ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Went a little further. It kept throwing in there before that there is a huge problem:
The decline in the pH of the ocean is a serious problem for marine life. Many marine organisms build their shells and skeletons out of calcium carbonate, which is dissolved by acidic water.
So I asked, "What level of pH do I need in water to dissolve calcium carbonate?"
Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is a relatively insoluble substance in water. It will dissolve more easily in acidic water than in alkaline water. The pH level at which calcium carbonate begins to dissolve significantly is around 6.5.
This prompt seemed to be isolated enough that it didn't quite trigger its rant, though it did say:
However, it is important to note that dissolving calcium carbonate in water can also have negative environmental consequences. For example, it can contribute to the acidification of lakes and rivers.
So, I persisted a little. "What is the rate of pH change of the ocean due to climate change?"
The rate of pH change of the ocean due to climate change is currently about 0.1 pH units per century. [Add Rant]
It even finished its rant with:
We need to act now to protect the ocean from acidification. The future of our planet depends on it.
Finally, I gave it a math problem, "If the pH of the ocean right now is 8.1, but it is changing by about 0.1 pH units per century, and calcium carbonate starts dissolving at a pH of about 6.5, how many years will it take before the pH of the ocean is about acidic enough to start dissolving calcium carbonate?"
It binned it as a math problem, solved it as a math problem, told me it would take 16 centuries, gave me the python code it used, and then finished:
I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
No rant included, this time.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Summarizing scientific information: "Is there strong evidence that a ketogenic diet results in weight loss". And then answering follow up questions..
I didn't check GPT-4, but checked out Bard. I asked about which numerical truth about weight loss is most supported by scientific evidence. It started off with a blanket statement, "that losing 5% to 15% of your body weight can have significant health benefits". With no reference whatsoever as to what weight you started out as. Big oof. It did give me a few bullet points, though, claiming that they were numerical truths, but without giving numbers:
A calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss. This means that you need to burn more calories than you consume.
You can create a calorie deficit by eating fewer calories, exercising more, or both.
So I asked it for specific numbers related to these points, and it gave:
The number of calories you need to create a calorie deficit for weight loss depends on your individual factors, such as your age, sex, weight, and activity level. However, a good rule of thumb is to aim for a deficit of 500 to 1,000 calories per day. This will help you lose about 1 to 2 pounds per week.
The first sentence is a bit mealy, but it gets us right on point in the second sentence.
For my second check, I went even more political. I recently learned a neat fact about the phrase "ocean acidification" that I actually didn't know before. The pH of the ocean is actually somewhere around 8.1, which makes it slightly alkaline. The process of reducing its pH actually makes it more neutral. I didn't say anything about any of that and just asked, "What is the pH level of the ocean?" It nicely responded:
The average pH level of the ocean is about 8.1. This means that the ocean is slightly alkaline.
...and then proceeded to go on a rant about climate change, ocean acidification, and serious the problem is. I poked it on the terminology and got back:
The term "ocean acidification" is the commonly used term to describe the phenomenon of the ocean's pH declining. This is because the ocean is becoming more acidic, not more neutral.
...
Some people have suggested that the term "ocean neutralization" would be more accurate, since the pH of the ocean is getting closer to neutral. However, this term is not commonly used, and it could be confusing to people who are not familiar with the pH scale.
So I poked it again. First time, mostly mealy-mouth. Then, I asked more directly, "Wouldn't saying that a substance is getting "more" acidic imply that it is already acidic, rather than alkaline?"
Yes, you are correct. Saying that a substance is getting "more" acidic implies that it is already acidic. The term "ocean acidification" is used to describe the process by which the pH of the ocean decreases, becoming more acidic. This is caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which dissolves in seawater and forms carbonic acid.
The ocean is currently slightly alkaline, with a pH of about 8.1. However, the pH of the ocean is declining by about 0.1 pH units per century. This means that the ocean is becoming more acidic, even though it is still slightly alkaline....
Verdict: still not really reasoning its way through anything, even when we've come to apparent agreement on how the language it's using is supposed to work. Instead, being more than happy to parrot political talking points.
