I spent a few years in high school on the debate team. My event of choice was Mock Congress, and I was never particularly any good. You see, in mock congress, the style of the event is much less about debate and more about your ability to confidently give speeches (factual or otherwise), and politically maneuver to be elected to chairmanship so that you could run the meeting. These concepts sailed over my very naive and idealistic teenage mind. It was this, in part, that caused me to become disaffected and quit the team. However I’m older now, and a bit more cynical and perceptive. Luckily in my crotchety age I’ve been able to apply the things I learned in high-school, to my professional career in order to push my opinions and influence decisions. I hope to impart what little knowledge I have to you my glib friends, in this and possibly more articles. Why? Because weather you like them or not, decisions will be made around you that impact you. What color to paint the house. What language to implement the newest management request. Whether to leave a website and form your own libertarian website. Decisions will be made, and if you care about them, then having the best tools to ensure a favorable outcome will always be helpful.
The most effective tool for winning a debate
First thing you need to know is that a true debate is not about convincing the person you are arguing against to agree with you. It’s about convincing the spectators that you have the better argument. So the key to winning a debate is remembering your audience, and gearing any argument, logic or rhetorical tool towards your audience. That being said, that is not what I want to talk about today. Today I want to disucss a trick that you can use that will help you be a better debater (perhaps even a master debater?). That tool keeping a record of the flow of a debate.
When I go to meetings, especially those where I know, or expect there will be some debate about a decision, I make sure to have a notebook and a pen. I’ll keenly listen to any points people will make and jot down what I understand as their key arguments. Rather than trying to come up with rebuttals in the moment, I try to keep attention to the arguments being laid out. If something jumps out at me as a weakness in the argument or a counter-point, I’ll jot it down next where i wrote down their initial point. Then when i have the opportunity to speak, I use my notes to make sure i hit on the key points that respond to those presented by the opposition.
Keeping the flow of the debate is just what it might sound like. It means listening to your opponents arguments, understanding them and recording them. This allows you to quickly understand what your opponent is putting up as his defense and serves as a tool to help collect your rebuttals. It makes sure you don’t let your opponent get away with a stolen base, and finally it helps you keep the debate on track, and keep your opponent from pivoting without you realizing it. But perhaps most importantly it helps you recognize that the other side has a point, and that you understand where they are coming from, but then explain why they are wrong/misguided/misunderstanding what the situation is. This does a lot to endear you and your point to the audience. No one likes a pig headed know-it-all who ignores any argument or data point that is in contrast to their views. By actually listening to your opponent, you are better able to control the debate, and ensure that your views are given the best visibility.
And That’s it. It’s a really simple technique, but I’ve had an incredible amount of success when employing it. Mostly because it helps keep you organized and lets you be above the rush of the debate, and not carried away in the currents of it.
Of course, maybe I’m wrong. And this isn’t an important tool or even one anyone should use. Feel free to debate me about it in the comments. And let me know if you would like any more possible articles.
This looks really interesting. I can’t wait to have time to read it with my full attention
Defeat your opponent with this ONE WEIRD TRICK!
*Boom*, Headshot.
If living pre-firearms, a bowl of hemlock and public ostrasization works as well.
“I drank what?”
RED FLAG!!!!!1
#3 will amaze you!
I spent a few years in high school on the debate team – was it like in the movies with the ridiculously fast talking which would never work in a real debate?
Looked like this
https://youtu.be/fmO-ziHU_D8
Not clicking that. I don’t want to break my phone in rage.
Oy
But perhaps most importantly it helps you recognize that the other side has a point – sounds like what a nazi would say
Honestly, I am not sure anyone ever won a debate
I think they did, in the distant past when the reporters only had a pencil and paper and worked for a newspaper. But after that mythical Nixon/Kennedy TV debate, it became more and more about optics. So today, WHAT you say is nowhere near as important as HOW you say it, and how you look doing so. Producing good sound byte material is also critical.
Hmmm Some of the alt-text isn’t showing up for me on those images.
I’ve gotten to where I just put the alt-text in every field other than the caption. Usually that works.
if you right click and select “View Image Data” it shows up.
The field that works is “Title”
Ethos, pathos, logos.
Don’t forget D’Artagnan.
Mmmm… Bacon.
Taking notes and understanding my opponent’s arguments sounds like too much work. Can’t I just bring out an autistic child to scream at them?
Call them ‘racist’. Works every time.
I prefer the shit flinging method. Nobody wins the argument with feces on their face.
* May not apply to Germans.
I thought the point was that you can apply anything to Germans.
I don’t pick up on any autism with her.
Just sociapathy and narcissism – she’s a perfect politician in the making.
Nor do I.
This is a 16-year-old girl having a temper tantrum, fueled by the approval of the adults around her.
Yep
So true.
Everything I see from a quick search says she was diagnosed with autism. According to her wiki, she was diagnosed specifically with Asperger’s, OCD, and selective mutism.
Any chance that will come back?
*snort*
This is wikipedia, so grain of salt:
Thunberg says she first heard about climate change in 2011, when she was 8 years old, and could not understand why so little was being done about it. Three years later she became depressed and lethargic, stopped talking and eating, and was eventually diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism. While acknowledging that her diagnosis “has limited me before”, she does not view her autism as an illness and has instead called it her “superpower.”
Just seems like a very odd timeline to me. My brother is autistic/asperger’s so I have been around it and there is just no vibe with her.
She probably has anxiety from living with her parents.
Diagnosed at age 11?
#metoo and the timing is bullshit. I’ve never heard of “late-onset” autism.
Was listening to news from NZ yesterday. Apparently Climate Anxiety is now a thing. Kids are having trouble sleeping because of it.
I have an autistic cousin who was ultimately diagnosed around I want to say 7, and a cousin-in-law with I guess moderate-high functioning Asperger’s. In my cousin’s case I think my aunt just thought he was odd, honestly. That and she was a very absentee mother for his early years, so she might just not have noticed.
They stopped diagnosing Asperger’s in 2013 with the implementation of the DSM-5. Post-2013, diagnoses are simply autism spectrum disorder though some researchers still stratify Asperger’s, High-Functioning Autism, and PDD-NOS when conducting studies.
Maybe the Swedes were still using the DSM-4 over there, but the timeline doesn’t match up otherwise.
The DSM is only used in America, most other countries use the ICD created and curated by the WHO. Asperger’s is still recognized as a discrete disorder under the ICD 10, which has been in use since the 90’s. The ICD has collapsed autism spectrum disorders in version 11 similar to the DSM 5, but ICD 11 was only released this year.
It’s not as cut and dry as that. The DSM is created in collaboration with the WHO and multiple other countries. It is designed to inform the ICD. Other countries may use the ICD, but that doesn’t mean their diagnosing clinicians ignore the DSM either.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3683251/
As we’re specifically referring to Sweden, here’s a recent Swedish study with Swedish authors, noting
“…Asperger’s syndrome diagnosis was first listed in ICD-10 (WHO 1993) and that it has slowly become more well-known and used in the past 10–15 years. However, since the more recent diagnostic manual DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association 2013) lists only one label, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it is to be expected that other diagnoses, e.g. childhood autism or Asperger’s syndrome, will be less used in the future.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6096790/
It never is with psychology.
My point was that the DSM can’t be used to validate or invalidate her claimed timeline, at least not by itself.
Fair point.
Post-2013, diagnoses are simply autism spectrum disorder
This would explain why they keep increasing the fraction of children diagnosed with autism.
A friendly media edits out most of the times she starts stimming in public while in the middle of a speech.
First thing you need to know is that a true debate is not about convincing the person you are arguing against to agree with you. It’s about convincing the spectators that you have the better argument.
I know this and practice it, which is why I was astounded the last time I had a debate with someone. He seemed to think that we should not be conversing unless I was going to “come closer to his pov”. Fuck you. You are wrong and I am going to explain my disagreement to the benefit of others.
