Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) Also, is Japan a jerk?

So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) Also, is Japan a jerk? (Page 14)
Thread Tools
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Is it sad? Yes, but there's nothing special about this time around, save for the fact that democrats really, really don't like Trump, like super really. Other than that, it was the same thing in 12 when republicans really didn't like Obama. 08 too. Infact, I can't think of a single gen election that wasn't 90% "The other guy sucks!" and 10% "We don't suck as much!"
I'll put it this way. In '12, all up and down my street and throughout my neighborhood were a mixture of Obama and Romney signs. This time around? Nothing. Zero. ZERO signs. The ONLY political sign within several blocks of my house was a Trump sign, but that guy works for the Republican party and was probably required to have it.

In '12, the candidates each had qualities their supporters could be proud of. Romney was a great businessman and leader. He had something at least resembling charisma. He had character and was a decent person. Obama had good ideas and was doing good things in office. Those in support of health care reform had no issue getting behind what Obama was doing.

Both candidates had good qualities. Though there was a minority of people screaming about how bad the opposing candidate sucked, you could at least say one or two good things about your candidate before resorting to shit-talking his opponent.

This wasn't the case in '16. It WAS different. Trump made controversial statement after controversial statement - banning Muslims, building a wall and making Mexico pay for it, the pussy-grabbing thing, the second amendment people taking care of Hillary. I've used the word "unprecedented" many times to describe a candidate acting like this. You say politics has always been this way, but I dare you to find a candidate in recent memory that went as hard as Trump did. You can excuse what he did - "Oh he didn't mean it that way" or "Oh, he was just playing the media for exposure." That's not what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter why he did it, it matters that he did it.

And on the other side, you're right, the best thing about Hillary is that she wasn't Trump. The second best thing was her gender and what a female president would have meant to the progress women have made in this country. Further down somewhere is her decades of leadership and governing experience, it basically didn't matter.

This election was different.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Compassion comes into play for the end-goal.

Something along the lines of the "teach a man to fish" proverb. Replace teach with "provide".

You can provide a man a fish for a day, or you can provide him an environment with plenty of fish to go out and catch.

Again, that would be part of the equation for sure, but by no means a solution to the underlying problems that lead to needing it long-term in the first place. I'm not as concerned with temporary help vs the plethora of people that have relied on and will rely on welfare for the entirety of their lives.
But this "plethora of people" is a tiny minority of welfare recipients, and most likely uneducated with health problems and/or taking care of a disabled family member.

http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/fi...imits%20ES.pdf

In FY 2005, time-limit closures made up only 2 percent to 3 percent of all closed cases
in a given month. Of all cases closed due to time-limit policies through FY 2005, about 80,000
(or about 30 percent of total closures) occurred in New York, which transferred most of these
cases to a safety net program that provides the same level of benefits as TANF, although only
partly in cash.
Only 2-3% of closed welfare cases closed because they hit the 60-month time limit, which means 97-98% of cases are closed in less than 5 years for other reasons, like the man learning how to fish (Or dying, I guess).

You're trying to paint a picture where some huge amount of welfare recipients are lazy and just need to start working, but welfare allows them to be perpetually reliant on the state.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.o...fits-disappear

This is specific to Maine, but hits some important points.

What We Know about Families Who Need Long-Term Welfare Assistance

A 2010 study found that most families receiving welfare in Maine do so for a short time, typically about 18 months. People needing longer-term help usually had less than a high school education and were coping with personal ill-health or family disabilities.

Findings from other states tell the same story. Research studies consistently show that a small subset of recipients of Temporary Aid to Needy Families require specialized assistance and ongoing support to be able to provide for their families, because they are grappling with one or more severe difficulties such as physical or mental health problems, caring for a disabled child, the aftermath of domestic violence, or educational deficits and learning disabilities.
Here's a fun question - how many hours does a single mom need to work to pay for childcare for two or three kids under the age of 5? How many hours does an uneducated single dad need to work to cover the full-time assistance and medical bills a disabled child requires?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I'll put it this way. In '12, all up and down my street and throughout my neighborhood were a mixture of Obama and Romney signs. This time around? Nothing. Zero. ZERO signs. The ONLY political sign within several blocks of my house was a Trump sign, but that guy works for the Republican party and was probably required to have it.

