US Politics: Butter Not Guns

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You see @Hereward, that's how the progeny of actual Nazis can make fun of a Jew about how his country is flirting with going full fascist and I can laugh at it.  

Israel? Sorry to break it to you, but that has ship has probably sailed years ago I am afraid. And I thought we established, that my genepool is pleasently surprising nazi-free. Shit like that is not gonna get you a safe place in my attic, bro.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't see how you can create a "plan" to react to the uncertainty of behavior that is based on said psychological problems.  

Have you never done an active shooter drill?
 

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

That ship sailed awhile ago.  Dude.

Saying that ship has sailed only lets it drift further away, which is the core of whatever you can call Trump's "strategy" is. He wants to annoy you into submission.

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Have you never done an active shooter drill?

Nope.  I mentioned that in Jaxom's thread a week or two ago.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Saying that ship has sailed only lets it drift further away

No it doesn't, it's simply acknowledging we've been at this level of concern for quite a long time - which is precisely the next thing you said in the post I quoted.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Israel? Sorry to break it to you, but that has ship has probably sailed years ago I am afraid. And I thought we established, that my genepool is pleasently surprising nazi-free. Shit like that is not gonna get you a safe place in my attic, bro.

I thought we hid below the floorboards.....

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

No it doesn't, it's simply acknowledging we've been at this level of concern for quite a long time - which is precisely the next thing you said in the post I quoted.

What I was trying to say is that the drift started long ago. Just accepting it only lets the tide take things further out. That's not how you fight your way back to shore.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Just accepting it only lets the tide take things further out. That's not how you fight your way back to shore.

I never said anyone should just accept.  In fact I gave the logical efforts to try and counteract it.  Again, my objection is to a bunch of people posing as if their little exercise of getting into teams, rolling dice, and then - shocker!!! - the decisions they think Trump will make are the same decisions they've been saying Trump is likely to make in op-eds and on TV for the last four years.  That's not scientific at all.  And masquerading like that grants you any knowledge is frankly insulting to those who design and conduct actual experiments, and those that employ formal models based on rational choice/game theory to elicit actual insights into decision-making.

[sologdin]

Quote

bunch of people posing as if their little exercise of getting into teams, rolling dice, and then - shocker!!! - the decisions they think Trump will make are the same decisions they've been saying Trump is likely to make in op-eds and on TV for the last four years.  That's not scientific at all.  

as i recall it, also, the exercise was conducted under the chatham house rule, so we can't even really know whose conclusions are under discussion.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

I never said anyone should just accept.  In fact I gave the logical efforts to try and counteract it.  Again, my objection is to a bunch of people posing as if their little exercise of getting into teams, rolling dice, and then - shocker!!! - the decisions they think Trump will make are the same decisions they've been saying Trump is likely to make in op-eds and on TV for the last four years.  That's not scientific at all.  And masquerading like that grants you any knowledge is frankly insulting to those who design and conduct actual experiments, and those that employ formal models based on rational choice/game theory to elicit actual insights into decision-making.

You're a smart guy, you know I respect you, at times even adore you, but listen to me right now, NOT EVERYTHING IS SCIENTIFIC.

[DMC]

Interesting article on who's getting speaking slots for the convention.  Really uncomfortable with putting Bill up there, not sure it helps.  And AOC should definitely get a slot.  They should showcase her the same way they did Obama in 2004 by giving him the keynote (although, obviously that didn't help).  Other than that, looks pretty good.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

NOT EVERYTHING IS SCIENTIFIC.

Do you think their exercise gave anyone a better idea of how Trump's going to react to losing the election?  Not everything has to be scientific, but it's a pet peeve when something's presented as if it was - which is how that article reads.

[sologdin]

not everything is scientific is fine, but there's an abyss between reasonably scientific and the dungeon master's guide.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Really uncomfortable with putting Bill up there, not sure it helps.  

Agreed, but I don't you can tell him no if he wants to.

Oh man, that sounds even worse when I read it. 

Quote

Do you think their exercise gave anyone a better idea of how Trump's going to react to losing the election?  Not everything has to be scientific, but it's a pet peeve when something's presented as if it was - which is how that article reads.