But he was (or is, I guess, haven’t spoken in awhile) a Bernie bot that didn’t seem to understand that employment is voluntary (unless it isn’t), which is why he advocated/s the slavery that is socialism. He also didn’t seem to understand what “shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” meant. I am as much a victim of public schools as anyone else, but I got over it.
The gaze of a man who knows his audience
He does and he has his own faults. He is not the stoic, logic-driven figure he portends to be 100% of the time. Which is awkward when I find myself disagreeing with my dad, who is a big Shapiro fan.
Ben Shapiro is awful.
In bed
Ben Shapiro is just driving the speed limit, like all conservatives. He makes good points on some topics and then contradicts those principles on other topics. His worst attribute, like most conservatives, is his view on police and foreign policy.
But, I once heard him answer a question from a listener who asked him if he preferred Austrian economics or Chicago economics. He said Austrian economics and then preceded to explain Austrian economics by making Chicago school of economic arguments. He clearly didn’t know the difference between the two. The cherry on top was when he ended by stating that Austrian economics informs his views on fed policy, without noting that it shouldn’t exist.
Just so I am clear, the Chicago school says “yay tariffs” and the Austrian school says “no tariffs”? (IOW Chicago school is Keynes and Austrian is more aligned with Hayek)
Just playing. (and I’m all hopped up on cold meds, so don’t mind me…)
I’m pretty sure that half the people who read your first two sentences are having an aneurysm right now.
Misidentifying different schools of economics really triggers libertarian autism
i”m literally bleeding out of my ears, slumped over my keyboard ritenow.
Fake news, there is a distinct lack of face-typing in that comment.
Libertarian autism.
Why repeat yourself?
Shapiro’s job is to agree with liberals in principle but not degree and, most importantly, make sure anyone to his right is considered an evil Nazi.
He once called Ron Paul an antisemite because he talked so much about ending the Fed and we all know that ending the federal reserve bank is just code for “JOOOOWS!”
The worst part is that I find myself defending Shapiro all the time, because his opponents are so utterly insane that they accuse him of anitsemitism.
You have to agree with Ben to own those libs.
In the world we live in today, informing white liberals that accusing an orthodox Jew of antisemitism doesn’t make a whole lot of sense is “owning the libs”.
Using logic is unnecessarily “owning the libs”. Even questioning progressives is a mean spirited attempt to “own the libs”.
Me: Wait how can you call this black guy racist against blacks? That doesn’t make a lick of sense?
White Liberal: He’s internalized white supremacy by not agreeing with my politics which are clearly better for all black people
Me: You say that, but if a black man opposes those policies doesn’t that mean, by definition, that they are not universally good for blacks?
I’m sure your words are having a big impact on those white liberals accusing Shapiro of antisemitism.
Exactly. Only Shapiro or other conservatives should be called out. The white progressives is precious. We should genuflect before them.
God forbid, we don’t want to be accused of “owning the libs”.
I’m sure your words are having a big impact
pearls before swine
/ some Jew
The alt text of that image was supposed to be:
Rapid fire of incoherent points is only a valid rhetorical strategy because most Americans are morons
He has proven without a shadow of a doubt that college kids are imbeciles. Mainly because he is easily able to stump them. To be fair that’s like shooting fish in a barrel
Ben Shapiro promos should be written like this:
“Watch Ben Shapiro own a college kid who thinks the Wall Street Journal is a white supremacist publication. Owned.”
“Watch this kid born in 1993 struggle to counter Ben Shapiro who informs him that history existed before 1993. Owned.”
“Watch this gender studies student scream like a banshee, because Ben Shapiro keeps repeating: men and women are different. Owned.”
It’s like low grade conservative porn
I laughed…
I’m familiar with the criticism of Shapiro. While I’m not a fan, I will note that these “owned” moments come from the fact that that is the quality of the debate his opponents bring to the table.
Nothing in there about owning the libs? lol ur a cuck.
How much longer do we have to pretend like this is funny?
*checks watch*
You don’t have to.
Check out the comedy police!
skskskskskksksksk
Hey smart guy, try to argue against this: Luxury ‘bespoke’ KitKat candy bar to be sold in the UK for up to $17 each
Sksksksk
What does that even mean?
i ooop
Your asking the wrong person. I just say that to fit in with the cool kids.
Hey grandpa, watch and learn what our friend Kevin has to put up with.
skskskksskksksksk
My home life right there. Fortunately I am now enrolled in Prof. Crusty’s Teenage Girl Language 101 class.
You’re a saint. I’d go insane around that.
just wait 20 years
I routinely hear “goes” and “like” in boardrooms, which I can tolerate, but uptalk is grounds for instant hanging
Don’t forget the NPR trademarked vocal fry.
I find it hilarious but then again I don’t have to live with it.
Fortunately my exposure is limited. Like most teenagers she wants nothing to do with her parents. She’s got tons of after school activities, then she spends a lot time hiding out in her bedroom. We cross paths for dinner and when I’m driving her places.
She’s got tons of after school activities,
You should attend and cheer her on. Make sure to wear embarrassing Dad clothes – Dockers that are a little too short, that kind of thing.
then she spends a lot time hiding out in her bedroom.
Drop in randomly and try to start conversations. I suggest awkward “talks” about her male friends.
I would have been an absolutely terrible father, but I would have had a lot of fun with it.
Make sure to wear embarrassing Dad clothes
Socks and sandals FTW
Mr. Mojeaux is not having a good time with it.
I run interference.
A. LOT.
In fact, I run so much interference, you should just call me Bandit.
Please, sock and Crocs or GTFO
Sandals or Crocs, as long as the socks are dark colored.
Awkward talks about her female friends would probably be worse
“Do you think Janey gets enough affection at home?”
I particularly enjoyed the girl who stared at the phone while filming herself in the mirror.
It’s the sound of laughter to a certain segment of teens girls.
They need to learn to laugh properly.
sksksks
VSCO girls. I was only just introduced to this when another Glib (sorry, can’t remember who!) mentioned “hydroflask” because my 16yo girl wants a hydroflask.
Watch at your own risk. It’s so cringeworthy it’s painful.
Definition 7 is the best.
Wait a minute.
Imgur and scribd are blocked at work, but UrbanDictionary is fine?
I don’t really understand the Scribd thing because people post legal proceedings on there all the time. Sometimes I think that’s it’s most common use.
It’s this generation’s version of the Valley Girl.
Oh, I remember now!
The Other Kevin.
I feel you, bruh.
There’s nothing wrong with a Hydro Flask. But I thought you guys avoided beer. 🙂
I keep thinking these videos are actor portrayals.
It was meeeeeee!
-Jim Carrey voice
Those are fire 100.
Why the fuck would I spend that much for chocolate that isn’t even German?
Well, it depends on how many pounds of chocolate we’re talking about here.
Hey debate club, come up with some reasons as to why this is a bad idea.
That’s frightening.
Just picture it with a pair of swords and you’ve got a Ninja Turtles villain.
They do seem to be getting “better” at an alarming rate.
Sales of Old Glory insurance policies about to go through the roof. For when the metal ones come for you…..
I remember for a College Republican vs College Democrats debate, I helped prep one of the Republican debater for economics (I think the financial crisis was one of the debate questions). Debate night came and I remember watching the guy for Democrat’s side give his point of view on the crisis and it was fucking horrible and cringe worthy. The audience was overly liberal but you could tell that even the President of the Dems was embarrassed for him. Anyway, after a couple of questions was thrown at him by the audience, he for real called us a bunch of homophobes and other ad hominems.
I never laughed so hard but also be disgusted at the same time.
Sounds like he’s got the party line down pat.
That debater grew up to be Andrew Yang. And now you know the rest of… the story.
ad hominems
presidential
Sounds like he would make an excellent Dem candidate for president in 2020…at least as good as any the party has now.
Did he call you a racist?
Why would you take a perfectly good linux box and then make it authenticate ssh users via active directory?
