make in the conceptualisation of the US Constitution, is behaving like the amendments are in some way separate from the original document because they don't see them together, amendments listed separately, when in reality reading a living document requires placing amendments where they belong in relation to the original articles, sections and clauses to make for more fluid reading, everything in place.
QuoteNo Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States - US Constitution Article II S1 C4
As an example of what I was saying; amendments in relation to the presidency and vice presidency, belong in Article II.
I mean don't get me wrong, it's all still theoretically debatable, however I've picked a side and don't see any pragmatic reason to do the fascists work for them by imagining up arguments in favour of helping a convict find a legal loophole to keep escaping justice while also being able to keep holding a knife to the throat of the world.
I mean definitionally "ineligible" means incapable of involvement or position by way of rule, regulation or law. The spirit of the 22nd amendment cannot be clearer, there is a clear intent to curb how long any one person may remain in office.
QuoteNo person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
The intent behind stating that no person who has held or acted as president for more than two years of a term may be elected more than once, is addressing the role of vice presidency or someone else in the line of succession, albeit indirectly but who else is going to step into the presidency if the current president becomes unable? What other positions could it be talking about other than VPs, Speakers and Designated survivors?
-
3 hours ago, KJW said:
I had already posted this link to an article from the Cornerstone Law Firm:
https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/
I also found this article from the University of Minnesota Law School:Peabody, Bruce G. and Gant, Scott E., "The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment" (1999). Minnesota Law Review. 909.
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1908&context=mlr
See page 55 / 73 of the PDF (page 618 of the text).
Thanks for sharing, will read and respond after work! Sorry I didn't see your earlier share too, it's been a busy week.
-
2 hours ago, KJW said:
Also, given that we are in a political environment in which Trump is now president in spite of what happened on January 6, 2021, I wouldn't hold out too much hope that Trump will be legally denied his third term.
I mean stranger things have happened, but unless Republicans gain massive ground in the midterms in the Senate or flip some Democrats themselves, I just don't see how. Not unless the Republicans goad Democrats into allowing third terms if it meant Obama could run again. Would he even want to? I kind of feel like if the Obama's as a couple thought they could handle that again, Michelle would have ran by now.
One thing I'm pretty sure of though, if he does get a third term, somehow, that would start a lot of civil unrest or a full on civil war.
1 minute ago, KJW said:It's hardly "straightforward". Otherwise, there wouldn't be a legal debate on the issue. Actually, the 22nd and 12th Amendments taken together contain a peculiar circularity, rendering them unable to decide whether Trump can legally become Vice President after the conclusion of his second term. That is, if Trump can legally become Vice President, he can legally become President by becoming Vice President, and therefore he can legally become Vice President; whereas if Trump can't legally become Vice President, he can't legally become President by becoming Vice President, and therefore he can't legally become Vice President.
Where is the credible legal debate on the issue?
-
37 minutes ago, iNow said:
This is a failure of imagination on your part
Sorry, let me rephrase; there is no possible legal way or reasonable argument to be made as to why it would be legal, without completely ignoring the 12th and 22nd amendment.
That said; there would be no federal government push to stop Trump from running as the VP, but it would only take a few state supreme courts to decide to keep Trump off the ballot, and election funding or no election funding, not on the ballot means you can't win.
-
6 hours ago, TheVat said:
12th Amendment blocks that maneuver, happily.
No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
(and there aren't enough state ratification votes to repeal the relevant amendments - 3/4 of states must ratify any change in the Constitution)
Was literally about to respond to @MigLabout this; what surprises me is that while I see news articles talking about this impossible hypothetical, none of them mention the 12th amendment in regards to this. It's pretty straightforward, the 22nd amendment makes Trump ineligible to run again as president, therefore he is the definition of constitutionally ineligible. The only time I've heard them use the 12th amendment to discuss Trump eligibility was when he was being impeached and they were talking about him potentially being made ineligible via Senate impeachment conviction.
It's like people just forget it's a thing, why is anyone even entertaining the idea of him being VP? Why even write the story? It can't happen. What exactly would the SCOTUS argument in favour of that look like? There is mental gymnastics and then there is impossible. Same rules apply for him running for a third term, without a constitutional amendment, it's just not possible. Sorry, not sorry!
23 hours ago, iNow said:Nobody’s talking about the citizens he’s disappearing, and how even ones they admit were sent to Venezuelan prisons in error are still there and being ignored.
