|
Post by Amadan on Jul 16, 2017 10:46:55 GMT -5
On the professional attire bit - I don't have Opty's studies, but just from personal experience, I think there can be little doubt that how you dress affects your frame of mind. Even as an IT guy, I feel different (and am treated differently) if I dress like a code monkey - jeans and t-shirt - or "dress up" with khakis and a button-down shirt. IT guys can get away with wearing shorts and sweat pants, but even the other IT guys know the dude who dresses like that is probably never going to be more than a neckbeard sysadmin. On the other hand, a tie screams "I am meeting with the Bosses/I want to become a Boss."
Yes, it's arbitrary, but culture is like that. The degree of care you take in presenting yourself sends a message. If I met a lawyer who was wearing casual clothes, yeah, I know the clothes say nothing about how smart or competent the lawyer is, but I would certainly perceive the message: "You are not important enough for me to dress up for you."
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 16, 2017 9:45:32 GMT -5
I'm starting to see why Angie hates you.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 15, 2017 14:01:50 GMT -5
As I said before, to the faithful, beating liberals is everything. I literally do not think there is anything Trump could do, short of becoming a liberal himself, that would cause the true believer to turn against him. Suitcases full of cash from Putin? Revelations that he raped underaged Miss America contestants in their dressing rooms? Nope - I don't think even that would get him impeached at this point. I really don't.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 13, 2017 16:40:12 GMT -5
So here's the thing - kind of like Hillary's email stunt, this is definitely a thing that would get a normal civil servant peon's security clearance revoked.
But, security clearances were not created by legislation. They were created, and continue to exist, by executive order. In other words, the President has ultimate authority over who gets a security clearance. If he wants to give a security clearance to his dog, he can. Congress gets access to classified information, on a need-to-know basis, based on their Constitutional authority. (I am actually not clear on precisely how that intersects with executive authority - e.g., could the President issue an Executive Order that says only Republicans can access classified information, but no Democrats? I don't think so, but I don't know the legal nitty gritty of it.)
This is why people who periodically lament that various politicians shouldn't be entitled to see classified info because they'd never pass a background check... well, no, they wouldn't. But that's not the point. They don't need to go through the normal background process. If you're a member of the House Committee on Intelligence, by definition you get to poke your nose into what the intelligence agencies are doing because that is your Constitutionally-authorized job. Even if you have all kinds of red flags that would get you denied a clearance if you were a normal applicant.
So, back to Jared Kushner - yes, Wasserman Schultz's amendment is just a political stunt, because ultimately, Trump can give access to anyone he wants to. He can put anyone he likes on his staff, and legally, he can authorize them to see any classified information he wants to. I am sure he exercises all the discretion and due diligence in this that he exercises in every other aspect of his presidency.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 12, 2017 12:09:28 GMT -5
I think it is damning.
I also think it will go nowhere. It's questionable whether any law has technically been violated, and none of Trump's supporters or the "But Clinton" fence-straddlers will be persuaded.
You see Watergate in the making - I think you are being optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 12, 2017 8:45:13 GMT -5
That's just silly. It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to understand why Keynesian economics is taught in government school, any more than it takes a conspiracy theory to explain why respect for authority is number one in a classroom of students or why more and more children are diagnosed as problematic and drugged to get through the school day every year. It simply take an understanding of the incentives inherent in bureaucracies, a smattering of non-Keynesian economics, a smidgeon of public choice theory, and the basic ability of logical integration. Does it ever even.... cross your mind.... as a remote possibility.... that society is complex and that things like "increasing numbers of children diagnosed with ADD" and various other social problems might have.... multiple causes, some of which are actually not a direct result of Evil Gummint Policy? You really are the hammer that sees Every. Fucking. Thing. As a nail. Jesus Christ, dude, most "government schools" (and other schools as well) are doing well just to teach kids algebra and the basic facts of science and history (not "government facts carefully occluding the Truth that libertarians have discovered" but basic facts like when such and such war started and ended). Your average teenager is simply not interested or equipped to deal with concepts like Keynesian vs. non-Keynesian economics, or Public Choice Theory. I'm not saying they couldn't be, but the level of effort it would take to get the general population to that level is way beyond what is feasible (and that would have been true 200 years ago), and that's not just because of fedgummintskoolz You think every school in the country would be Sidwell Friends if not for the Department of Education brainwashing all the proles to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? Also, your definition of "critical thinking" and "logical integration" is that of every idealogue - i.e., those who agree with you have it, those who disagree with you don't. So it doesn't mean much when you keep decrying the lack of such skills in the general populace, since I take it to mean "Most people don't agree with me; if everyone was educated, everyone would agree with me."