Our work has been derailed for 90 minutes so far because that broke while we were trying to configure other stuff.
Sounds like you don’t need a Linux guy, you need a priest. That is a heretical abomination.
I blame the CTO.
Shouldn’t you always blame the CTO?
Are you sure we don’t work at the same place? That sounds like just the sort of thing our network contractors would do.
kinnath’s rules for meetings:
1) He/She who writes it down first controls the room. In other words, come prepared. It is easy to discuss things in your view and much harder to recognize things that are missing. Any materials you provide will dominate the discussion.
2) He/She who speaks last wins. Few meetings come to a clear conclusion (at least the first meeting on a topic). Be the last person to talk before the meeting breaks up. Your opinions will be the freshest in the minds of the participants in the meeting.
As Leon says, spend most of the meeting listening.
Nope. Xe who leaves the meeting without any additional work wins.
This article is about winning arguments.
Your comment is related to winning in life. So not exactly on topic.
This works for juries too.
I found the jury I was on to be far more influenced by argumentation style than the engineers I have worked with.
I made sure I was foreman.
Here was the proceedings:
1. Order lunch
2. Decide verdict, 2 guilties, 1 not-guilty
3. Cause confusion because court had broke for lunch and ours hadn’t arrived yet.
4. Eat lunch.
5. Give verdicts.
6. Return for sentencing.
7. 1 year on misdemeanor A, $1000 of misdemeanor B.
8. Cause confusion because court had just broken for break and was in no position to call people back yet.
9. Twiddle thumbs.
10. Sentencing.
11. Go to robc’s bachelor party with plenty of time to spare.
Yes Minister explains meetings, minutes, and agendas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85fx0LrSMsE
Don’t forget taking off your glasses, and pointing at somebody to reinforce their point. It makes their point, your point.
Own it.
My rules for meetings:
1) Tell everyone I’ll be ten minutes late but it’s OK, start without me.
2) Arrive 20 minutes late and figure out who was the sap that took notes.
3) Ask the sap who took notes to read back what’s been discussed so far – 20 minutes distilled into 2 minutes.
4) Sit back and hear everyone bitch that what the notes say isn’t really what they meant.
5) Wait for silence. Then speak only in the form of questions.
6) Make sure I repeatedly say “Don’t you think YOU should be the one handling that so that mistakes aren’t made?”
7) Meeting ends. I have no action items, but everyone praises me for facilitating a productive meeting.
Note to HR, eliminate IF’s job title in the next round of layoffs. He never arrives on-time to meetings and keeps sowing discord.
Nothing sows discord quite like HR.
5) Wait for silence. Then speak only in the form of questions.
What is “Fuck you, Alex”?
Then speak only in the form of questions.
“What is wrong with you?”
“Why won’t you do what you’re told?”
“Are you stupid, or just working for our competition?”
Like that?
Britain’s Supreme Court rules Johnson’s suspension of parliament was unlawful even though it is explicitly allowed in British law:
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/national/uk-supreme-court-rules-suspension-of-parliament-was-illegal/article_b1c666ae-1e28-5808-9c8c-02b622b630b9.html
Brexit is finished, for now at least.
Ignore the court ruling and ignore parliament’s law forcing a Brexit extension (which is actually unconstitutional, because it violates the expressed policy of the Queen’s minister). That’s literally the only way for this thing to happen.
The mask hasn’t slipped. It’s completely off now in the UK and people see what Brussels is really all about. And it has absolutely nothing to do with “democracy” or “precedent”.
That’s what I’d do. The British SC was established under in 2009 during Blair’s tenure. Screw them and their ruling.
“Sorry, this is a Monarchy, and the Queen sent you blighters home. Leave.”
As with the nonsensical district court rulings in the US, Johnson is going to bend the knee rather than tell them to get stuffed.
No, he said quite the opposite just this morning, Sargon has it on one of his feeds
The epitaph for the Conservative Party should read: “Hoist by their own petard”.
– They never should have passed the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act
– They never should have held that idiotic referendum in the first place (remember, its original purpose was to bolster Cameron’s ego)
– They damn well should have been prepared for either result
– They should have negotiated like they cared about their country rather than pleasing the organization they were leaving anyway
Johnson is now in the completely untenable position of not having the votes, not having the power to call an election, and not having the power to prorogue parliament. They’ve set themselves up for failure.
Of course, Labour set this up as well. There was no reason to create a Supreme Court in the first place.
On the creation of the Supreme Court, it is a bit rich for a country whose executive branch is drawn entirely from legislators to suddenly be concerned that its judiciary branch was also drawn from legislators was a problem.
You forgot to mention leaving John Bercow as speaker.
Letting a remainer take charge of the bulk of the leave negotiations was a weapons grade stupid move, that’s for sure.
Put some heads on spikes and this would clear up rather quickly.
You seem to know what you’re talking about and the Conservative Party’s epithet implies you think this’ll basically finish them off. What do you see replacing them, the Brexit Party?
Man, don’t give me that much credit. The fact that it’s in the news made me dig into a bit. I do think the Conservative Party’s future looks bleak. They have no real organizing ethos or reason for being right now. They were just the continuation of Blair’s New Labour for a while. But that faction overplayed its hand and has now led the whole party to ruin. What happens next is anyone’s guess, but I highly doubt the Tories will hold onto power without, at least, picking one side and casting out the dissenters (remainers to Labour, Lib-Dem, or other parties; Brexiteers to well the Brexit Party, depending on who wins the faction split).
Isn’t the Magna Carta still in effect? I say let them storm the Tower for a redress of grievances.
If this ends up with Corbyn on top, Britain is done.
At the very least, they’ll be in for a long stretch of “bad luck.”
Good ol’ Huxly, From “Grapes of Wrath” right?
I believe it was Jack London in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodi
Brexit was never going to happen until the idiot voters elect a Parliament that is determined to see it done. That hasn’t happened yet.
Yes, you are speaking to the spectators not the opponent (you really think you can change his mind?) I like to use a Socratic approach and hope opponent ends up admitting to something that doesn’t jibe with his argument. Then you point it out in a non-nasty way and the audience nods in agreement.
“You keep framing your questions to steer away from the truth, what do you have to hide, Socrates?”
The one positive outcome from St. Greta’s visit is that someone posted this classic Carlin routine in response, which I had forgotten and hadn’t seen in a very long time.
Let the pandas die. They refuse to survive on their own no matter what people do.
Heh.
Here’s another one that was definitely prescient.
I’m saving these to post randomly on my FB timeline.
They refuse to survive on their own no matter what people do.
Yup.
OT – but the way this was originally reported is pretty amazing to me: https://www.dailywire.com/news/52155/video-teen-boys-sucker-punch-middle-aged-man-fair-amanda-prestigiacomo
Two kids walked up to a guy and demanded he give them a dollar. he said no, so they clocked him, knocked him out, then spit on him while he was dying on the ground.
Caption of original video: “A white supremacist tried to racially antagonize a group of Black kids at the Frederick Fair in MD. He started calling them the N-word, and one of the kids, fearing for his life, punched the racist man. The white supremacist later died and two innocent Black victims were charged,”
Or maybe it’s on-topic, since that’s Shapiro’s site. Whatever
Being called nigger makes you fear for your life?
Okay then
This is where “Words are violence” takes you.
It’s ludicrous anyway if you watch the video. There’s about five or six strapping teenagers surrounding a 59 year old man. The notion that they attacked out of fear is preposterous. I know that, when someone frightens me, I get up a running start and jump into a right cross to the jaw.
A man dying is OK, because he might have suffered from wrong thought.
Yup, all this talk of gulags is really far-fetched, I tell you
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. Frederick County isn’t what it used to be. While Sheriff Jenkins is old school (with all the good and bad that implies), the rest of the county has turned blue around him. Ten years ago, this case would be prosecuted with impunity. Now, they’ll probably softball it.