My firm view is that if prosecutors have evidence that is likely to prove a criminal offence beyond a reasonable doubt, they should bring charges. I'm not generally willing to commit to saying that any specific person who has not been charged should be charged - even where I think there is a high likelihood that a crime has been committed, it may not be the case that the evidence is strong enough to confidently support a prosecution - making a judgement in that regard is usually going to require a level of detailed knowledge that can't be realistically obtained through media reports.
So, I think here is where we can find one important crux, and it's why I started off with the Paul Combatta/Mike Flynn cases. There, we don't have to rely solely on media reports; we have the IG report! It's incredibly detailed! We can compare it to the actual charges that were brought in a court of law, the arguments made therein, and the rulings which followed, all of which are also incredibly detailed! Being evasive on this question is I think a crux for why I don't believe you when you say this is your "firm view". If we can't actually come to some agreement on a case where we totally have all the information, using the principles you claim to espouse, we're going to struggle on the cases where we have less information.
he wasn't President at the time he committed the offences.
I mean, he was as the time that he removed them.
Second, he's on tape saying he didn't declassify them.
I think you ought read the comment that I linked about the President's unique posture WRT classification authorities.
Third, the specific charges that have been brought against him don't actually require the material to be classified as an element of the offence - he's been charged with wilful retention of national defence information, not classified information.
Given that the President's posture is unique WRT the much more grave category of classified information, it is also unique WRT the lesser category of national defense information.
if you want positive, specific examples of charges that I have looked at in some detail and explicitly endorse, I would point to "Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding" from the DoJ case
Thanks! Which overt act(s) do you think Trump, himself, did in furtherance of this conspiracy?
count 5 "Solicitation of violation of oath of a public officer" from the Georgia case
Ok, so count 5 says that he asked the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives to call for a special session of the Georgia General Assembly. Of course, the indictment says that it was "for the purpose of unlawfully appointing presidential electors", but that's a bit strange, as it seems that the real badness here is contained purely in a hypothetical. The hypothetical being that if a special session had been called, the Georgia General Assembly would thereafter choose to engage in illegal activity. That's pretty thin gruel. Do you think that it should be generally illegal for people to ask legislative officials to conduct a meeting and consider something, so long as DoJ can imply that you might want them to do something illegal? Like, there is a pretty wide range of actual behavior that could have actually occurred in a hypothetical special session. Perhaps it would have been entirely legal behavior, and maybe that legal behavior could have helped/hurt Trump in whatever way. How can you justify criminal charges based on simply asking politicians to discuss something, just because you pair it with a hypothetical possible outcome of such discussion?
EDIT: Earlier this week, while traveling, I was listening to Akil Amar's podcast with Will Baude/Michael Paulsen about their recent article on Section 3, claiming that Trump was ineligible to run for President again. Interesting discussions about "who decides". I don't recall every detail, because there was a lot, but I recall a question along the lines of what happens if say, the secretary of state of a state doesn't even put Trump on the ballot, but there's a gigantic write-in campaign, and he literally wins a state based on write-ins. IIRC, they pretty much said that it was just up to the legislature to decide, presumably in a special session or something, that no, he's actually ineligible, and to then select a different slate of electors. Of course, they discussed how there would likely be court challenges to this and such, but imagine this goes up to the Supreme Court, and then they rule on whatever grounds that Section 3 doesn't mean that he's ineligible. Would you be on board with prosecuting everyone who asked the state's legislature to hold that special session or to invalidate Trump's win? They legit considered hypos kind of like this, even with a question of something like, "Should we prosecute Akil/Will/Michael for soliciting something that turns out to be illegal?" These are serious questions, and how you answer these questions can have grave implications.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Fair enough. I don't really ever pretend to have a great plan for getting any policy proposal implemented, even the obviously good ones. I hope y'all hammer one out.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
How do you intend to bring those about?
