Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 189: Flip or Flop

(+) Yeah! (+)

in "news that nobody needs to know but now that I know you all must know" news

How many details can you really give about two minutes?" Daniels responded. Pressed further by interviewer Amy Chozick, who responded "Two minutes?" Daniels quipped, "Maybe. I'm being generous."

---

CelesMyUserName posted...

in "news that nobody needs to know but now that I know you all must know" news

How many details can you really give about two minutes?" Daniels responded. Pressed further by interviewer Amy Chozick, who responded "Two minutes?" Daniels quipped, "Maybe. I'm being generous."

Link please?
---

https://www.vogue.com/article/stormy-daniels-interview-michael-cohen-donald-trump
---

Thanks Celes.
---

Fuck these republican assholes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-is-denying-passports-to-americans-along-the-border (delete this space) -throwing-their-citizenship-into-question/2018/08/29/1d630e84-a0da-11e8-a3dd-2a1991f075d5_story.html

Headline says it all. Motherfuckers are denying passports to US citizens along the border simply because of their heritage. Openly fucking racist.
---

8/29/2018
BEYER - Beyer On IG Revelations Of Trumps Involvement In FBI Headquarters Decision: This Looks Like A Cover-Up

This week the Inspector General (IG) of the General Services Investigation (GSA) issued a report which found that, despite previous denials, President Trump was personally involved in the decision to overturn years of planning for the relocation of the FBI headquarters. That decision has a significant impact on Trumps financial interests, given the proximity of the current headquarters to the Trump International Hotel.

The report also found that Administration officials misled Congress and refused to reveal to investigators the nature of Trumps involvement in that decision. Rep. Don Beyer issued the following statement:

[...]

The report also revealed that officials who were present or aware of these discussions repeatedly misled Members of Congress about the Presidents involvement. Further, Administration officials say they were told by the White House Counsels office not to disclose any statements made by the President. This looks like a cover-up.

https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1019

Throw it on the pile.
---

Are there any presidential cover ups that do not involve a hotel in some way?
---

Not sure how much this belongs here, but there's no way in hell I'm making a topic about goddamn flat Earth. I figure it's at least fairly relevant to today's politics. So, this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjWn23pEl3k" data-time="&start=2

Has 4.6k likes, and almost 700 dislikes. This is a 1 in 7 ratio of people who disliked a video about a scientist pointing out the absurdity of flat Earthers. 1 in fucking 7 (actually 1 in 6.66...7). I'm really hoping this video is just drawing the internet's entire flat Earth brigade to it, but that ratio is terrifying to me and this is clearly not the relatively fringe "movement" I thought it still was. There is no way the internet and (perhaps more specifically) sites like YouTube are not, overall, doing a net collective harm to our world at this point.

what the fuck is happening guys
---

DeVos is preparing new rules for schools regarding sexual harassment... ...wherein the definition of sexual harassment is made narrower, the rights of the accused are strengthened, and schools face less liability:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/us/politics/devos-campus-sexual-assault.html

Recommend reading the article if you want to see many of the proposed rules and details, but as a summary. While the article (and as it notes rules) are generally focused around colleges, they would apply to elementary and high schools. As well as where a teacher/professor/employee is involved.

The definition of "sexual harassment" is made narrower than it previously had been. Schools, when investigating whether there should be discipline, are now allowed to choose whether to apply the standard of "preponderance of evidence" or "clear and convincing" evidence. Under Obama administration guidance they had to use the former. Furthermore, schools themselves are only liable if a formal complaint was made as opposed to previously where they were if it was found that "the school knows, or reasonably should know, about possible harassment." And arguably the grossest, at least when I was reading, adding the ability for the victim and accused to cross-examine each other.
---

Absolutely fucking disgusting.

DeVos is a disgrace to humanity.
---

StartTheMachine posted...