In '12, the candidates each had qualities their supporters could be proud of. Romney was a great businessman and leader. He had something at least resembling charisma. He had character and was a decent person. Obama had good ideas and was doing good things in office. Those in support of health care reform had no issue getting behind what Obama was doing.
I do not disagree that there was a marked difference in the quality of candidates.

Both candidates had good qualities. Though there was a minority of people screaming about how bad the opposing candidate sucked, you could at least say one or two good things about your candidate before resorting to shit-talking his opponent.
It wasn't a minority. The majority political ads run during 12 were negative on the other party. These were the direct ads run by the campaigns, not even citing the in-the-wild armchair activists.

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/1...in-2012-083262




This wasn't the case in '16. It WAS different. Trump made controversial statement after controversial statement - banning Muslims, building a wall and making Mexico pay for it, the pussy-grabbing thing, the second amendment people taking care of Hillary. I've used the word "unprecedented" many times to describe a candidate acting like this. You say politics has always been this way, but I dare you to find a candidate in recent memory that went as hard as Trump did. You can excuse what he did - "Oh he didn't mean it that way" or "Oh, he was just playing the media for exposure." That's not what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter why he did it, it matters that he did it.
The difference is that there was much more material to go negative on.

If your point is that Trump was far more controversial, you'll see no argument from me here. I agree that in a perfect world it shuold matter but the data that we have simply suggests otherwise at least in terms of campaign tactics. Individuals are smart, people are dumb.

Obama's campaign in 08 was simply "I'm not Bush" [i.e. Change].

The escalating arms race in terms of campaigning is how much dirt the other side can dig up and how it can be most damaging. Trump is unique in that in many instances, he directly fed the machine while Hillary tried the older method of ignoring it, spinning it, denying it etc (it being whatever hysteriamongering headline of the day was).

I don't think the DNC getting caught rigging the primary helped their cause any either, especially given the ignore, spin, and deny it campaign strategy.



And on the other side, you're right, the best thing about Hillary is that she wasn't Trump. The second best thing was her gender and what a female president would have meant to the progress women have made in this country. Further down somewhere is her decades of leadership and governing experience, it basically didn't matter.

This election was different.
It was different insofar as the candidates were different. I agree, yes, but back to the original point the differences we're talking about are only unprecedented insofar as we've never had two candidates (in living memory) that were so reviled by their opposition. Is it to a greater degree? Yes. Is the mechanism any different from previous elections? I'm not so sure.



But this "plethora of people" is a tiny minority of welfare recipients, and most likely uneducated with health problems and/or taking care of a disabled family member.

http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/fi...imits%20ES.pdf
Let's taker a closer look at the numbers.

Only 2-3% of closed welfare cases closed because they hit the 60-month time limit, which means 97-98% of cases are closed in less than 5 years for other reasons, like the man learning how to fish (Or dying, I guess).
Not sure the math works out like that. You can't ignore open cases while presenting that only a small number are closed per the time limit. From your link:

About half of all TANF assistance cases are subject to the federal time
limit.
So half aren't even subject to a time limit depending on the states they live in, thus invalidating your 97%/98% being closed in 5 years number.

Looking closer at your link with the numbers we do have:

In FY 2005, time-limit closures made up only 2 percent to 3 percent of all closed cases
in a given month. Of all cases closed due to time-limit policies through FY 2005, about 80,000
(or about 30 percent of total closures) occurred in New York, which transferred most of these
cases to a safety net program that provides the same level of benefits as TANF, although only
partly in cash.
1) In a given month (not overall) 2-3 percent are closed for time limit. Only half (not even) are subject to one. Given the lower bound 2% close month over month, in a given year - that number becomes 21.5%. So to restate that number year over year, at the lower bound 21.5% have their cases closed in that year due to time limit (not counting new recipients) where not even half are subject to it. @ 3%, that number becomes 31.6%. Again, from 21.5% to 31.6% have their cases closed, year over year, due to the federal time limit where less than half of all recipients are even subject to it.

