Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

Crash...you are living proof of an aborigine gangbang...

[iam416]

Isn't every K-State fan?

[Wild Hoss]

Well, I'm certain it can't be disproven, proving a negative being what it is and all. The question remains whether it can be proven, at least in terms of public perception and legally speaking.

Disagree. An open and honest approach by DJT?s camp, early on in the process, in regards to their numerous contacts with the Russians (assuming there are legitimate reasons and issues behind them, or at least non-election-related reasons) could have effectively disproven the allegations IMO. The continued exposing of undisclosed and mysterious meetings is all that is keeping the ball in the air.

I actually think it's closer to 40-42% -- the part of the country that is all-in on DJT. I think the remaining 8-12% is a pretty big deal. They're skeptical. They've been fed a line and are inclined to believe it. But, they're not there, yet. That's the basis -- credible or not -- for my take on it.

I don?t think there is much of a doe-eyed populace out there like you do, save those who spent Whitewater/WMD/Benhgazi/BirthGate etc in a coma. This isn?t our first rodeo.

I'm fairly certain that gads of media outlets make decisions every day based on their intended market. There is no "universal" way to cover an issue. How you approach the issue and the extent you cover it is up the media source. I think that's on display in almost every issue from, say, the Orlando nightclub shooting to Comey's testimony.

We have to remain consistent with our currency here. Initially we were discussing the cachet of trust, i.e. whether the nuance of needing to cover an issue that leads nowhere would be digested by half the populace, and whether that belief should influence coverage. Now we?re veering into market-based decisions. Certainly some overlap exists, but as I mentioned above, I don't see the risks as great as you do.

[Wild Hoss]

Crash...you are living proof of an aborigine gangbang...

Harsh, but fair.

[iam416]

could have effectively disproven the allegations IMO

I'm fine with "effectively disproven." You're probably right on those terms.

We have to remain consistent with our currency here. Initially we were discussing the cachet of trust, i.e. whether the nuance of needing to cover an issue that leads nowhere would be digested by half the populace, and whether that belief should influence coverage. Now we’re veering into market-based decisions. Certainly some overlap exists, but as I mentioned above, I don't see the risks as great as you do.

Fair enough. I didn't state my underlying premise. After reading your post I think the "half the populace" nonsense theory applies to the reaction of how and to what extent the story is covered.

To be clear, I'm making not making any statements as to how the press should do their job. I'm entirely unqualified to speak on that matter. I am, however, opining as to how the electorate will react to a certain hypothetical set of events.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Isn't every K-State fan?

More cogent words have never been spoken...

[Da Geezer]

hack:

...These are our courts. They should reflect us, and not some weird other evolved standard that fits not one single person's notion of reality. The courts system is sick. It allows obvious criminals who are likely traitors to run the country....

I disagree with Talent on one thing. I think the above is a more accurate statement of progressive thinking. Always there is a breathtaking self-aggrandizement from those blessed with the "truth". And in their world, democracy means the tyranny of the 51%. If an election goes against them, then the winners clearly must have cheated, or conspired with enemies of the US.

As an aside, I read an article last week that posited that the travel ban kerfuffle is the logical outcome of "disparate impact" jurisprudence.

[iam416]

As an aside, I read an article last week that posited that the travel ban kerfuffle is the logical outcome of "disparate impact" jurisprudence.

I haven't read the article, nor do I particularly trust your abstract, heh, but taking that statement on its face -- poppycock. The entire premise of disparate impact theory is a facially neutral law producing disparate results. For example, the dreaded Voter ID law which is facially neutral but, apparently, reaks havoc on the AA community.

There was nothing neutral about the travel ban. It was quite fucking explicit non-neutral -- it applies only to folks from certain countries. So, again, I say poppycock!

[THE_WIZARD_]

Talent...the voice of reason...

...I think the world is about to end...

[Wild Hoss]

I think you have to keep him. If you remove him you're creating a genuine mid-term election issue. If you have him there then (a) you already have someone in place doing the job when/if the Ds win the House; and (b) he can potentially save you.

But, whatever. I'm sure that whatever the worst political decision is -- that'll be the choice.

Heh. The approach seems to be "Innocent, but act guilty" or "Guilty, and act guilty".

[iam416]

The world isn't ending, yet, Wiz. You'll know the end is nigh when the Browns are in the Super Bowl or M wins an undisputed national title.

[iam416]

Heh. The approach seems to be "Innocent, but act guilty" or "Guilty, and act guilty".

It's really quite a remarkable game. Make an obviously stupid decision even worse through catastrophically stupid "PR". Some decisions are so stupid you catch yourself thinking they can't make things any worse...

The sheer level of incompetence approaches the Callahan Defensive Gambit of Ought Seven. Conceding 76 to Kansas in FOOTBALL ought to be grounds for banishment from this fucking solar system.

[Wild Hoss]

They are definitely Bausermanning their way through this one, no question.

[hack]

Internet tough guy caricature doesn't really change the record.

That's you. I politely asked you to explain yourself a little further rather than just toss a veiled insult at me, and included there a show of respect, undue or not, in hopes of avoiding this sort of thing:

I don't appreciate ``absolute worst of progressive thought". Your tone is unfortunate, but you're you and I like and respect you anyways, and your points are very much worth listening to when you actually unpack them with the patience and care required for the nuance they contain. So please just make your case instead of assertions like that. I don't see "Words have meaning" as a statement that belongs anywhere on the political spectrum.

There's a please in there and much praise for you and all that, and yet still this is where we've ended up. You seem to be too prickly to endure a challenge, and are without a doubt ungrateful and nonreciprocating of the respect and courtesy you've been afforded. Clearly undeserving of it. I think it doesn't take expertise in statutory law here -- if it were all open and shut as you say it were then all lawyers would agree and we'd have no need for courts and judges. Which is obviously not the case. So, you don't wanna discuss, but you do want to toss out insults.

So, yes. Internet tough guy doesn't change the record. Applaud yourself all you like for your clarity and force of thought, but that's bullshit. Sometimes you are unclear on purpose. Other times -- the occasional ones where you have had the courage to engage -- I've come to a better understanding of your poorly-worded thoughts. That would be the ideal here. You're not good at communicating what you think, becuase you assume too much as a starting point. That's OK -- people shouldn't have to be perfect and precise in real time to get their point across. I think its OK to be asked for clarification. Doesn't have to be taken as an insult or a challenge.

You should behave better here.

[THE_WIZARD_]

The world isn't ending, yet, Wiz. You'll know the end is nigh when the Browns are in the Super Bowl or M wins an undisputed national title.

OK your point is taken...the Browns I can maybe see doing it...