I think we have to start asking; have some people's Internet news bubbles, become completely non-porous to reality getting in?
-
On 4/2/2025 at 12:30 PM, CharonY said:
think it is again a situation where both elements apply. It is stupid, but there is also a vague idea behind it. On the least ideological side there is simply the desire to keep the fires of culture wars going.
This makes me wonder, what is ultimately more dangerous for society? Stupid in charge, or evil in charge? I'd argue stupid, because evil loves to take advantage of stupid.
There is also a profound danger that will maybe materialize in the next election, assuming Trump definitely won't be able to run, and that is, who is Trump going to open the door for? I recall during the primaries a lot of people were worried that if someone more like Putin were to win the Republican primary, it could be worse than Trump. An example that springs to mind is DeSantis.
-
17 minutes ago, CharonY said:
Both tend to be related. Wittgenstein has argued that language is our key tool to construct reality, or at least our understanding of it. Limiting it, as explored in Orwell's 1984 would also limit our experience of reality. The cons have taken that as an instruction manual, after heavily projecting that the libs are doing it for nefarious purposes such as addressing systemic inequality. Instead, they are doing it to combat important things, like drinking water.
Yes I remember that of Wittgenstein. What I hadn't thought about much was the inverse of limiting it. I explained his work to a friend of mine by providing this example; Imagine that instead of the term lying in the English language, imagine instead there had been a specific words for different types of falsehoods in different contexts. Lying to a friend would have a different word than say deceiving an enemy. Now what would this world look like if you had always conceived of falsehoods in this way? How would this line of thinking impact someone like Kant for example? One problem with Kants arguments against lying is that it doesn't address using someone as a means, to thwart them doing it to someone else, so protecting that person is your end. The thought scenario Kant applies of someone showing up to murder a loved one and your telling the truth leading to their death, is only one outcome and I'd argue that more often than not, lying to this "enemy" would not lead to them being able to carry out their threat but more often than not would effectively shield someone from harm. I guess ultimately I also just cannot imagine a world where people don't engage in some kind of falsehood. So which falsehoods are right and which ones are wrong? I can't have a categorical imperative to not engage in falsehoods when I can't conceive of a world where it can't happen, not unless we are all omniscient and omnipresent.
Rounding back to something I talked about earlier in a different thread but is related to the topic of free speech and what I've talked about here; Would it be immoral of me, to fabricate a conspiracy theory that paints someone in a negative light, when believing the truth about them would do the same? For example there is no public conclusive proof that 47 is a willing Russian asset, engaged in a conspiracy with Putin. However since the truth of the matter is that he is a threat to democracy, the environment, free speech, US citizens, people in general etc, and since he is going to lie his pants off anyway, why shouldn't there be a counter flooding of the zone, with what we would call defensive lies that are designed to push people away from him ideologically? He plays on certain fears, so should Democrats and old school republicans play to different ones? The fear of being lied to, manipulated, changed over time against your will, abused etc.
Also apologies if I've crossed the bounds of being OT with some of this, I'd been wanting to do a thread in the ethics section about the study of falsehoods through Wittgensteins pragmatic lense but was hesitant because I don't feel entirely ready to defend it here. But hey ho, it came up.
-
https://newrepublic.com/post/193395/agriculture-department-ban-words-safe-drinking-water
QuoteA leaked memo from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Research Service division revealed Sunday that the agency has banned some key language from its vocabulary, including the words “climate” and “vulnerable,” as well as the phrase “safe drinking water
Other baffling entries on the memo’s banned language list are “greenhouse gas emissions,” “methane emissions,” “sustainable construction,” “solar energy,” and “geothermal,” as well as “nuclear energy,” “diesel,” “affordable housing,” “prefabricated housing,” “runoff,” “microplastics,” “water pollution,” “soil pollution,” “groundwater pollution,” “sediment remediation,” “water collection,” “water treatment,” “rural water,” and “clean water,” among dozens of others.
“When evaluating agreements, those entries that include these terms or similar terms cannot be submitted,” wrote Sharon Strickland, the USDA’s Northeast area financial management, travel and agreements section head, in an internal March 20 email. The review will “ensure that we maintain compliance with the Administration’s EOS.”