The way that basically all liberal democracies agreed we should do it:
Voting by secret ballot Voters should mark their ballots alone, in the privacy of a voting booth, and in such a way that the marked ballot cannot be seen before it is cast and cannot be later connected with a particular voter. Exceptions can be made only under specified conditions, such as at the request of voters who require assistance, e.g., disabled or illiterate voters. Any voting outside of a voting booth compromises the secrecy of the vote. The presence of more than one person in a voting booth should not be permitted, as it compromises the secrecy of the vote. Open voting or unlawful voting by proxies are violations of the secrecy principle. Arrangements for voting by members of the military and by prisoners should ensure their votes are secret and not subject to coercion.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Ballot secrecy when voting by mail should be a concern to be addressed going forward
Give me one single example proposal to "address" this. If you can't think of even one, I will have no faith that it will ever be "addressed". Instead, we should return to the global consensus of liberal democracies concerning what is a "core election-related international obligation" of States to provide free and fair elections.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
This is pretty bold. I cataloged some history here with citations to quite a few international civil society organizations. The most difficult statement for your position came from OSCE in 2010, which is clearly both before the timeframe that you discovered this issue and from a European organization which couldn't give a shit about Republicans or especially Trump back in 2010:
Voting by secret ballot Voters should mark their ballots alone, in the privacy of a voting booth, and in such a way that the marked ballot cannot be seen before it is cast and cannot be later connected with a particular voter. Exceptions can be made only under specified conditions, such as at the request of voters who require assistance, e.g., disabled or illiterate voters. Any voting outside of a voting booth compromises the secrecy of the vote. The presence of more than one person in a voting booth should not be permitted, as it compromises the secrecy of the vote. Open voting or unlawful voting by proxies are violations of the secrecy principle. Arrangements for voting by members of the military and by prisoners should ensure their votes are secret and not subject to coercion.
People care about this. People across the political spectrum used to care about this. People across the political spectrum used to care about this all in agreement in basically all liberal democracies. There simply wasn't a controversy before, because we all agreed.
Ruining the secret ballot is bad. It also happens that ruining the secret ballot hurt Trump the one time. Trumpists are going to jump in because of the latter. We should all continue to agree on the former and not let reversed stupidity cause us to be also stupid.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
As a matter of historical fact, Jesus didn't rise from the dead either.
Does this assertion add any light to the conversation, or just heat? Would a reversed version of this assertion, made by a Christian, add any light to the conversation?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Sorry for dropping this conversation. Life got busy. Picking it up again.
No worries. The last week has been hellacious for me as well. I almost certainly wouldn't have been able to reply even if you had made a response.
This could in principle be a fair point if applied to anyone other than the most senior and influential member of one of the two political parties in America. The Republican party in general, and Trump in particular, have had as much control over what the law is as anyone has. They, in particular, should be expected to abide by it.
I don't think this really hits home. Trump made criminal justice reform and rescission of regulations (many with criminal penalties) a major push of his administration. They even won some victories toward those ends. I don't feel like, "You failed to completely and totally overhaul centuries of legal cruft and overly broad statutes, so you can never complain about differential treatment," is an argument with incredible force. Moreover, there is not often specific political will to go after specific problematic statutes until after it is visibly seen being misused. If you follow the courts regularly, you see this shit everywhere. I highly recommend the Institute for Justice as an example that you can follow. They publish a variety of articles and podcasts; here is the most recent Short Circuit. When you follow them over time, you see just how gigantic the pool is of "problematic" laws and how constant the stream is of cases which show just how problematic they are. It's a grueling beat, and the most successful tactic has been to slowly grind away at them as they come. It takes a million incremental steps over many years; there is not "one neat trick" that a Trump administration (even with Republican control of Congress) can pull to magically eliminate all of the different bullshit laws that can be given a novel interpretation in order to engage in differential prosecution. I am simultaneously for repeal and against differential prosecution.
I think there is a variant of your argument that would go through. If, for example, there was a history of Trump and his lot actively using such laws while in power, it would much more strongly imply that they did not oppose such prosecutions. Merely not being able to fully accomplish the monumental feat of strength of overhauling the entirety of the laws to eliminate the possibility of differential prosecution (for poor reasons) is not sufficient to imply assent to any old abuse that may follow.
I also think I am being consistent here. When the issue de jour was "her emails", I thought it was totally plausible that what she did violated the text of the statutes. I actually said that getting a conviction on the issue was closer to a 50/50 than 80/20 (in either direction), but the context of that claim is that we just have this broad law that could be brought to bear if you really tried hard. Nevertheless, I still went on record as being totally fine with not prosecuting, especially given the damage that could occur to the political system. In that case, as in this one, I would not rest on, "Whelp, the law exists, and Democrats didn't repeal it, so..." I don't think you should, either.