Not sure how much this belongs here, but there's no way in hell I'm making a topic about goddamn flat Earth. I figure it's at least fairly relevant to today's politics. So, this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjWn23pEl3k" data-time="&start=2

Has 4.6k likes, and almost 700 dislikes. This is a 1 in 7 ratio of people who disliked a video about a scientist pointing out the absurdity of flat Earthers. 1 in fucking 7 (actually 1 in 6.66...7). I'm really hoping this video is just drawing the internet's entire flat Earth brigade to it, but that ratio is terrifying to me and this is clearly not the relatively fringe "movement" I thought it still was. There is no way the internet and (perhaps more specifically) sites like YouTube are not, overall, doing a net collective harm to our world at this point.

what the fuck is happening guys

the ratio means nothing. what's important is the number of dislikes. 700. which is lol numbers
---

xp1337 posted...

adding the ability for the victim and accused to cross-examine each other.

Are there other types of cases where victims and the accused are allowed to cross-examine each other? Like, are Rand Paul and his neighbor allowed to cross-examine each other? Or Jared Kushner and his tenants? Or Harvey Weinstein and his actresses? Or OJ Simpson and whoever had his jerseys?

Because this seems new and I'm not sure what the court gains from forcing amateurs to work like this other than the courtroom drama.
---

One of Joe Rogans Best friends, Eddie Bravo, is a flat-Earthed balls to the walls conspiracy nut, so anytime that stuff is discussed and Joe shits on it, they flock to him to yell and complain hes a shill to NASA.
---

HaRRicH posted...

xp1337 posted...

adding the ability for the victim and accused to cross-examine each other.

Are there other types of cases where victims and the accused are allowed to cross-examine each other? Like, are Rand Paul and his neighbor allowed to cross-examine each other? Or Jared Kushner and his tenants? Or Harvey Weinstein and his actresses? Or OJ Simpson and whoever had his jerseys?

Because this seems new and I'm not sure what the court gains from forcing amateurs to work like this other than the courtroom drama.

It may mean for the school's internal investigation and/or mediation (another subject raised in the article.) I say that because it would fit the character of the other rules seeming focused a lot on the mechanisms the schools use to investigate and also because I'm not sure the Department of Education would have the authority to compel the criminal justice system.
---

I will note that I saw someone point out something that I had overlooked and it seems massive.

Under the new proposal schools would only be liable if the incident occurred on campus and not, for example, on off-campus student housing.
---

Yep. Terrible.
---

xp1337 posted...

HaRRicH posted...

xp1337 posted...

adding the ability for the victim and accused to cross-examine each other.

Are there other types of cases where victims and the accused are allowed to cross-examine each other? Like, are Rand Paul and his neighbor allowed to cross-examine each other? Or Jared Kushner and his tenants? Or Harvey Weinstein and his actresses? Or OJ Simpson and whoever had his jerseys?

Because this seems new and I'm not sure what the court gains from forcing amateurs to work like this other than the courtroom drama.

It may mean for the school's internal investigation and/or mediation (another subject raised in the article.) I say that because it would fit the character of the other rules seeming focused a lot on the mechanisms the schools use to investigate and also because I'm not sure the Department of Education would have the authority to compel the criminal justice system.

All of them have the right to cross examine each other in court. It is a fundamental right protected by the Bill of Rights. IMO, if schools can't guarantee such basic rights, they have no business running a quasi-judicial proceeding.
---

red sox 777 posted...

All of them have the right to cross examine each other in court. It is a fundamental right protected by the Bill of Rights. IMO, if schools can't guarantee such basic rights, they have no business running a quasi-judicial proceeding.