It’s unclear how the guidance would do anything other than completely hinder the department’s ability to monitor the health and edibility of crops, or aid America’s rural development—some of its primary functions. What is clear, however, is that purging such basic speech will stifle scientific research and discourse.
Stupid doesn't even come close to describing this. This is just becoming insane. It's not even funny "safe drinking water" banned? What on the hell kind of lunatics world are we living in?
Is it free speech that is under attack or is it just truth and facts that are under attack? Feels like lies have become the currency of the day in the USA.
-
https://nypost.com/2025/03/28/opinion/youtubes-ms-rachel-and-the-leftists-coming-after-our-kids/
QuoteNot until Oct. 19, when Israel was beginning its Gaza invasion, did she post a video, crooning, “Safe, safe, safe . . . all children deserve to be safe.”
She didn’t spare a word for the dozens of children held hostage by Hamas at that moment.
Since then, she’s regularly posted Hamas-aligned talking points about the number of children killed and complaints about meager aid shipments.
“Please practice the golden rule and do what you would want someone to do for you,” she lectured.
What, exactly, would any other country do while 59 of its citizens are still being held hostage?
Is it just me or does this read like it's written by an extremely jealous woman trying to tear down another women and attempting to make it sound like it's over something people should actually care about?
Sharing this here because it's starting to feel like not only are peoples free speech rights under attack for what they do say, but now here they are being attacked for what they didn't say. It wasn't enough for the writer of this trash when Ms Rachel said "All children deserve to be safe", no they wanted an explicit mention of a few children in a very specific circumstance. It seems the tables have turned a little because now one side is saying "all lives" while the other is demanding an explicit specific mention of a certain group, in a complete switcheroo.
I am noticing an uptick in my mixed news app of content like this, what I call "The world according to MAGA" articles.
Knowing that pieces like this are only going to show up more frequently, as this administration does it's best to snuff out credible sources of information, I can't help but feel very afraid for how this is going to impact children who are going to grow up in an anti-scientific hateful society fueled by misinformation, lies and fake images.
Also; how dare this woman take Mr Rogers name in vein! His widow hated the current president and said he was completely at odds with everything Fred stood for!
-
-
Honestly they could just feel free to be reckless because they really don't believe they will be held accountable for anything they do when the DOJ is completely devoted to 47 right now. The DOJ has become a political weapon and everybody knows it.
This may be a separate discussion; but the influence of knowing that if you're against 47, there is nobody coming to save you if targeted, cannot be overstated. Take a look at what is going on with schools, libraries and museums under this regime and the capitulation of some schools towards it; on the surface you have threats to pull funding, behind the scenes, what sort of other threats are being made?
The Democrats are also being very hesitant and indecisive with how to respond to 47.
At this point we aren't even out of jeopardy if he naturally passes, he's blowing up guardrails and setting up a mechanism by which any number of unscrupulous people can take advantage of and become a dictator.
-
22 hours ago, swansont said:
That’s something that’s been raised in some critiques of the whole fiasco. Trump didn’t know about the four soldiers missing in Lithuania, either. His disconnect is not surprising (he doesn’t care, unless it’s about him) but seems to be unusual.
I mean the guy literally forgot the word "criminals" and fumbled to "people of crime" the other day. Dude probably can't even spell Lithuania.
24 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:Not familiar with Signal but... wouldn't every participant know who every other participant is? Aren't they clearly listed? Wouldn't they check that list if only to be sure everyone who is supposed to be in the discussion is on-line before they start if only to not have to call another meeting? Or is that list only for the 'convener' and others can be kept unaware of the identity of some participants? Which sounds like it would be an absolute no-no for such a meeting to me.
It does sound like a level of carelessness as well as disregard for proper procedures for a high level classified meeting that is incompatible with their duty for dealing with classified information.
As far as I am aware everyone would have access, however if they just trusted the convener/inviter enough to not be careless they probably wouldn't think to check. I mean you wouldn't expect organized criminals to ask everyone to double check their phones to make sure nobody butt dialed 911.
-
The Joke here is that RFK thinks SNAP isn't on MAGAs hit list.
-
You answer your own question pretty quickly when you say "mind" is the mind alive, since we aren't suggesting the mind is also part of the illusion.