Yeah, I agree. I bet they get charged as minors, and with just reckless endangerment or something
That’s exactly what the article says.
Looks like murder to me. ??♂️
I’m still of the opinion that a jury should be able to convict on charges not presented (both higher and lower) and convict lawyers, prosecutors, cops, and the judge if need be in cases of abuse or negligence.
I don’t know exactly, but isn’t that within the grand juries abilities? They don’t have to stick to what the prosecution requests, they can go rogue and go up or down in charges or add on new ones.
I mean things like wrapping up the trial of the defendant and finding the arresting officers and the proesectutor guilty of malfeasance.
I think this is (still) true in Maryland so applicable here but not always the case. Some states have done away with grand juries entirely, and others have greatly curtailed their powers. Bad cases make for bad laws, and all that.
The Mississippi grand jury not only declined to indict Burr in the affair, but returned presentments which clearly labeled the government’s attempted charges as a vindictive prosecution.[116] The presentment concluded that “Aaron Burr has not been guilty of any crime or misdemeanor against the laws of the United States or of this Territory.”[117] Furthermore, the grand jury declared that the arrests of Burr and his co-travelers had been made “without warrant, and . . . without other lawful authority,”[118] and represented a “grievance destructive of personal liberty.”[119] In resounding condemnation, the grand jury pronounced its regret that “the enemies of our glorious Constitution” had rejoiced at the attempted persecution of Aaron Burr and expressed the opinion that such prosecutorial misconduct “must sap the vitals of our political existence, and crumble this glorious fabric in the dust.”[120]
The Grand Jury was accusing President Jefferson of misconduct.
Source: https://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm
they can go rogue
No, they can’t unless someone like you is sitting on said jury. Let’s all stop ducking jury duty as it is the one place where our one vote actually has a chance to matter in ensuring justice.
i’ve read another update that said manslaughter.
Manslaughter might be an achievable conviction.
The difference is evidence of intent. It’s easy to argue that one punch did not include intent to kill.
Manslaughter doesn’t require intent to kill just an act that led to death.
Softballing it is a risky strategy, in the long run. Not only do you risk more of the behavior in question, eventually you risk blowback.
Normally, that would be true. But Frederick County’s population is in too much flux due to proximity to fedgov. There are enough people coming and going that voters’ memories are short.
Bernie Goetz without a firearm.
https://wjla.com/news/local/police-man-dead-after-being-attacked-by-teens-at-great-frederick-fair
UPDATE:
Both teenage suspects live in an apartment building along Taney Avenue in Frederick. On Sunday afternoon, people inside of that unit could be heard discussing the criminal case.
“He was only trying to protect his brother,” a man stated. “This is ridiculous.”
ABC7’s knocks at the front door went unanswered.
someone in their young lives they were given really bad guidance about assaulting people. instead of “don’t hurt people, don’t take their stuff”, they were told something like “it’s okay to punch some types of people.”
Hot mama is in!
HT to Don from TX.
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii became the 12th Democratic presidential candidate to qualify for the October debate after a poll released on Tuesday showed her with 2 percent support in New Hampshire.
In order to earn a spot on the stage in Ohio next month, candidates must procure donations from 130,000 people and earn at least 2 percent support in four qualifying polls. Ms. Gabbard passed the donor threshold in early August but is only now getting her fourth qualifying poll, a week before the Oct. 1 deadline set by the Democratic National Committee.
Nice. I mean it won’t be a debate, but I’m excited to see some Tulsi on Kamala action.
Tulsi on Kamala action.
EWWWWWWW.
Wait…well….
Nope. EWWWWWWWWW
Now that she’s roasted the pig, she needs to go after old man McNamara
/looks up where in Ohio the debate is getting held.
/sees it’s at Otterbein
/sighs in relief
*googles*
Hosted by CNN and the NYT.
I hope they’re all prepared for the hardball grilling that’s coming their way. ?
Now Mr Vice President (editorial: Cause you know it’s a title you have for life), how did you feel when it was found that Trump was illeagaly investigating you and your campaign for ties with a foreign state?
I’m just glad I don’t need to worry about it fucking up traffic around me. Westerville (where Otterbein is) has long been a home to progressives.
Sometime in the past 20 years, they’ve allowed alcohol in the city again. They do have at least one brewery (you have to scroll down to see the info on the brewery).
HT to Don from TX
IOW: here’s something he posted on a thread that had already been dead for an hour
I was excited and wanted to share the news. And luckily I was lingering in the morning links.
of course: I’m just being clear that my line was mostly self-deprecation
(but I was still enjoying the sand in that box)
Joe Biden’s debating techniques – just make shit up and hope nobody remembers things you said a year earlier in front of a camera.
Why should he expect anyone to remember what he said a year ago – he certainly doesn’t.
I’m pretty sure he just implied that Obama was involved in firing a prosecutor who was investigating Biden’s son.
That is not an implication, that is an admission, but cool yer heels there pal we have bigger fish to fry. Someone heard someone say their friend overheard Trump talking on the phone to someone in The Ukraine. We have him cold this time.
I love the vibe of the whole thing: “Have the Articles of Impeachment ready. Something is bound to come along that we can charge him with!”
…for almost three years now.
Master orator, he is.
I remain unconvinced that she is not running.
“We saw what happened in Georgia, where Stacey Abrams should be governor of that state. [APPLAUSE] Registered voters were kept off the rolls. Their registrations just piled up in some back office, with no intention to ever enroll them so that they could actually vote.”
Don’t worry, short of death or a completely disabling illness she’ll run.
Is there some sort of incantation we can do to banish her from this plane of existence and return the demon to its home plane?
I think Hillary kicking around is actually very good.
Remember Napoleon’s maxim, “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
Hillary’s greed, corruption, stupidity and hubris has done 1,000,000 rothbard’s worth of damage to the U.S. government. Let’s see if she can’t get it up to 1.1 million.
I am all for exposing politicians as the self-serving, megalomaniacal clowns that they are. I just think that it’d be betterif we could find a way to do it without extra-planar witchcraft.
*adjusts tin foil bowler*
After I left flying, I ran into a few friends (helo pilots) who were on their second tour, flying for HMX-1 (Marine One), the President’s helicopter squadron.
Over beers that included a discussion of politics, I said (sotto voce): “So, who’s finally gonna..uhhh…ya know, take one for the team?”
A few guys laughed, but the guys who actually flew the President et al. gave me the long, cold stare.
“Dude. Not funny.” I don’t even want to say who was the President at the time for fear of lighting the Preet signal, but I was *OBVIOUSLY* joking.
I do have a couple of great stories from some other buddies who worked secret service, however, and Hilary is even worse than people think she is. That is NOT a joke.
Ditto on the latter.
My understanding is that Hilldawg is pretty nasty to the people that are tasked with her safety, which seems wrong. If you are tasked with sacrificing yourself to protect me you are my best friend and I am treating you as such.
At the very least I am going to act with common courtesey. I may not be your best friend, but I’m not going to antagonize and belittle you.
Question for the inquiring mind. Is that even true? Or is it one of those fantasies that the left talk about to make a much more complicated subject sound straightforward? (Not an exclusive tactic, yada yada yada.)
Most of the time, the claims and numbers they throw out are meaningless. There are always thousands of paperwork “irregularities” in elections. Computers haven’t improved the situation at all (for many reasons, not the least of which being that nobody really understands the actual benefits they have for conducting elections, versus just replacing paperwork with computers). There’s also the fact that, at least for federal elections, you cannot actually be turned away at the polling place. The election officials are required to give a provisional ballot and instructions on how to make sure your vote is counted (assuming it is, in fact, legitimate).
I will say that, at least as things currently stand, some of those benefits I alluded to actually can’t be manifested because of the secret ballot. While I certainly understand the reasons for it and thing on net it is a good thing, not having any traceability from voter to vote pretty much guarantees room for malfeasance of one kind or another.