A university trial is not the same thing as a criminal trial. A school cannot impose the same types of punishments as an actual court. Furthermore, the purpose of the trial is not to punish perpetrators but to protect victims whose Title IX rights are being abused (which is why it makes sense to use a standard like the preponderance of evidence instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt).
---

okay how the hell is musk so dumb

https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/1034814019507376128

RE: diver guy musk called a pedo because he criticized musk's mini-sub rescue idea

latest update:

- musk doubles down again, saying if the diver wasn't really a pedo he would've sued musk already
- diver is suing musk already
---

ertyu runs a musk
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034990940593823746

trump literally using breitbart as a legitimate source
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034990940593823746

trump literally using breitbart as a legitimate source

About as legitimate as the Huffington Post, which I see cited here a lot.
---

i don't think anyone here is president of the united states, though. trump should be held to slightly higher standards than random board 8 posters.
---

xp1337 posted...

adding the ability for the victim and accused to cross-examine each other.

"And when i allegedly slid my hand under your skirt and start to squeeze your butt, you liked it didn't you, you smiled at me did you not?"
---

Corrik posted...

About as legitimate as the Huffington Post, which I see cited here a lot.

Uhhh where?
---

I do not remember Huffington Post being cited here since 2016 talking about how they were labeling all Trump articles as "Entertainment".
---

Corrik's "whataboutism" is as gross as ever
---

Obellisk posted...

xp1337 posted...

adding the ability for the victim and accused to cross-examine each other.

"And when i allegedly slid my hand under your skirt and start to squeeze your butt, you liked it didn't you, you smiled at me did you not?"

That's not a proper question. It starts off with "allegedly," but the question cannot be answered without assuming that what "allegedly" happened in fact did happen.
---

In better news, local cop kills unarmed black man, is found guilty and gets 15 years in prison.

To quote the victim's family, "it's a start". He still very blatantly got off light because he was a cop (the article doesn't say it, but the local CBS affiliate said this morning that 55% of convictions for the same charge in Texas get 40+ year sentences, while only 9% get between 10 and 20 years), but still far better than it could've been.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/courts/2018/08/29/defense-hopes-show-jury-real-roy-oliver-seeking-mercy-ex-cop-murdered-jordan-edwards
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Uhhh where?

i ctrl+f'd "huffpost" in my archive to verify corrik's claim and the first result was you linking to a huffpost article dude >_>

corrik may talk out of his ass a lot, but he's right about this. (that is to say, he's right about people here linking to huffpost. he's not right that this somehow excuses trump linking to breitbart.)
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

All of them have the right to cross examine each other in court. It is a fundamental right protected by the Bill of Rights. IMO, if schools can't guarantee such basic rights, they have no business running a quasi-judicial proceeding.

A university trial is not the same thing as a criminal trial. A school cannot impose the same types of punishments as an actual court. Furthermore, the purpose of the trial is not to punish perpetrators but to protect victims whose Title IX rights are being abused (which is why it makes sense to use a standard like the preponderance of evidence instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt).

A school can expel a student, and good luck getting admitted at another school after having been expelled from one. That is a student's whole career on the line, as well as their dignity. And the new policy uses "clear and convincing evidence," which is below "beyond a reasonable doubt" and strikes a balance. It helps everyone if the public can have confidence in the fairness and accuracy of these proceedings.

Incidentally, you can generally get a restraining order based on a preponderance of the evidence (although you will have to allow yourself to be cross-examined). If there is any further conduct after that, you can get a criminal conviction (and an expulsion) based only on the proving of the violation of the restraining order.
---

Also, the school not having legal liability for actions committed by students off-campus makes sense. Employers are not liable for the actions of their employees committed when they're not working. I don't see how a school could control a student's off-campus actions, or how they would have any right to do that.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i ctrl+f'd "huffpost" in my archive to verify corrik's claim and the first result was you linking to a huffpost article dude >_>

In what context?

Im not saying HuffPost has NEVER been used
---

Trump has upped his rhetoric regarding the media. They are now the "enemy of the people."
---

Jakyl25 posted...

In what context?

Im not saying HuffPost has NEVER been used

Jakyl25 (Topic Creator)7/11/2018 4:48:29 PM#497
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b4587d7e4b07aea75454510

Just sharing this for the headline, which I like to imagine is meant literally

so yeah, i'll concede that in this particular case you did say you only shared it for the headline. harrich did unironically link to a huffpost article before, though.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i don't think anyone here is president of the united states, though. trump should be held to slightly higher standards than random board 8 posters.