Sort of paints a different picture when you look at it year over year doesn't it?




You're trying to paint a picture where some huge amount of welfare recipients are lazy and just need to start working, but welfare allows them to be perpetually reliant on the state.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.o...fits-disappear
We ought to aim for that number being as close to 0 as possible, right? That's my only point. Your numbers don't support your conclusion, and we haven't even looked at state funded welfare programs (just the federal one).


This is specific to Maine, but hits some important points.
Again, not arguing against welfare in general. I also don't think Maine has any areas similar to Chicago, DC, Baltimore, etc. I've long held there are circumstances that require welfare as a stopgap measure, and indeed I would not advocating taking lifelines away from the needy. Instead I advocate for removing the dependency, where possible, on that lifeline as a sole means of existing in our society.


Here's a fun question - how many hours does a single mom need to work to pay for childcare for two or three kids under the age of 5? How many hours does an uneducated single dad need to work to cover the full-time assistance and medical bills a disabled child requires?
The simple reality is that we need to look at the factors that got that single mom in a situation with 2-3 kids under the age of 5 without any income to speak of. Do I think we should support her today? Yes. Do I think that we need to address the problem of children being born into poverty with almost no-hope of escaping it? Yes. That is my point about welfare being a part of the equation, but not the solution. I'd love to see the numbers on those kids, and whether or not they end up caught in the poverty cycle when they come of age.

When it comes to disabilities, and disabled children in particular, I don't think they should be lumped in with the rest of society. They have different needs, different costs and different challenges. At that point, I don't even really consider it welfare.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I'll put it this way. In '12, all up and down my street and throughout my neighborhood were a mixture of Obama and Romney signs. This time around? Nothing. Zero. ZERO signs. The ONLY political sign within several blocks of my house was a Trump sign, but that guy works for the Republican party and was probably required to have it.
As an added data point, the areas I frequent should have been plastered with Hillary signs. Democratic stronghold and all.

There were two.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 02:46 PM
 
I know you're gonna ask, so I'll show my work with the math.

In a given month, 98% do not have their cases closed due to to time limit. Of the original group that started the year:

98% remain after January.

Of those remaining, 98% do not have their cases closed in February. Of those remaining in March, 98% do not have their cases closed in March. Repeat for the rest of the year and you get 78.5% at the end of the year @ 2% per month, of the original group that started the year only 78.5% haven't had their cases closed due to the time limit.

That shows us that there are quite a few new recipients added each month to keep that 2% to 3% constant over a 5 year span, else you would see that percentage decline with time.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It was different insofar as the candidates were different. I agree, yes, but back to the original point the differences we're talking about are only unprecedented insofar as we've never had two candidates (in living memory) that were so reviled by their opposition. Is it to a greater degree? Yes. Is the mechanism any different from previous elections? I'm not so sure.
Maybe it got lost in the wall of text, but one of my main points was that neither side could be proud of their candidate. It wasn't just partisan opposition to the other side, it was a lack of any enthusiasm for one's own side.

1) In a given month (not overall) 2-3 percent are closed for time limit. Only half (not even) are subject to one.
What?

In FY 2005, time-limit closures made up only 2 percent to 3 percent of all closed cases
in a given month.
It's not that 2% of cases close, it's that 2% of cases that close hit the limit. This seems to invalidate the rest of your post where you chide me for misinterpreting the data.