This is a problem, like most problems really*, caused by insufficient application of cryptoanalysis.
*not really.
I thought it was C4 and det cord that, with proper application, can solve any problem.
The Australian ballot is unAmerican.
Is that even true?
It’s a tangent distantly related to some facts.
Kemp has used aggressive tactics to maintain the voter roles to the highest standard (eg: fewer dead folk). The 53k are just the latest of over 1M registrations purged. Whether even more applications were never processed strikes me as a standard unfalsifiable anecdote, but I would be glad to hear evidence. Regardless, there’s facts enouigh and energy thereabouts.
If you’re a practical person with a lifetime of database experience (and misery) like me, it boils down to whether you truly believe that everyone should get to vote or if Skynet is the right way to prevent voting fraud. I prefer everyone voting, but I don’t have an ax to grind and I wouldn’t mind at all others thinking another way.
My problem with tilting too far to the “everyone gets to vote” mentality is that the right to vote is twofold. It is the right to cast a ballot, yes, but it is also the right to have that ballot counted fairly (otherwise, what is the point?). You have to stamp out fraud and willful disenfranchisement (both to an extent) and discourage as much as reasonably possible people from interfering with other voters and interfering with the process. In the other direction lies folly too, but one should be careful about reduction to absurdity because all arguments can be reduced to absurdity.
absurdity
I don’t know how anyone decides who is tilting at more windmills: that’s why I don’t take sides on this one.
I do have this guess: the number of people who would like to vote but have had a snag on the way to being validated exceeds by at least an order of magnitude the number of people who have actually gone and voted a second time under an assumed identity. You just can’t round up enough of the latter category: how would you advertise, marshal the logistics, distribute the credentials . . . it must be much easier than I think it is for there to be so much concern about the registration vector. Knowing people and the trouble, I really doubt this one.
The believable vector is high-level fraud: ballot stuffing, equipment sabotage, ballot destruction. None of that has anything to do with better voting access.
This after my selfish motives: I don’t want more people voting . . . I just think it’s right for everyone to have a say over who gets to make the mistakes up at the government in my name. I have come to despise popular suffrage: look at the idiots running and being elected . . . there is little evidence of any virtue in democracy save the one I just listed . . . the rest is mayhem. So at least know that my notions about registration aren’t motivated by any possibly projected advantage to any side.
And anyway I vote LP . . . rather throw it away that soil myself with the persons proffered.
Can anybody find any of these disenfranchised voters? They always seem to be of the utmost importance but nobody can ever seem to track one of them down. Surely, if almost 55,000 people were denied their right to vote, you could find at least a couple of them?
How dare you ask for proof!
Did the Democrat candidate lose? Proof of disenfranchised voters.
And the Republican losing a close election is evidence of fraud. This definitely goes both ways. But, the one thing the two parties can agree on is that the problem never, ever actually gets close to solution.
When boxes of ballots stop appearing randomly in places they should never have been, I might get less suspicious.
^
There are a lot of shenanigans to go around. Stalin was right about the vote-counters. I do not brook accusations of racism from Democrats vis-a-vis voting processes because they always have their hands crossed behind their backs. But the two-party system exists by mutual reinforcement of the two parties; if one can gain the upper hand by manipulating the process, they generally will (until hubris or other factors stop them).
fingers crossed*
That has been my bet all along. Grandma Caligula will step in at the last minute as The Adult In The Room™.
She wants to rack up more losses than Julia Louis-Dreyfus in Veep.
@Elvis_Trump ain’t Gilmore
I’ve been following him a week and, while amusing, it’s mostly low-class banter for, it would seem, @AnnCoulter. Maybe the guy is trying to snag a writing gig? Anyway: beneath Gilmore’s dignity.
My short version of how to get what I want from meetings/planning/negotiation: make them think it’s their idea.
There’s a meme pic floating around the internet with Buzz telling Woody something like “They don’t want to hear your idea. They want to hear their idea – coming out of your mouth.” This is useful in 2 different directions.
One is that, well, in a lot of cases I really DON’T want to hear so-and-so’s idea, because I’ve already determined the outcome I’d prefer. So I want to hear my idea coming out of somebody’s mouth so they think it’s theirs. Carefully describing opportunities and connections is better than suggesting to achieve this. A little encouragement and they’ll make the right choice.
The other is that in many real-life cases, people don’t think much of anything. So if I come in already knowing what I want, and phrase it carefully, they’ll come to my desired conclusion and be pat themselves on the back for how smart they are. A big part of this is speaking declaratively – stating my opinions and preferences as fact, and they let this fill the big holes in their own thoughts. Then when I take it and run with it, they’re pleased because it was what they thought all along…
“Could”??
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/24/how-greta-thunbergs-rise-could-backfire-on-environmentalists.html
TL;DR – CNBC finally figures out that the environuts are Commies in Hippy’s clothing.
I, for one, found her UN performance cringey and distasteful. Parents please stop indoctrinating your children.
“Kids are great, Apu! You can teach them to hate what you hate…“
Good grief, that has been obvious for 100 years. What I haven’t seen before is this many people joining the cult. That is not hyperbole. They are a cult. Watch any of the interviews with the run-of-the-mill street protesters. They mindlessly parrot out talking points that make no sense whatsoever as if it is the gospel truth and it is apparent that any challenge to the narrative burned into their brain is likely to result in rage/violence.
A death cult, in fact. First order, they truly want to see violence & death against anyone who disagrees. They want to see their enemies shamed and “driven before them.” Second order, they’re too stupid to appreciate that their enemies are (generally) the people who make and manufacture things… including the things that feed, cloth, and keep the death cult members alive and well-heeled.
They should be called the “Cult of Midwits.” They’re not actually complete imbeciles; they can string together sentences (mostly) coherently, but they lack anything beyond an amateur’s understanding of how complex systems interact, so they have absolutely zero humility. They are arrogant beyond anything that could be justified by their middling abilities. IOW, they’re just like the Jacobins vis a vis the French Revolution.
Death cults of one variety or another have been a fairly constant in recorded history. Hell, some early Christians thought that when Jesus said he’d be back, they he just popped out to get a pack of smokes and a sixer of Bethlehem’s Best Light. The turn of the first millennia featured doomsayers that made the Y2K chuckleheads look amateur in compairison.
I’m always curious about their funding. Are they receiving government dollars to protest?
If it’s true that she’s ultimately being funded by Soros, it stands to reason that this whole thing is about WAY more than “the environment”.
It has never been about the environment. It is about power for its own sake.
Power is power
I thought money was power…
And time is money. This gets confusing after a while.
@l0b0t Apologies in advance for putting you on the spot (not really or I wouldn’t do it): How’d you like Monsters & Mormons?
Well, that was a lovely place to put that question. Edit fairy delete?
The mormons are the monsters ///usgovernment
But seriously that is an interesting historical thing that I had never heard of.
The Utah War? Buchanan isn’t a particularly favored president among those who know much history in Utah.
Not historical. Reclaiming our heritage. 😉
In the 1800s, a bunch of pulp writers regularly used Mormons as the villain. This is a cheeky nod to that.
Edit fairy: Never mind. Discussion begun.
Makes me tempted to pay homage to that. But I don’t think anyone would get it.
I give you credit for generosity. Honestly, I’m starting to think its about destruction for its own sake. At least if it were power-lust, there’d be some understandable benefit in it for them. I’m increasingly convinced that they don’t really have any selfish motives. They don’t much care to live on their part. They want to destroy the rest of the world because they’re dysfunctional.
I think that’s a pretty big cohort. There are a lot of broken people involved in mass movements; “The True Believer” has never been more relevant.
Think of the person who wrote an editorial that he knew getting bottom trans surgery wouldn’t make him happy, but he had to do it anyway.
As was pointed out on a live stream I watched last night, the “Hero Child” narrative is straight out of both the Commie and Fascist propaganda playbook. Not that this tactic is exclusive to any particular ideology. Still, I wonder if at some level they are aware that they are aping Goebbels.
