@AshLael's banner p

AshLael

Just here to farm downvotes

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 June 15 03:16:03 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 2498

AshLael

Just here to farm downvotes

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 June 15 03:16:03 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2498

Verified Email

We've now got pretty good video generation.

I take toxic to mean "bad in a way that encourages people to relate to each other in increasingly unpleasant ways".

If someone shouts "Fuck you!" and walks away, that's rude. But it's not "toxic" in the sense that it's not a part of an ongoing relationship that's being degraded into ever higher levels of spite and resentment.

Ok. But should they support his assassination, given their opinions of the man?

The setup was Jack Black singing Kyle Happy Birthday, and asking him to make a wish. "Don't miss Trump next time" was the punchline.

It's an example of shock humour. Similar to the average Jimmy Carr quip. "People always talk about how Hitler murdered 6 million Jews. They never mention how he also killed 2 million Gypsies. No one likes to focus on the positives."

One day I'm going to stand for election on a platform of legalising comedy.

We all agree Hitler should have been killed, right? That’s the most popular hypothetical ever.

I don't know. Based on the info we have today? Sure. Based on what was knowable then? I really don't know. I could imagine myself in 1930s Germany going "Pfft, even if Hitler becomes Chancellor he'll still have to govern in coalition. There's no way the other parties will sign off on handing full unfettered power to him".

It's not incoherent to think that Trump is a danger to democracy. It might be wrong but it's not incoherent.

You'd obviously be familiar with the Hitler example. He won a legitimate election, and then after he was in power made himself dictator. Or you could look at Hugo Chavez, or Robert Mugabe. There's plenty of precedent for people seizing power fairly and then retaining it illegitimately.

Now, you would obviously counter "Trump is not Hitler", and I would agree with you. But different people can have different opinions, even if those opinions are wrong. There are absolutely people - lots of them - who believe that Trump is a danger to democracy, and it is a coherent belief to hold.

And so I ask again: should those people support murdering him?

Maybe we're just generally bad at protecting high profile people.

I'm open to the argument that the secret service is like the TSA - security theatre that's there to reassure people rather than a meaningful protection.

This isn't an answer to my question.

Which is the correct position to take for someone who is pro-democracy and thinks Trump is a threat to democracy? Should they be pro or anti assassination?

It was Trump's policy before it was Biden's.

The origin of the policy came from TikTok censoring content supporting the Hong Kong protests. That made people go "Hey maybe we don't want to let the Chinese government exert information control over our social media" and Trump tried to make them divest through an executive order. That got challenged in court and didn't work so it came back as bipartisan legislation. Until March, Trump supported it too.

Whatever misgivings you might have about other social media platforms, at least they aren't controlled by a hostile foreign government.

Why wouldn't I believe it? It's what he said explicitly. And he went on to further state what he thought the consequences of that move would be and how he would respond to those consequences.

If you think that's an insane plan, fair enough, but that's what he says in his own words that he wants to do.

How can people not realize that it's a bridge too far? They're literally saying that to preserve democracy, they need to assassinate the leading candidate, a level of cognitive dissonance beyond anything I've seen.

That said, I also find the current cancelations hilarious. The very people who are calling Trump "literally hitler" are now pearl clutching that it's not okay to try kill Hitler.

Which is the correct position to take for someone who is pro-democracy and thinks Trump is a threat to democracy? Should they be pro or anti assassination? You seem to be simultaneously mocking both stances.

What on earth makes you think Trump is going to be tough on China? He's not even supporting the TikTok ban.

This seems like a sane-wash. Vance did not say "fire bureaucrats who won't take direction from the executive". I agree that doing that would be proper (and presumably legal). He says "fire every single midlevel bureaucrat", which doesn't seem to suggest leaving in place those who do take direction.

The fact that Vance goes on to advocate defying court rulings against the move suggests heavily that he acknowledges his preferred path would be explicitly illegal and that he doesn't care.

I think this piece by Vance gives a pretty good background on his perspective. He's firmly anti-libertarian and believes that the government should aggressively and proactively use its power to create good outcomes. "Good outcomes" in his book being largely family-centric rather than business-centric. He cares a lot about declining fertility rates for example.

The main thing that I think doesn't quite come through in that article is his high willingness to play hardball. For example he has advocated for defying court rulings that obstruct a new administration's ability to fire bureaucrats and replace them with their own people.

I don't know how you categorise "grey tribe" versus "MAGA" but I would say Vance combines Trump's willingness to defy norms and break the rules with a much more coherent and strategic sense of what he seeks to achieve by doing so.

It's never gonna happen. Even if Biden thought that sort of a trade were beneficial (and I doubt he does), there's nothing like the sort of trust you would need to actually make a deal like that.

Plus, trading pardons for political favours is straightforwardly corrupt, even if it would be very hard to prosecute under the SCOTUS' new standard.

The relevant rule of evidence here is that the judge is responsible for determining what the law is and instructing the jury accordingly. The parties can bring witnesses to testify about the facts of the case but they can't bring witnesses to make arguments to the jury about what the law is.

If the judge gets the law wrong, that's an appealable error.

Manhattan turnout was 65%. That means your jury pool is not 90% (actually 85%) Democrat-voting, it's 55%.

  • -11

I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler.

I guess he landed on option 1.

Allegedly a local cop climbed up and confronted Crooks immediately before the shooting, Crooks pointed his rifle at the cop and the cop retreated.

Assuming that's true, besides painting the cop in question as being a bit rubbish, it surely indicates that the secret service snipers were not yet aware of Crooks or at least hadn't got him sights. Because surely a bloke on a roof with a rifle pointing his weapon at a cop is reason enough to pull the trigger. Unless the secret service have a categorical policy of never shooting first, which would seem insane.

Did anyone actually get prosecuted for BLM riots?

Yes? For example, Shamar Betts got 4 years for making a Facebook post inciting a riot.

Cross pressured voters are real. There's people out there who don't like abortion bans but also don't like inflation, or people who don't want immigration but also don't like rich people getting tax cuts, etc, etc. You add another thing into the mix and sometimes it can make one of these people with mixed feelings flip.

It'll be funny if it turns out to be he was a disgruntled Haley supporter.

If only Franz Ferdinand had been more cowardly.

If Shaggy decided to become an assassin instead of solving mysteries with his talking dog.