The simple reality is that we need to look at the factors that got that single mom in a situation with 2-3 kids under the age of 5 without any income to speak of. Do I think we should support her today? Yes. Do I think that we need to address the problem of children being born into poverty with almost no-hope of escaping it? Yes. That is my point about welfare being a part of the equation, but not the solution. I'd love to see the numbers on those kids, and whether or not they end up caught in the poverty cycle when they come of age.
It's inarguable that schooling, comprehensive reproductive education, easy access to birth control, and removing barriers to medical care all correlate strongly with fewer unplanned pregnancies, fewer early (teenage) pregnancies, and better fetal outcomes. Which party do you think is working to provide those conditions, and which party (at least on a federal level) is actively working to gut each and every one of those?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Maybe it got lost in the wall of text, but one of my main points was that neither side could be proud of their candidate. It wasn't just partisan opposition to the other side, it was a lack of any enthusiasm for one's own side.
Very true.


What?



It's not that 2% of cases close, it's that 2% of cases that close hit the limit. This seems to invalidate the rest of your post where you chide me for misinterpreting the data.
True enough, I misread the line. Mondays or something like that.


It's inarguable that schooling, comprehensive reproductive education, easy access to birth control, and removing barriers to medical care all correlate strongly with fewer unplanned pregnancies, fewer early (teenage) pregnancies, and better fetal outcomes. Which party do you think is working to provide those conditions, and which party (at least on a federal level) is actively working to gut each and every one of those?
Someone still has to pay for all those 1st-world necessities. You can't just wish them into existence, and implementing them has real impacts to those which you take the resources from. Those impacts must be considered in a cost-benefit analysis. My belief is that a stronger economy affords more room, or more pie, that we can apply towards these things. If you stifle small business, and the economy suffers, not only do those programs suffer, but so do those who don't need them (and might be put on them with a slower economy).

In other words, I believe the answers lie not in further dividing the pie and shrinking it's circumference/area by the same proportion, but instead by growing the pie thereby making the "area" (or wealth dedicated to each) larger overall. This will have a snowball effect of making less people need the help, further reducing the need and making more of the pie available as opportunity for the public at large.

There is obviously a balance to be struck there, and many other factors that go into the equation, but that should help you understand why being a republican and wanting those things aren't mutually exclusive.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Someone still has to pay for all those 1st-world necessities. You can't just wish them into existence, and implementing them has real impacts to those which you take the resources from. Those impacts must be considered in a cost-benefit analysis. My belief is that a stronger economy affords more room, or more pie, that we can apply towards these things. If you stifle small business, and the economy suffers, not only do those programs suffer, but so do those who don't need them (and might be put on them with a slower economy).

In other words, I believe the answers lie not in further dividing the pie and shrinking it's circumference/area by the same proportion, but instead by growing the pie thereby making the "area" (or wealth dedicated to each) larger overall. This will have a snowball effect of making less people need the help, further reducing the need and making more of the pie available as opportunity for the public at large.

There is obviously a balance to be struck there, and many other factors that go into the equation, but that should help you understand why being a republican and wanting those things aren't mutually exclusive.
You sidestepped my question which, in fairness, was basically baiting.

I proposed four areas of focus:

- Education
- Reproductive education
- Easy access to birth control
- Easy access to health care

Which of these areas doesn't pay for itself with a healthier, better educated, more productive workforce?

To clarify, a BadKosh-level "BUT FREE STUFF ISN'T REALLY FREE YOU GUYS" doesn't count.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Obama's campaign in 08 was simply "I'm not Bush" [i.e. Change].
No, no, no, and no. Don't paint a false equivalency here.

Obama spoke many times to his policy positions, and these were debated during televised debates. If you didn't know what they were this was on you for not paying attention.

Trump's policy positions were extremely non-specific, at best. "We want a wall", okay, but "we will get Mexico to pay for it" is not a terribly detailed plan, no?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
You sidestepped my question which, in fairness, was basically baiting.
Which is why I articulated my position, instead taking the bait head on

I proposed four areas of focus:

- Education
- Reproductive education
- Easy access to birth control
- Easy access to health care

Which of these areas doesn't pay for itself with a healthier, better educated, more productive workforce?