“And a slothful child shall lead them!“
Back when Sarah Silverman was funny. As an aside, Bob Odinkirk was a fantastic straight man, ala Costello, in that show.
Yep and we have seen it before a hundred times. You are right, not exclusive to any movement. It is very popular with every cult leader. They have been using this appeal to emotion since the beginning of time.
http://focusongod.com/Isaiah-11_1-10.htm
I haven’t looked at religious stuff for forever but I sorta remembered this and a quick search found it.
Man in the High Castle did a great bit on this in S3 (IMO).
Climate change experts.
Something, something, Cindy Sheehan effect
I think the tell is whether the “enivro” supports hydro & nuclear power. If no, commie. If yes (especially on nuclear), could just be a real enviro.
There are valid environmentalist reasons to oppose all of the “clean” energy solutions (hydro kills fish, wind and solar kill birds, nuclear has waste, and all of them impede on ecosystems by virtue of land use and resource extraction). But, none of this applies to CAGW. If carbon is the cause, then energy sources with low fixed carbon costs are the answer.
(N.B.: Carbon is not the cause, or at least not the primary cause. Models with high carbon sensitivity have not made accurate predictions. However, the point still generally stands when applied to other greenhouse gases, albeit to a lesser extent.)
Agreed. Wind & solar also use fairly large amounts of rare earth metals, most of which are supplied by China. Solar panels have a limited use life, and they are toxic enough to be hazardous waste after they die.
However, the idea of trade-offs is unacceptable to Utopian visionaries.
Party of Science people sure do love the Infinite Capacity and Cleanliness of Wind and Solar.
And they work almost 40% of the time!
The bottom line is that there is no free lunch. This adpect of reality seems to stick in the lefist collective craw for some reason.
Or aspect. Stupid fat fingers.
The Unlikely Return Of White Socks
We’re back in business! And remember to tell your wives, “if it is good enough for Dino, it’s good enough for me.”
I only wear white socks, I just put some on right now, Dickies makes a good sock BTW
I think I have a few pair of non white socks.
I keep a few pair of white socks on the shelf for emergencies, but since my shoes are black and every pair of pants I own are black, I don’t wear them.
Membership in Schutzstaffel confirmed.
No. Just, no.
C’mon. White socks, tight roll the Z Cavricci’s, and put on the penny loafers.
This guy gets it.
Black socks and black sambas for life.
*puts on shades, struts out the door*
Whit socks were out?
Considering I’m usually wearing Doc’s, no one will be seeing my socks anyway.
The last time white socks were in people made fun of old guys wearing black socks, particularly if they wore shorts. Unfortunately for the yutes the whole point of getting old is getting to that point where you don’t have any fucks left to give about what other people think of. your attire.
*wanders off to organize drawer full of dozens of identical black socks*
I’m only 42 but I’ve already achieved that blissful state.
^This guy gets it.
I wear black socks with Croc flip-flops and IDGAF.
Few things that I care less about than fashion.
Yeah, no. I wear black socks because then I won’t have any whites to keep separate.
I have a white hamper just for white laundry, makes segregation simple.
..and yet I don’t have to segregate at all. Simpler solution.
You know who else had a permanent solution?
Sharpie Markers ?
Adjacent to your water fountains ?
Separate but equal socks?
Burn all the books!
https://pjmedia.com/trending/n-j-schools-pushing-far-left-indoctrination-what-the-hell-is-betsy-devos-doing/
The commies use ‘not real communism’ as their excuse. The fascists use ‘anti-fascist’.
Same ol’ shit over and over again, same result. The left is always and everywhere the same.
Betsy is correct to stay out of it. Education is not a federal issue.
While we’re discussing the Greta Thorn, here’s Sargon’s take on her. (Start at 4:24 or so if you’ve already heard her speech).
RE: Greta.
Since everyone wants to use her age as a shield; she’s as annoying as most 15 year old girls are. Think of the average 15 year old girl? Do you want to listen to them talk about *anything* for more than 2 minutes?
The adults pulling her strings are human garbage.
Do you want to listen to them talk about *anything* for more than 2 minutes?
No, and speaking of, my sister’s friends are annoying as shit.
She reminds me of a young female version of Che, complete with rage issues.
That said, if you go onto the stage, you are not immune from criticism or argument. I don’t care who or what you are.
What if I don’t want to hear her speech? I’m not going to be lectured by misguided elders, let alone stupid children.
Ditto. If I wanted that much cringe I’d just watch reruns of The Office.
Then don’t. I wanted to hear it to see if there’s was anything differing from the standard apocalyptic, unsupported claims. There wasn’t.
I’m glad you took one for the team, because I couldn’t stomach more than a few seconds of that.
I mean, bro was killing it again. He had like five to ten minutes against the government of Iran.
https://youtu.be/eICiLRykTFg?t=894
We have among us a Yang and Tulsi apologist. I hereby claim the title of Trump apologist.
Oh, now you done did it. I can think of a few people who just smelled blood in the water.
You’ll have to fight several people to claim that title.
Oh, they’ve updated the initiation rituals?
Yeah, but I don’t actually like Yang or think there are any redeeming qualities to him (other than the fact that he likes to tell Asian jokes). I took like me some Tulsi, though
I don’t get what’s so awesome about this.
Sure, Iran is bad and a lot of people in the US have suddenly become pro-Iran for bizarre reasons that have a lot to do with a messiah complex. But, the notion that instigating conflict with Iran will serve any purpose is bizarre. And if the Trump administration is so dead set on deterring Iran then pulling out of Syria or Iraq is never going to happen.
So, Trump is all in on perpetual war in the Middle East, because….Obama? I really don’t get this diatribe
His closer, if he wants to win re-election, should be “I’m the first president since Ford to not escalate or expand overseas conflicts that I inherited from my predecessor. Do you think old man McNamara here is going to be able to say the same after his first term in office?”
I have no idea what you are talking about. And I didn’t get any of that from the address. Dude’s touting American sovereignty and poking everyone in the eye. Rhetorically speaking, the speech is perfect imho. Cross-referencing rhetoric with action is where we can have a discussion.
I just always have a problem gauging what this guy is saying. He always rambles around even in his prepared speeches. His rhetorical style is peak postmodernism: the takeaway is always subjective, because no one can agree on what he is actually trying to say
That makes sense as a perspective. I don’t agree, but I get it.
That’s because he doesn’t say “let me be clear” enough. Then we could all tell when he’s actually lying.
I wish the USG would shift to a split conversation on Iran – engage the Iranian people separately from the Iranian government. I get the impression from all the Iranians I know (who of course came here a generation ago, but still have families there and go back), that local “normal” Iranians see their government as the “other”, and would love to have normal relations with the west.
The exactly 1 Iranian (an immigrant) I know feels the exact same way, so I’m pretty sure this is 100% correct.
I know one Lebanese immigrant. That’s a kind of Iranian, right?
The Iranians I know (guys) are the most “American” foreigners I’ve ever met – hands down.
There are a lot of
IranianPersian electrical engineers around. Every single one I’ve known hates the mullahsI knew a couple in college, and yeah, they rejected the term “Iranian” for Persian. “Fuck those assholes, I’m not using their word” as one told me.
Iran is one weird country. Simultaneously modern and technologically advanced, and backwards as fuck.
I’m still laughing from his in-and-out visit to the UN Climate Change Committee meeting.
So I have a sister that is about to graduate high-school and apparently she has a boyfriend. This is a new development. My question is, between my 1911 and my AR, what is the most intimidating firearm to have disassembled and to be engaged in cleaning when I meet him?
Too cliche.
I suggest being quite friendly when you meet him, and when your sister leaves the room, put your arm around him, put a knife to his ribs, and tell him “They won’t even find your body.” Put the knife away and give him a hearty slap on the back.
An M249.
Seriously though, if you have to have a gun out to intimidate him…what does that say about you?