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 11, 2017 16:52:49 GMT -5
Okay Rob, where's the "But Clinton" angle here?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 11, 2017 16:09:55 GMT -5
I'm....not convinced that if we got evidence that Putin personally handed Trump a suitcase full of cash, that Trump's supporters (and almost every single Republican in Congress) wouldn't still balk at impeachment.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 11, 2017 12:15:49 GMT -5
Okay, so there probably is gender discrimination in the FBI, and it may be a very macho culture. But a few things about Gritz's story make me skeptical. Maybe it's because I've seen a lot of these "whistleblower" stories, and/or "I walked on water, all my superiors loved me, I did Very Important Work, until I pissed someone off and then suddenly they fired me" stories.
First, okay, she "worked on national security issues" - well, any FBI agent would have. That doesn't mean much, and the lack of specificity suggests to me that she was never more than maybe a low-level analyst. All that yabbering about how she gave up her family life, etc., etc., but no actual accomplishments listed? No leadership positions? Just how hard she worked? Yeah, she never did much.
Second, time card fraud is a big deal in the government. It's one of the few things that can get you fired in a hurry. Her quote "Plenty of male agents got away with far worse, she says, with no punishment." is very telling. It seems to me that she's tacitly admitting that she did in fact falsify her time card. Did male agents get away with worse without punishment? Dunno, though I'm skeptical, but if so, it means they should fire a few more FBI agents.
Now she's claiming that FBI blackballing is why she can't get better work than sales clerk at Macy's, or working in a call center? Once again, I call BS - if she'd really been a skilled agent with decades of experience, she'd have some marketable skills, and there are employers who wouldn't care if people in the Bureau don't like her. (Many would care if she'd had her security clearance yanked, however.)
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 11, 2017 12:05:00 GMT -5
It ain't rocket science, but it is basic economics. Too bad they don't teach economics in government school. I wonder why that is? Obviously, a bunch of government types all got together and very carefully designed a government school curriculum that would keep everyone in ignorance, and passively obedient to government directives. They then implemented this plan nationwide, and have done so for generations, all while keeping it a secret that no one but a few libertarians have figured out. It's always fascinating how inept you think the government is, especially in the area of long-term planning and social engineering, except when it comes to pulling off secret schemes on a grand scale that would do the Illuminati proud.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 11, 2017 11:41:10 GMT -5
Donald Trump Jr. releases email chainIsn't this... a stunningly bad idea? Question for Cass: while it's sleazy as hell, is there an actual crime here? Question for Rob: Is "Yeah, but Clinton" still the best you've got here? Question for celaw: Still an admirer of Trump's fresh, feisty, fearlessness? ETA: !%#$@ Once again, could not see there was already a second page in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 9, 2017 17:27:55 GMT -5
There are not enough head-desk emoticons for this.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 3, 2017 7:40:02 GMT -5
Cass is right. Polite disagreement with someone who doesn't do "disagreement" is pointless. That doesn't mean that tweeting insults at him is necessarily effective, but it's certainly no less effective than fluttering your hands in dismay.
At this point, opposing Trump is more about emboldening and mobilizing the opposition than actually persuading him and his cronies.
Again, I am not saying that tweeting penis insults at him is an effective strategy, but I'd say it falls squarely in the "neutral" category - it probably does nothing either way, but if someone feels better after doing it, you're accomplishing even less by tut-tutting at them.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 2, 2017 19:19:33 GMT -5
I don't think you're supporting Trump, and I'm not trying to spin it that you are. I think you are just so used to being the conservative surrounded by liberals that you feel obligated to play "Well, both sides are behaving badly" no matter how badly that Republicans are behaving, because it would pain you too much to just admit that sometimes the liberals who are being mean and nasty are not overreacting. Nowhere have I claimed her comments--or similar lowbrow ones from others in the media or elsewhere--are somehow illegal, should somehow not be allowed, that she or anyone else needed to be fired or the like. Go back ad look. I never claimed that you were in favor of censorship or even wanting people who criticize the President to be fired. But saying "It's not helpful" kind of misses the point when we're talking about a public personality whose job is to sound off like that. I'm sure Mika and Joe would like to diminish Trump's power, but telling them they'd be more effective by taking the high road is kind of like telling SNL they'd be more classy without the fart jokes. So you just come off as a schoolmarmish scold wrinkling your nose and wagging your finger at those darn liberals who won't play by your preferred rules even though Trump has already used the rules for toilet paper.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 2, 2017 11:18:36 GMT -5
Otto Warmbier's death is tragic, but it's a personal tragedy for the family. It's not an international crisis. If Trump wants to avoid further incidents of Americans being arrested and incarcerated, here's an easy fix. Ban all travel by Americans to North Korea. Problem solved. It's not an international crisis, but it is an international incident. One of the most basic functions of a government is to protect its citizens. If another country targets your citizens abroad, you must do something about it or you send the message that your citizens abroad are fair game. Obviously, that doesn't mean we declare war against North Korea. And there are few good solutions, since we have so little leverage against the crazy hermit kingdom that is NK. Nonetheless, I am sure there are some things that can be done, even if they are "back channel." Coming up with solutions to this is kind of the point of having large State and Defense departments and intelligence agencies. Trump, of course, is unlikely to take advantage of these resources in an effective manner.
|
|