To clarify, a BadKosh-level "BUT FREE STUFF ISN'T REALLY FREE YOU GUYS" doesn't count.
Absolutely agreed. But how to make sure our investments in those areas aren't undone by other societal factors? We've seen that "just throwing money at it" doesn't solve the problem. Take the bad parts of Chicago for example - do you believe an increase in educational spending will really take hold given the environment there? Access to birth control? I believe certain areas have other problems that need to be mitigated before such spending would be useful non/detrimental. In Chicago's specific case, we need to figure out the crime rate before we can figure out education.

Just to re-bait you- Illinois has voted democrat for the past 50 years. How's that working out for them?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Absolutely agreed. But how to make sure our investments in those areas aren't undone by other societal factors? We've seen that "just throwing money at it" doesn't solve the problem.
I guess I don't get what you're getting at. The current administration/party in charge is taking very specific aim at the four areas I mentioned to either reduce or eliminate them. No one is advocating for throwing money at anything.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I guess I don't get what you're getting at. The current administration/party in charge is taking very specific aim at the four areas I mentioned to either reduce or eliminate them. No one is advocating for throwing money at anything.
So did the past 20 administrations. I'm somewhat skeptical this time would be any different, especially since the metrics continue to track in the other direction. My point is thus: It isn't simple to solve these problems, and simple intuition in solving them on a sociological scale is basically worthless.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 05:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So did the past 20 administrations.
...no?

Obamacare made health insurance available to everyone.

Planned Parenthood provided reproductive health education and low cost/free birth control.

The newly appointed education secretary has done a bang-up job in Michigan.

The current administration/party in charge is directly attacking those four issues head-on in a way that no one in recent history has.

I think you're trying to make a "both sides are equally bad" argument. No?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 05:47 PM
 
And in other news ... in the aftermath of Republicans losing their sh*t over Clinton's private email server and we now have President Trump discussing highly classified information with the Russian Ambassador and Russian Foreign Minister in the Oval Office. Information gathered about ISIL from a key US ally under an intelligence sharing agreement. An ally that did not give permission for this intelligences to be revealed to the Russian. Intelligence so classified that even key US allies don't have access to it. But Trump went and spilled the beans to the Russians ... because he just has to boast about everything.

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump’s decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and National Security Agency.


“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”

The revelation comes as Trump faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Trump’s subsequent admission that his decision was driven by “this Russia thing” was seen by critics as attempted obstruction of justice.

One day after dismissing Comey, Trump welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — a key figure in earlier Russia controversies — into the Oval Office. It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details about an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

For most anyone in government discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.

“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”

The CIA declined to comment and the National Security Agency did not respond to requests for comment.

But officials expressed concern with Trump’s handling of sensitive information as well as his grasp of the potential consequences. Exposure of an intelligence stream that has provided critical insight into the Islamic State, they said, could hinder the United States’ and its allies’ ability to detect future threats.

“It is all kind of shocking,” said a former senior U.S. official close to current administration officials. “Trump seems to be very reckless, and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”


In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” Trump said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.

Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States only learned through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence gathering method, but described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.

The Washington Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.

“Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling,” said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely with members of the Trump national security team. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.

The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved. Officials said that the capability could be useful for other purposes, possibly providing intelligence on Russia’s presence in Syria. Moscow and would be keenly interested in identifying that source and possibly disrupting it.


Russia and the United States both regard the Islamic State as an enemy and share limited information about terrorist threats. But the two nations have competing agendas in Syria, where Moscow has deployed military assets and personnel to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“Russia could identify our sources or techniques,” the senior U.S. official said. A former intelligence official who handled high-level intelligence on Russia said that given the clues Trump provided, “I don’t think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out.”

At a more fundamental level, the information wasn’t the United States’ to provide to others. Under the rules of espionage, governments — and even individual agencies — are given significant control over whether and how the information they gather is disseminated even after it has been shared. Violating that practice undercuts trust considered essential to sharing secrets.