Work on your Kill face instead.
Clean the rifle while wearing the 1911 in a gaudily conspicuous shoulder rig?
Colt Peacemaker.
AR for sheezy. Especially since they’ve been so demonized in the media.
This^
It’s not so much to scare him. If he freaks out because of the icky gun, he’s a no-go, but if he thinks it’s great and wants to go with you to the range, you might have a keeper.
I thought he was dating Scum’s sister, not Scum.
I was thinking I’d scare him but what good to her could he be if he is so easily intimidated? So new test, we talk about guns and self-preservation.
Cleaning under your fingernails with a switchblade can convey the appropriate message without crossing any lines regarding brandishing and assault.
Bonus points if your concealed carry piece is briefly exposed when you pull out the switchblade.
I could make that work as well, using my carry knife.
Or, go with something a little beefier.
The “snick” of the Brend 1 will catch anyone’s attention.
. . . . of the Brend 1 as it opens . . .
Fucked up the comment trying to get the link to work.
Soak your feet in a bucket of onion water for 11-24 hours, then wear thick, wool socks on your feet while you engage in a lot of walking/exercise for the next week. While showering during that week avoid washing the feet.
Then, when meeting this piece of garbage, who most definitely doesn’t have a thick wiener your sister doesn’t both fear and enjoy, you sit him down and calmly take off your shoes and socks, where he will be exposed to your horrendous foot odor.
Then he will fear your existence.
Relevant
For that purpose, I’m a fan of short barrel shotguns like the Shockwave.
Get a kukri and a sharpening stone. Ask him if he knows anything about Gurkhas.
When I was around 18, I showed up at a girl’s house to take her out, and her father answered the door and took me into the living room (girl wasn’t ready just yet). He was cleaning his 1911. We had a pleasant conversation, which eventually turned to the gun. We ended up debating the merits of .45 vs. 9mm, 1911 vs. polymer. When the girl finally came down, her father looked at me and said “I didn’t intimidate you at all, did I?” I looked down at him (he was about 5’9″, 175 pounds. I was 6’2″, 220). I simply said “No sir, but I really enjoyed our conversation.”
Only went on a couple of dates with that girl, but a few years later I ran into her parents at a social function. Her father pointed out that her daughter was there and that I should go talk to her. He casually mentioned that she was single.
This was done in front of my girlfriend at the time, who I had introduced to him. Girlfriend was not very happy with that…
LOL
Now this might get entertaining: supposedly Pelosi was going to announce a formal impeachment inquiry this afternoon, which led to this from Trump:
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I am currently at the United Nations representing our Country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine….
Which led to a VERY uncomfortable-looking Pelosi holding a press conference where she tried mighty hard to avoid questions about impeachment.
Best timeline…
He kind of fucked her there. If this was all a trap then he played it well.
File this one under “Rope, enough, given to enemies”.
And now, of course, they’re reacting by screeching, “BUT MUH WHISTLEBLOWER!!!!”
Jon Favreau
✔
@jonfavs
This is a trap. I would bet that Trump is focusing on the transcript because he knows it isn’t great, but not nearly as incriminating as the entire whistleblower complaint.
We need the full whistleblower complaint ASAP and Democrats should accept nothing less
Michael McFaul
✔
@McFaul
This is a big mistake — terrible precedent, as no foreign leaders in future will speak candidly with the president on any future calls. Dont release Trump-Zelensky or Trump-Putin transcripts of calls. Instead, release whistleblower’s complaint to Congress, as required by law. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176559966024556544 …
244
2:29 PM – Sep 24, 2019 · Orland Park, IL
Womp wooooooooooomp
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Chris Hayes
Verified account
@chrislhayes
Follow Follow @chrislhayes
More
Given what we know about how Trump pressures and manipulates civil servants to tow his line, I’m not *quite* sure we can trust the transcript itself as being accurate/comprehensive.
12:03 PM – 24 Sep 2019
So wait….we shouldn’t believe the transcript of what was actually said…..we should just listen to other people tell us what they think he said? How are they more believable than the literal transcript of the conversation?
It takes the conversation out of context of the whistleblowers complaint.
It ruins the Twitter narrative.
Clearly, you aren’t a member of the Washington elite, or else you’d already know that.
Question for suuuuuuuper genius Chris Hayes – couldn’t the Ukrainians rather easily contradict a falsified transcript?
This is a big mistake — terrible precedent, as no foreign leaders in future will speak candidly with the president on any future calls. Dont release Trump-Zelensky or Trump-Putin transcripts of calls. Instead, release whistleblower’s complaint to Congress, as required by law
I Don’t want fucking evidence, i want the heresay!
“Your Honor, I have here a recording of the defendant admittin-”
“Don’t waste my time with that, counselor! Now, this guy over here has already told us what was said. Your recording is inadmissible.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Damn, I have to say this about President Pepe. He knows how to troll.
Trump amuses me.
This appears to be the most I can hope for in a politician any more.
Most transparent administration EVAH!
Bloomberg discovers the Contra Cruise
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-24/a-week-at-sea-with-the-libertarians-of-the-anti-krugman-cruise
FTA:
“For one brief week, Contra Cruisegoers would get that civil society at sea. Here’s a community of people who believe that aggression is wrong, that taxes are tantamount to theft, and that most big societal institutions are rigged. They are largely, though not entirely, white, and they are generally open to home-schooling their children. Woods and Murphy are to be their pied pipers, leading them through a week of economic seminars, libertarian party games, and Oxford-style debate on topics such as the merits of pacifism, with bonding and dad jokes to spare.
In his Sky Lounge welcome talk, Woods obliquely compares Murphy’s bulky frame to a whale’s. When Murphy later takes the mic, he begins in whale song. The crowd, having spent some time at the open bar, absolutely loses it.”
BUT, don’t start smiling, because they’re…muh…RACIST!…
“Woods and Murphy got to know each other when they were both lecturers at the Mises Institute for Austrian Economics, a libertarian think tank in Auburn, Ala. It champions the work of Ludwig von Mises and the school of Austrian economics: the belief that market forces can and should determine the price of everything, even money itself. The institute is also the fruit of a rather famous libertarian schism: Rothbard co-founded it in 1982, after leaving the Cato Institute, which he’d also co-founded, and accusing the Koch brothers, Charles and David, of watering down libertarianism. (Rothbard, who died in 1995, argued for “right-wing populism” in support of neo-Nazi David Duke, and his work has been embraced by some members of the alt-right.)”
Oxford-style debate on topics such as the merits of pacifism,
But don’t let that dirty pacifist Murphy fool you. He’s a follower of that dirty Rothbard, who once said nice things about a racist.
That’s a bit of a mischaracterization of Rothbard’s arguments, the Koch bros did water down libertarianism, and Bloomberg is a garbage news platform that is owned by an authoritarian sack of shit.
No. It’s completely fair to boil down a man’s thirty odd years of work, including multiple books and literally thousands of articles, to a single paragraph in a single article.
In all seriousness, anyone who has ever read that article knows that it is pretty misconstrued when it is often dubbed as “in support of David Duke”.
It’s more accurate to dub the NYT as having a history of excusing away Stalin’s crimes then it does to sum up Rothbard’s career as lending support to David Duke.
What is the story there? Unfamiliar.
I’m not faimliar with the whole story, but i think it was part of an Alliance that Rothbard was always trying to create. They always like to skip over the fact that he was also allied with the New-Left for a time, making Murphy and Woods as connected to them as they are to Duke.
The man defended the Soviets against American expansionism, as he saw it, and bemoaned the passing of Che by saying “we shared the same enemy (“American imperialism)”.
But, I have never heard anyone ever once mention this as a criticism. We are suppose to pretend as if Che, a man responsible for multiple deaths, is somehow less toxic than a David Duke, a redneck who says stupid shit.