Yes, our mind or brains conjure an attempt at a pragmatic to life approximation of what is "outside" through sensory data. However there is no smoke without a fire, whether you're a brain in a vat, a simulation, a hallucination in the mind of some other being or just living in cold hard reality, you have an existence, all that changes between those things is the nature of that existence. You're alive because you are aware of a thinking mind that you recognize having some ownership of. Doesn't matter if it's code, the guy that coded you has the same problem of wondering if he is or isn't in a simulation.
Suffice it to say, there is nothing scientific about the idea of deriving knowledge from something other than sensory data. What else is there?
-
-
-
4 hours ago, iNow said:
From my perspective, you absolutely are
Maybe, I haven't exactly been sleeping well recently either but yeah if y'all are all checking my rationality here I can only conclude there is nothing to it absent harder evidence.
Now the Witkoffs phone as a possible deadrop of other messages between Trump and Putin; is that one feasible? How credible is the idea that there is a secret line of communication between Trump and Putin?
-
57 minutes ago, CharonY said:
Again, I will posit that we are dealing with malignant motivations/actions paired with incompetence. The administration is full of bad actors who are trying to exploit others. But they are also terrible at their job and in hiding things.
That I agree with; however I would point out that when dealing with a potential conspiracy between this administration and the Kremlin, the pool of bad actors to worry about is bigger and more sophisticated. We can't rule out feigned incompetence with an ulterior motive, in the same way we can't rule out actual incompetence. My point is simply that if we are going to speculate on one, why not the other?
But I suppose in order to give my hypothesis a bit more weight we'd need to ask if the leak to a journalist could have at all benefitted Trump's administration or Putin's? If the answer is no, then there would be no need for me to speculate. But is the answer no? I'll need to think on it for a bit.
-
2 hours ago, TheVat said:
Hanlon's razor ("never attribute to malice that which may be explained by stupidity or incompetence...").
Greys law "Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." Hanlons razor is a useful interpersonal safeguard in your personal life. Applied to politics, organizing, or any setting where you're dealing with relative strangers? You're setting yourself up to be taken advantage of. Bad actors WILL be part of the group, they WILL notice you deliberately putting yourself in "gullible person" mode, and they WILL exploit your hesitance to call out malice as malice.
-
1 hour ago, CharonY said:
But I think that you are in fact overthinking the MAGA movement
You don't find it suspicious that a journalist was included in the chat and this just happened to be a mistake?
It's less that I am overestimating the movement but not underestimating the ability of individuals and groups within said movement, they can figure out ways of taking advantage of the fractured state of news media consumption sources.
4 minutes ago, exchemist said:Slightly tangentially to the above, I remain a bit puzzled why Vance was getting so hot under the collar at the thought the USA was fighting Europe's war for them with these attacks on the Houthis. I gather there was even discussion about making Europe pay for the operation. But so far as I am aware, there is no suggestion that anyone in Europe asked for these attacks to be carried out. On the contrary, it seems to have been entirely an American initiative - possibly as a way to signal (haha) willingness to fight a proxy war with Iran.
So on what basis would Europe pay for an action they never requested and which might actually blow back to hurt their interests? I can't follow the logic. Is there some background to this that I am missing, or is it just the fascist vein in Vance's neck throbbing again?
Now that's something that is definitely incompetence and idiocy driven.
-
Edited by MSC
10 minutes ago, CharonY said:Wasn't Nero the last known male descendant?
Yes he was the adopted son and a few other family relations to Claudius. It would be more accurate to say that Claudius was the only surviving male heir capable of assuming power at the time. Nero would have been four when Claudius became emperor.
Maybe Just My Imagination
in Politics
Don't remind me, if I go dark here for over two weeks anytime over the next 3+ years it's because I'm in a detention center at best, El Salvador at worst!
I've literally had some Americans tell me not to worry because I'm one of the "white one's" and I just don't think they get it at all. Deportation quota's have put everyone under increased scrutiny and I've been taken to secondary inspection at the border, under Biden, so I don't exactly have high confidence that the colour of my skin would save me, they held a British tourist for 3 weeks in a detention center within the first 50 days of this presidency and we can't forget the ol TSAs 4 arabs and a blonde method for avoiding the accusation of racism.
Amongst us white immigrants in the USA we have a saying "We are only white until we open our mouths".
Sorry for the OT, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't terrified of all of this.
I think MigL is right though. I think before 2025 is done the USA will be having another war. Not gonna start a poll on it though, I've been wrong before. Here's hoping for natural causes or an act of God!