The officials declined to identify the ally, but said it is one that has previously voiced frustration with Washington’s inability to safeguard sensitive information related to Iraq and Syria.

“If that partner learned we’d given this to Russia without their knowledge or asking first that is a blow to that relationship,” the U.S. official said.

Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador | WashingtonPost.com


OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 05:56 PM
 
Apologies, I thought I responded to this some time ago, but I guess I didn't.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I personally think there's an excellent reason to ban directly measuring the number of guns in the country.
Which is?

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Again, just like with the original claims about gun research, the specifics are irrelevant. The question is am I arriving at my conclusion in good faith, or is that impossible? That it's impossible is what I feel is implied with the question. Has it been conceded my conclusions are based in good faith, or is their still an agenda I'm refusing to admit to?
Ok, maybe this is a distinction that I need to make. I don't think all republicans or conservatives are acting in bad faith. I think that a large percentage of those in power are.

i.e., I don't think Wayne LaPierre is concerned about citizen safety as much as gun sales.

I don't think Jim Inhofe believes a snowball means global warming isn't real.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is it possible alternate universe subego may lose patience when his good faith arguments are met with consistent accusations of a hidden agenda? Might this prompt alternate universe subego to start being a dickhole about it? Something which would then get used as "further" evidence of his bad faith?
Well, I hope I've made my underlying point clearer. This isn't about you.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Global warming isn't a subject I pay much attention to, so my authority to comment is limited, however my experience has been the fundamentals of the argument apply across the board.
Much like the gun question, I don't believe this require actual knowledge of policy. Merely an understand if the politics. I'll put it bluntly: If the GOP thinks climate change is an open question, why do they try to stop funding research into it?

Here's a perfect example of my bad faith: https://twitter.com/emmersbrown/stat...89161844244480
The new language bars Feds from using randomized controlled trial (aka "gold standard" of evaluation) to study D.C. voucher
"School vouchers are great! But don't do a rigorous trial to prove this."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 05:58 PM
 
Of all the countries he could have done this with...
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
...no?

Obamacare made health insurance available to everyone.

Planned Parenthood provided reproductive health education and low cost/free birth control.

The newly appointed education secretary has done a bang-up job in Michigan.

The current administration/party in charge is directly attacking those four issues head-on in a way that no one in recent history has.

I think you're trying to make a "both sides are equally bad" argument. No?
No, I'm making a "politicians promise the world when trying to get elected/a bigger budget" argument. I don't want to talk about what they're gonna do - I want to talk about what they have done. Words are wind, Jon Snow.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 11:22 PM
 
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2017, 01:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Of all the countries he could have done this with...
Cuz they already gleaned the intel from Hillary's emails?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2017, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Cuz they already gleaned the intel from Hillary's emails?
Deflect! Deflect!

So you're ok with this?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2017, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
No, I'm making a "politicians promise the world when trying to get elected/a bigger budget" argument. I don't want to talk about what they're gonna do - I want to talk about what they have done. Words are wind, Jon Snow.
Okay, who's talking about campaign promises? Because I'm not. I'm talking about proposed and passed legislation. I'm talking about actual appointees.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2017, 10:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Apologies, I thought I responded to this some time ago, but I guess I didn't.

You did respond, as did I.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
In other words, I have behaved in such a manner further discussion necessitates an accusation of arguing in bad faith. If this is fair then I shall lie in the bed I have made.

I don't think it's fair and will leave it at that.

I don't know the context of the ban, so I can't judge it. This whole tangent has been about the superficially absurd being less so when understood in context.

For instance, directly measuring the number of guns in the country would necessitate a database of gun owners. The utility of guns as a check against the government would be severely threatened by the existence of such a database. Even if that wasn't an issue, how does one justify the expenditure of resources (it would be Census scale) when the number can be extrapolated from data the ATF collects?

What I do know of global warming involves behavior on the behalf of Republicans which certainly appears absurd to me. I'm sure a good deal of it is, just like there is with guns, however I trust my instincts at least some of it is more complicated than it appears on the surface. Just like with guns. If there's a specific ban in question, point me towards it and I'll endeavor to provide my best analysis.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2017, 10:57 AM
 
Christ, I actually control-f'd for it and still failed.

