@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

My experience is that it doesn't reduce the desire to eat. You're still gonna have cravings, at least I do (for sweets especially). What it does do is make you get full much faster. So, it might be helpful for you given that you have issues with overeating regular food.

Thank you (also @Dean). I had no idea that was the case.

Wait what? Why was the flag at half staff anyways?

I guess I was thinking more of the absolute shitstorm it would cause, not in legal terms. There would be way too much "but they did X so I want Y to stand", such that it would be hard to sort through. Far more practical (if not ideal) to let the bad pardons stand without sorting all that out.

The alleged reasoning is that the pardons only apply to those already convicted convicted of a crime

I actually agree with this, but we're way past that point (for better or for worse). But I do think it's way past time we had a constitutional amendment that the presidential pardon cannot be used as a way to block charges from being brought, it can only be used to overturn cases that were duly tried in a court of law. It's too late to undo the preemptive pardons of the past, but we should prevent future ones.

Well yeah, today I have people blowing up my inbox by replying to my comments. That by itself means I'm going to be a lot more active. Disagreement causes engagement as people argue with each other, agreement is more quiet by nature.

Mitch McConnell was dead set against a president being able to nominate a supreme court justice during his lame duck period... right up until it was Trump doing said nominating. It was basically impossible for a significant chunk of Obama's first term to avoid hearing Republicans accusing Obama of not being a US citizen, when there is zero chance they would fight so vociferously against someone on their side.

I never said that the Democrats are perfect angels who act morally and have the people's interests at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth. But they are not the only ones who fight dirty in politics and are willing to break norms of good behavior. Anyone who claims that the past 20 years has been a pattern of the Democrats misbehaving as the Republicans try to take the high ground is woefully misinformed at best, and more likely is a partisan hypocrite.

You're not alone. I want both groups of rioters to get significant prison sentences (like 5 years or so) in order to send a message that such activity is not acceptable in our society. But unfortunately most people are all about punishing rioters right up until they agree with the rioters' politics.

You make a persuasive point that we should err on the side of protecting innocents. I myself am a strong believer in Blackstone's formulation. On the other hand, I don't think that it's accurate to say that what Trump has done here is motivated by that same desire. If it were, then he would've been more selective about who he pardoned. After all, this isn't an "all or nothing" where we can't do anything about the fact that the guilty (and there are guilty people here) will be set free.

No, in my view this is pure "stick it to them" trying to get back at his outgroup coupled with a healthy dose of not caring whether the presidential pardon power is being abused. And that is not acceptable. We all lose by such an action, and we lose quite a bit at that. So, at best, this is some benefit to those who are innocent coupled with serious damage to the social fabric of the United States. I'm not prepared to accept that trade so readily as you are.

Nor do you see me defending Biden's pardon of Fauci. I think it is equally ridiculous and damaging to society. Furthermore, who exactly would I be arguing against? When I saw that subthread everyone was in agreement that it was bad.

I have no idea who Milley is, so I can't offer an opinion there. But you're searching for an inconsistency which simply isn't there. Not commenting on something isn't some kind of tacit agreement with it.

The past two to three decades have been a demonstration of the GOP 'taking the higher road' or 'loosing gracefully'.

Are you joking? They absolutely have not been that. The GOP has been fighting every bit as dirty as their opponents. To paraphrase the old quote about Christianity, acting right hasn't been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried.

Fine, I'll concede the point that a handful of specific individuals have gained. But literally everyone else gained nothing, and in fact is losing by this. So this is still by far a net loss even if a handful of people gained significantly. Your rebuttal "but some people have gained" makes it come off even worse if anything, because now it's hurting the vast majority just to benefit a token few.

There is absolutely nothing dignified about this. It's not "dying on your feet", it's getting down in the mud and shit to flail around with a knife before dying from an infection because you cut yourself.

Very much so. I can only hope that people will learn from history and stop repeating it, but I don't have a lot of hope. People are blinded by hatred.

That works with bullies because it's a single person who you can hurt to get them to stop hurting you. In this case it's more like you're fighting a crowd of people, and to hurt them hurts yourself just as much. It's stupid to fight under those terms.

I do not, because he isn't protecting anything. Nobody has gained here, there are only losses.

  1. It's not, I demand the exact same thing of both sides. But I'm not willing for either side to wait until the other side starts, because then nothing will ever happen.

  2. Even if it were, that would still be better than having all out breaking of norms on both sides. Better for you as well as for them, in fact. Because again, this shit hurts everyone.

  3. Because a good person acts right regardless of what others do. You can't control their behavior, only your own.

If you truly believe that will happen, I can only say I don't think you've been paying enough attention to politics the past decade. Nobody has ever changed their behavior for the better when their opponents smash the "defect" button, it simply galvanizes them to do the same thing in return. The last 10-20 years of US politics has just been a cycle of parties playing dirty with each other every chance they can, and it has only spiraled into worse and worse offenses. There's zero reason to believe that this time it'll have a positive impact because it'll send a message about incentives.

So what? This line of argument fails twice:

  1. Trump isn't responsible for what they do, he's responsible for what he does. He deserves criticism for provoking others even if they would have acted the same anyway.

  2. Even if you discount his moral responsibility to act right, he still shouldn't do it. This pardon still has screwed everyone over by releasing criminals and further weakening the (paper thin at this point) norms of our country. Even if it's guaranteed that the left would do the same next time they get power, we are still better off if he doesn't pull the same stunt. Fewer outrageous pardons is an unalloyed good, no matter what the left chooses to do when they have the reins.

I couldn't begin to guess. I would certainly hope not, but given that people here are willing to make excuses for him it may be that most voters want him to.

I would have him not engage in the same detestable behavior Biden did. I don't fucking care if it means that the Democrats get to perpetuate bad things and get one up on Republicans, that is still preferable to the current state of affairs. If I get screwed over by only one side hitting defect, I'm better off than the status quo where I get screwed over by both sides.

  • -14

No, it really does make everyone worse off. Not only have we now pardoned even more criminals who should be serving punishments for the things they did, Trump has now given the other side incentive (and justification, no matter how flimsy) to defect further.

Trump is perpetuating the cycle of badness and I refuse to accept bad reasoning like "oh well they do it too, turnabout is fair play" trying to justify it. I'm sick and tired of being caught in the crossfire between these people.

No it's not. Both sides mashing the defect button just makes everyone worse off.

One of the things the author does which is kind of bad from is that he will switch between two meanings of "not what men want". Sometimes he seems to mean "men find this repulsive" (as in the case of many fashion models), and sometimes he seems to mean "this isn't most men's ideal woman". In the second case, someone can not look like the average man's ideal woman and still be attractive to many men (both because men are not insistent on getting their ideal, but also because men's individual preferences vary so that some men's ideal woman does look like that).

I think that the blog post is great, and has a lot of insight. It's overly long and belabors its points sometimes, but is much more right than wrong imo. I think that the things you're describing as "the very basics" are completely extraneous and I have no idea why on earth you're demanding these irrelevant digressions.