Probably shouldn't criticize things you also do.
---

Corrik posted...

Probably shouldn't criticize things you also do.

please provide evidence of me ever linking to huffpost.
---

HuffPo is not a great source, but its definitely better than Brietbart
---

red sox 777 posted...

Trump has upped his rhetoric regarding the media. They are now the "enemy of the people."

So Trump is nicknaming himself "The People" now?
---

kevwaffles posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Trump has upped his rhetoric regarding the media. They are now the "enemy of the people."

So Trump is nicknaming himself "The People" now?

Well, in the eyes of the law, the People can do no wrong....
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

HuffPo is not a great source, but its definitely better than Brietbart

I mean theyre pretty close. Does HuffPo have actual reporters now? I thought they were more a news aggregate/opinion site.

Which would make sense because Im like 95% sure Andrew Brietbart helped Arianna Huffington get the project started.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

HuffPo is not a great source, but its definitely better than Brietbart

I mean theyre pretty close. Does HuffPo have actual reporters now? I thought they were more a news aggregate/opinion site.

Which would make sense because Im like 95% sure Andrew Brietbart helped Arianna Huffington get the project started.

To revise my statement slightly, I dont think HuffPo is nearl as inflammatory as Brietbart. But theyre probably fairly close in terms of journalistic philosophy.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

To revise my statement slightly, I dont think HuffPo is nearl as inflammatory as Brietbart. But theyre probably fairly close in terms of journalistic philosophy.

Yeah, this. HuffPo isn't news, and anybody treating it as such is wrong and uninformed.
---

So Trump is now trying to claim the Lester Holt interview (if you need a refresher it's the one where he said why he fired Comey) was edited. "Cool."

red sox 777 posted...

Trump has upped his rhetoric regarding the media. They are now the "enemy of the people."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-man-charged-threatening-kill-boston-globe-employees-n905081

A man from California was arrested for threatening the Boston Globe. Among the many recorded threats he made was accusing them of being "the enemy of the people."

It's almost like there are consequences to Trump's rhetoric.
---

HuffPo's not news but I feel like it at least inhabits reality, whereas you might go on Breitbart and find an article like "Birdcucked Snowflakes Now Claim Owls Are Real"
---

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/30/politics/john-mccain-mother-attending-funeral/index.html

Not gonna lie, this article surprised me.
---

Kenri posted...

HuffPo's not news but I feel like it at least inhabits reality, whereas you might go on Breitbart and find an article like "Birdcucked Snowflakes Now Claim Owls Are Real"

Ok yeah, maybe quoting a post that somewhat equated the two and agreeing with it was wrong for exactly the reason you gave, but I still stand by HuffPo not being news. Breitbart is straight up propaganda though, and anybody who considers it even remotely credible is fucked in the head.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

corrik may talk out of his ass a lot, but he's right about this. (that is to say, he's right about people here linking to huffpost. he's not right that this somehow excuses trump linking to breitbart.)

He's right about it being a lot?

Maybe I just naturally filter out and ignore it when it's linked to but I don't recall it being a lot. Obviously it happens on occasion but I always thought it was dwarfed by WaPo/NYT/CNN/NBC etc.
---

Trump is now saying the interview he gave with Lester Holt where he admitted to firing Comey over the Russia probe was "fudged."
---

Kenri posted...

HuffPo's not news but I feel like it at least inhabits reality, whereas you might go on Breitbart and find an article like "Birdcucked Snowflakes Now Claim Owls Are Real"

Yeah, that's what I meant by "not nearly as inflammatory". HuffPo is bad and clearly caters to an audience and a specific point of view, but its not the same level of terrible in terms of tone.

I maintain their journalistic philosophy is very much similar though.
---