Well my main pet peeve is when people fail to understand their surroundings, so I'm having a lovely time during this pandemic.......

12 minutes ago, sologdin said:

not everything is scientific is fine, but there's an abyss between reasonably scientific and the dungeon master's guide.

I've never played D&D.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've never played D&D.

Remember that quest to get the zombie in season 7?

That's D&D.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well my main pet peeve is when people fail to understand their surroundings

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

I once watched that while having sex on the top level of a bunk bed.

It's not as bad as having sex in a pool, but still, don't do it. The structural integrity of those things leaves a lot to be desired. 

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The structural integrity of those things leaves a lot to be desired.

But they leave room for so many activities!!!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

But they leave room for so many activities!!!

Eh, that just makes me think of a different story than this one involving one, but sometimes you roll 7's or 11's and other times you get snake eyes.

But this derail has gone on long enough, even for a Friday news dump.

[Zorral]

Discontented with destroying Hillary's dreams and ambitions he is continuing to wreak havoc.  His past is really -- well -- really bad.  We really want all the clintons and the others to go away. Forever.

[GrimTuesday]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

Interesting article on who's getting speaking slots for the convention.  Really uncomfortable with putting Bill up there, not sure it helps.  And AOC should definitely get a slot.  They should showcase her the same way they did Obama in 2004 by giving him the keynote (although, obviously that didn't help).  Other than that, looks pretty good.

Do you think their exercise gave anyone a better idea of how Trump's going to react to losing the election?  Not everything has to be scientific, but it's a pet peeve when something's presented as if it was - which is how that article reads.

I honestly don't think that they should be having either of the Clintons this year, at least not in major speaking roles. I know they are major figures in Democratic politics, but right now they are both pretty toxic for different reasons. The whole Epstein thing taints Bill, and Hilary got embarrassed in the election, and there is some factional issues within the Democratic Party (the left does not like her) and I don't think that anyone except those in the Clinton bubble is crying out to see her on the stage. Put them in a five minute video package with a bunch of other folks in the Jimmy Carter, Harry Ried vein, statesmen who are important but have kind of moved to the back, and call it a day.

Pretty dumb to not have AOC as a featured speaker, and Ed Randell's comments are just plain asinine. AOC is the biggest young name in Democratic politics, keeping her at arms length because she is not a moderate is foolish at best and purposefully trying to hold down part of your party for ideological reasons at worst. Hearing about all the shit that allegedly went down in the UK with Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party has me a bit paranoid these days.

There is no place for scum like Kasich at a Democratic Convention, unless it is for the purpose of a public execution.

[DMC]

Just now, GrimTuesday said:

I honestly don't think that they should be having either of the Clintons this year

I think giving Hillary a spot is important, if only to remind people not to be complacent.  But Bill?  There's plenty of precedent for a former president (say that ten times fast) not speaking at his party's convention - Dubya both of the last two cycles I'm pretty sure.

Obviously I agree that AOC should be a featured speaker.  As for Kasich, I like showcasing him and Bernie on the same night to demonstrate a broad coalition.  Sounds like a good idea to me.

[GrimTuesday]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think giving Hillary a spot is important, if only to remind people not to be complacent.  But Bill?  There's plenty of precedent for a former president (say that ten times fast) not speaking at his party's convention - Dubya both of the last two cycles I'm pretty sure.

Obviously I agree that AOC should be a featured speaker.  As for Kasich, I like showcasing him and Bernie on the same night to demonstrate a broad coalition.  Sounds like a good idea to me.

I don't care if there is precedent or not, Bill has no place in the public eye right now. given his past indiscretions and the Epstein shit (also his speech at John Lewis' funeral was a bit fucked too) he is a liability. I see where you are coming from with Hilary, I'm just in the camp that would be happy to never hear from her again.

I'm still not convinced by Kasich being there. I get the idea of unity, but the man stands in oppositions of so much of what the Democratic party claims to stand for that it feels wrong. It would honestly be like having W. there in terms of what policy positions they hold. Also you know my feelings on allowing any right-wing people to use us as a rehabilitation tool, which I think is what a lot of the Never Trump folks are doing.