Was my new reply's distinction useful at least?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2017, 11:13 AM
 
Yes!

I will ultimately get to it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2017, 11:33 AM
 
Take your time. I certainly did.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2017, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Deflect! Deflect!

So you're ok with this?
As POTUS, he has the authority to do so. In other words, it's not an impeachable offense. Am ok with it? I would prefer he didn't.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2017, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
As POTUS, he has the authority to do so. In other words, it's not an impeachable offense. Am ok with it? I would prefer he didn't.
Thanks for answering.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2017, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
As POTUS, he has the authority to do so. In other words, it's not an impeachable offense. Am ok with it? I would prefer he didn't.
You're talking about the two scoops of ice cream thing, right?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2017, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
You're talking about the two scoops of ice cream thing, right?
Yep, along with everything else Trump has done so far, despite the Left's bluster to the contrary.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2017, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here's a perfect example of my bad faith: https://twitter.com/emmersbrown/stat...89161844244480

"School vouchers are great! But don't do a rigorous trial to prove this."
So, you object to the reason given?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2017, 10:05 PM
 
For those playing at home, the experiment calls for comparison of children who requested vouchers and got them, versus children who didn't.

Which is fine up until the second year where the second group of children put their names back into the hat to get vouchers and are refused on the basis of it ****ing up the experiment.

This strikes me as a pretty clear-cut example of questionable experimental ethics.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2017, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
For those playing at home, the experiment calls for comparison of children who requested vouchers and got them, versus children who didn't.

Which is fine up until the second year where the second group of children put their names back into the hat to get vouchers and are refused on the basis of it ****ing up the experiment.

This strikes me as a pretty clear-cut example of questionable experimental ethics.
How is that any more questionable than giving people a placebo in a medical trial?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2017, 03:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
How is that any more questionable than giving people a placebo in a medical trial?
This is a government education subsidy for underprivileged children.

We're talking about disqualifying someone for life because they were randomly chosen as a control.

I know you're not stone cold like this, so where are the wires crossed?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2017, 05:52 PM
 
You just gotta love it ....

One of the ways Donald Trump’s budget claims to balance the budget over a decade, without cutting defense or retirement spending, is to assume a $2 trillion increase in revenue through economic growth. This is the magic of the still-to-be-designed Trump tax cuts. But wait — if you recall, the magic of the Trump tax cuts is also supposed to pay for the Trump tax cuts. So the $2 trillion is a double-counting error.

Trump has promised to enact “the biggest tax cut in history.” Trump’s administration has insisted, however, that the largest tax cut in history will not reduce revenue, because it will unleash growth. That is itself a wildly fanciful assumption. But that assumption has already become a baseline of the administration’s budget math. Trump’s budget assumes the historically yuge tax cuts will not lose any revenue for this reason — the added growth it will supposedly generate will make up for all the lost revenue.

But then the budget assumes $2 trillion in higher revenue from growth in order to achieve balance after ten years. So the $2 trillion from higher growth is a double-count. It pays for the Trump cuts, and then it pays again for balancing the budget. Or, alternatively, Trump could be assuming that his tax cuts will not only pay for themselves but generate $2 trillion in higher revenue. But Trump has not claimed his tax cuts will recoup more than 100 percent of their lost revenue, so it’s simply an embarrassing mistake.

It seems difficult to imagine how this administration could figure out how to design and pass a tax cut that could pay for itself when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush failed to come anywhere close to doing so. If there is a group of economic minds with the special genius to accomplish this historically unprecedented feat, it is probably not the fiscal minds who just made a $2 trillion basic arithmetic error.
Trump Budget Based on $2 Trillion Math Error | New York Magazine

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2017, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
How is that any more questionable than giving people a placebo in a medical trial?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is a government education subsidy for underprivileged children.