There never was an alliance between Rothbard or Duke. He was allied with Buchanan in the early 90’s (who is basically viewed as David Duke today for absolutely bizarre reasons), because Buchanan was the only candidate in either party that was talking about non-interventionism.
His real crime during that time was opposing the first Iraq War with Buchanan and Raimondo and other right-wing paleocons in the 90’s, while more respectable libertarians were all about the war (a pattern that they would repeat over and over and over and over and over again).
Who is Winston, chopped liver?
You can read Rothbard’s own words.
On the whole, I view Rothbard’s and Rockwell’s paleolibertarian project as a lesson in hubris. They really thought they could ride the tiger of populism and not get bit. We saw the absolutely comic alacrity with which the Tea Party was co-opted from a principled tax reform movement to the 3-ring circus it became. A similar thing is happening in the nu-GOP, where after purging the Big Tent of the Neocons, the NatPop MAGAtards have now turned their knives on the libertarian conservatives. The whole affair reminds one of the fable of the scorpion and the bat.
His options were stay with the libertarians who hadn’t seen a war they opposed since Vietnam or join with Buchanan who was literally the only guy criticizing the warfare state.
I may not agree with everything he ever wrote in the 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s or everything he ever believed, but I don’t think he was the one who was wrong in the early 90’s.
We saw the absolutely comic alacrity with which the Tea Party was co-opted from a principled tax reform movement to the 3-ring circus it became.
Ain’t that the truth. I can remember talking to my dad on the phone around, say 2011, after he came back from a Tea Party rally, and hearing him griping that most of the speechifying was about abortion and gay marriage. And my dad is even a pretty strongly pro-life person, but he kept muttering “That’s not what this is supposed to be about”
I always find it curious how men who support killing largely brown civilians overseas never get saddled with the “racism” designation, but if you once wrote the name “David Duke” without adding “bad, he is bad, really really bad” then you are labeled racist in perpetuity.
Real convenient how that works. The neocons are fine. They are openly embraced within the LP and Democratic party now. They never go away.
Personally, I just think Rothbard was motivated by doing what he could to give the middle finger to Ayn Rand. If Rand was going to assemble a clique of Jewish Manhattenite intellectual elites, he was going to buddy-up with Southern peckerwood-populist country lawyer types. I mean, the dude wrote an entire play about how much he hated her.
This is the same kind of nonsense that was thrown at Raimondo as being “anti-gay”, because he opposed “gay marriage” and instead thought that the government should not be involved in marriage at all.
In reality, he forced the LP and the Kochs to be more radical in its position on the gay community. But, he wasn’t progressive so we’re all suppose to pretend like the Kochs were actually in favor of gay marriage in the 80’s when they didn’t want to touch the issue.
We saw the absolutely comic alacrity with which the Tea Party was co-opted from a principled tax reform movement to the 3-ring circus it became.
Reform movements align with those who embrace them. To my dying day, I’ll contend that the libertarians’ rejection of the Tea Party movement was one of the biggest mistakes in modern American politics. A large number of people had mostly embraced libertarian ideas on government. And, rather than bring them the rest of the way to agreement, libertarians rejected them as “square”. When the Tea Partiers couldn’t go to the prom with the Homecoming Queen, they went with whoever would go with them.
“Personally, I just think Rothbard was motivated by doing what he could to give the middle finger to Ayn Rand.”
Well yeah, because Objectivism isn’t a cult, it just strongly resembles a cult. Not to mention that their foreign policy was completely opposite his own. And foreign policy was always his motivating issue.
“If Rand was going to assemble a clique of Jewish Manhattenite intellectual elites, he was going to buddy-up with Southern peckerwood-populist country lawyer types.”
But, Buchanan was Catholic and from Washington DC. So he wasn’t all that good at assembling those Southern peckerwoods
“I mean, the dude wrote an entire play about how much he hated her.”
Yeah, there is a video of it on YouTube. A long time ago some nerds actually acted out the play and it has its moments
“But, Buchanan was Catholic and from Washington DC. So he wasn’t all that good at assembling those Southern peckerwoods”
And one more point on this, Buchanan’s campaign did best in the Midwest and most assuredly not the South. Every time people talk about “racist populists” what they really mean is “factory workers from the Midwest”.
A long time ago some nerds actually acted out the play and it has its moments
As someone who admittedly still enjoys a lot of Ayn Rand’s stuff, Rothbard’s play was hilarious. He captures a lot of the all-or-nothing mentality she tried to stuff into her philosophy.
@wdalasio
It’s all a matter of perspective, I guess. Where I stood, most TP folks rejected us because we had the audacity to not “KEEP [OUR] HANDS OFF [THEIR] MEDICARE!” None of the Minutemen LARPers were interested in hearing that even if we wall off the entire country, entitlement spending will still eventually bankrupt the entire damn country. I know because I tried.
“He captures a lot of the all-or-nothing mentality she tried to stuff into her philosophy.”
Remember, it’s not a cult. It’s just a group of people who vied for the attention of a single person who dictated to them what type of music and writing they should find pleasure in, because anything else would be “illogical”. Totally not cultish.
Yes, but the Ludwig von Mises Institute isn’t housed in Chicago. Which is what I was referring to. And as you know, in the 90s, both Buchanan and Rockwell traveled in the same circles as League of the South types….which of course, brings us back to Tom Woods. 🙂
“I know because I tried.”
You might have tried, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen libertarians try so hard to court anyone as much as Beltway Libertarians have desperately tried to court the “respectable Republicans” like Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and Jennifer Rubin.
In eight years the LP will be more hawkish than the Republicans and Rothbard would have been proven right again.
“in the 90s, both Buchanan and Rockwell traveled in the same circles as League of the South types….which of course, brings us back to Tom Woods. ?”
Weird. Why doesn’t that bring us back to Jeffrey Tucker? He’s the one to introduced Woods to the group.
So strange how he gets left out of the mix so recently, especially since he was originally alleged to have written the Ron Paul newsletters
Jeffrey Tucker did not write the Ron Paul newsletters.
They were written by somebody named Powell IIRC. I linked to it many years ago, but am too rushed to do the work to unearth it.
But the author’s name was one the papers Kirchick first broke the story. He just declined to report it, because his goal was to create controversy and not inform.
Trying again:
Jeffrey Tucker did not write the Ron Paul newsletters.
They were written by somebody named Powell IIRC. I linked to it many years ago, but am too rushed to do the work to unearth it.
But the author’s name was on the papers when Kirchick first broke the story. Kirchick just declined to report it, because his goal was to create controversy and not inform.
I like Tucker (despite my criticism of his recent love affair with China). I’m not Winston. I’m not going to shit on Tucker because he’s not nice enough to people who like tariffs or something.
There is no dispute that Tucker joined the League of the South and brought Woods along. The newsletters was just what was alleged. I’m more than willing to accept that he did not write them.
I’m only saying that some people get smeared, because they are unfashionable and others get away with the whole “League of the South” stuff, because they are in fashion and mouth the right talking points (although, Tucker got a lot of grief for offering tepid praise for Jordan Peterson).
“But the author’s name was on the papers when Kirchick first broke the story. Kirchick just declined to report it, because his goal was to create controversy and not inform.”
That is not surprising. It’s actually to be expected
Oxford comma or GTFO.
his work has been embraced by some members of the alt-right
Who the hell in the alt-right has embraced Murray Rothbard? The idea, on its face, is absurd. I mean, neo-Nazi fanbois of a secular Jew? Does that even occur to these folks?
I guess you could say Chris Cantwell went from ancap to National Socialist and established the libertarian to crying Nazi pipeline.
Not all of the alt-right are “negative” on the “Jewish Question”.
Oh my God.
You can hear the derision dripping from the words.
All Home-schoolers are facists. It is known.
SHUT THE FUCK UP, LIBTARD!
:Bows head:
I am defeated
pwned
It’s that you, Eric?
How libertarians debate.
And are defeated
Rebel scum.
Now that is a debate topic I can get behind.