We're talking about disqualifying someone for life because they were randomly chosen as a control.

I know you're not stone cold like this, so where are the wires crossed?
And to reiterate my main point, the question isn't whether my challenge is correct, it's whether I present it in good faith.

As in, am I presenting an concern which I believe to be legitimate, or is this in fact all a scheme to win the debate by means of legislatively enforced ignorance.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2017, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Subego
This is a government education subsidy for underprivileged children.

We're talking about disqualifying someone for life because they were randomly chosen as a control.

I know you're not stone cold like this, so where are the wires crossed?
I know this reply is late in coming, but I fail to see the moral difference in this and a double-blind medical trial where you may be disqualifying someone from living because they were randomly chosen as a control. It's kind of unavoidable if you want to study this sort of thing scientifically.

Or did I miss something?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2017, 08:51 PM
 
My understanding is double-blind tests generally don't get used in life-or-death situations because it would be ethically questionable.

One of the requirements for it to be ethical in life-or-death circumstances is useful data cannot be acquired via any other method. Usually it can.

To take an education example, we compare public and private schools all the time. We don't do this with a double-blind experiment because it would require taking someone out of a private school and forcing them to be in a public one.

That's unethical, so we use lesser experimental methods.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2017, 09:14 PM
 
Just to expand slightly.

If a promising cancer drug is developed, it probably won't get double-blinded. Existing data will get used as the control. We already know how many people are supposed to end up dead at the end.

If for whatever reason we did double-blind it, once we noticed the test drug outperforming the control, we're obligated to seek a new experimental method. Continuing as is would be unethical.

With a voucher program, we know some kids will do better. They shouldn't be forced to be a control.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2017, 09:23 PM
 
And not to lose sight of the overarching question.

Is the need to perform a double-blind arguable, or can my challenge only be a plot to win the argument by means of legislatively enforced ignorance?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2017, 04:16 PM
 
Just so you know I'm reading, if I get myself on a laptop session of macnn I'll address this. Running a an expanding backlog of in depth replies again.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2017, 04:29 PM
 
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2017, 12:06 PM
 
So right-wingers cool with Trumps diplomacy being so bad Germany is now attacking us publicly?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2017, 12:55 PM
 
Hey... I can be convinced we can afford to give Europe a hard time.

The problem is doing that while at the same time bending over for the autocratic mobster and the people who ****ing did 9/11.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2017, 12:58 PM
 
A hard time on exporting too many cars and not paying NATO protection money?

And yes context matters.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2017, 01:06 PM
 
I imagine we could have better trade deals with Europe, but that aspect of world trade seems lost on Trump.

Europe should absolutely pay more for NATO, but I know they won't because our only threat is non-participation. I'm fine calling them skinflints about it to their face, though.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2017, 01:23 PM
 
Also, aren't there some conflicts between what type of armaments Germany is allowed to have post WWII?

Can I be of a position that some countries do need to pay more but the top line should probably drop?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2017, 01:23 PM
 
****ing Macron is talked my tougher to Putin than Trump. A Frenchman.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2017, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Also, aren't there some conflicts between what type of armaments Germany is allowed to have post WWII?

Can I be of a position that some countries do need to pay more but the top line should probably drop?
IIUC, if Germany wanted to back out of the NPT, there's nothing stopping them from having nukes.

Japan has all kinds of whacky restrictions because we wrote their constitution.


I wouldn't attack your morality for wanting to drop the top line, but unsurprisingly, I disagree. Of course, I'm easy to convince when it comes to spending money on shit that blows up.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2017, 02:42 PM
 
There's nothing stopping them from backing out of theNPT isn't exactly an endorsement to do so. Doing it just to hit some NATO number would be kind of galling.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2017, 02:51 PM
 
Oh... I wasn't implying Germany should get nukes. I'm extrapolating from the fact they could to answer the question of whether there have been armament restrictions placed upon them.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2017, 04:19 PM
 
It has restrictions on the size of its armed forces as we'll
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:25 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,