The documents case doesn't concern the central most bad thing that Trump did, but it was still absolutely a bad and illegal thing, and the evidence against him is overwhelming.
Are you concerned that other folks have done things that are similar enough that they could also be hit by the same broad statute, yet aren't being/haven't been prosecuted? If so, what are you going to do about it? If not, then your political opponents are going to chant, "My rules, your rules applied fairly, your rules applied unfairly..." and stop viewing you as a reasonable party with which societal compromises can be made.
Does the President's unique posture WRT classification authorities give you any pause that perhaps it's not a clear-cut, obvious application of long-settled (and agreed upon) law?
The Georgia case and the other DOJ case both relate to Trump's attempts to subvert the election, and both appear to me to be legally solid
I hate to say it again, but which counts? What is the core badness associated with them? Frankly, I can't really address the details of your concerns unless I understand them. At this level of generality, it's probably not possible for me to guess what the crux is.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
When you've seen enough of the sausage being made at academic journals, you're not surprised about the occasional bullshit thing that happens. I could see being that reviewer, thinking, "Whelp, their study design is pretty bullshit, but there's not really a way to say that it's wrong, especially if they've detailed it and are careful with the way they write their conclusions." Of course, just because they didn't write a totally bullshit conclusion in the article itself doesn't mean that there is anything stopping a mountain of journalists from filling in that work for them in the popular media. Like, what are the actual words that the reviewer is supposed to say to recommend rejection? And even if we could come up with some good ones, what good would they actually do in the face of a politicized editor who is willing to handpick reviewers who are sympathetic to the cause (so such good words would never be spoken) or to just run roughshod over one complaining reviewer (if one existed)?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Break universities' ability to price discriminate on income. Separate the federal loan program from the uni's ability to present a "personalized price" to each individual based on extremely good information on the student's (and the student's parents) financials. Just don't make that information available to the unis. What business do they have looking at that information? Make them do something else. Then, observe what the other thing is that they do and figure out the optimal next step.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I have posted about secrecy in voting here before, and I included a discussion of the historical reason for adopting the "Australian ballot". This iswas a hugely important issue for a very long time, not in the sense that it was an important and controversial issue. No, it was hugely important and not controversial, at least among generally free countries.
Unlike how organizations like the ACLU officially changed course and explicitly disclaimed their prior views on vaccine mandates, my sense is that most organizations still overtly claim to value secrecy. Just a casual web search provides things from IPU:
Acknowledging and endorsing the fundamental principles relating to periodic free and fair elections that have been recognized by States in universal and regional human rights instruments, including the right of everyone to take part in the government of his or her country directly or indirectly through freely chosen representatives, to vote in such elections by secret ballot, to have an equal opportunity to become a candidate for election, and to put forward his or her political views, individually or in association with others,
From the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), U.S. Department of State:
Free and fair elections require:
...
Secret ballots — voting by secret ballot ensures that an individual's choice of party or candidate cannot be used against him or her.
USAID helpfully cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21.3:
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 25:
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 231 and without unreasonable restrictions... To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.
They call "secrecy of the ballot" a "core election-related international obligation" and define it in the annex as:
Secret ballot: Voters should be able to cast their ballot in secret without fear of intimidation. Ballots should not be able to be linked with individual voters.
If those organizations are a little too America-linked, here's OSCE, circa 2010:
Voting by secret ballot Voters should mark their ballots alone, in the privacy of a voting booth, and in such a way that the marked ballot cannot be seen before it is cast and cannot be later connected with a particular voter. Exceptions can be made only under specified conditions, such as at the request of voters who require assistance, e.g., disabled or illiterate voters. Any voting outside of a voting booth compromises the secrecy of the vote. The presence of more than one person in a voting booth should not be permitted, as it compromises the secrecy of the vote. Open voting or unlawful voting by proxies are violations of the secrecy principle. Arrangements for voting by members of the military and by prisoners should ensure their votes are secret and not subject to coercion.
Reading their COVID-era publication sheds some light on the difficulty:
The right to cast vote by secret ballot is another cornerstone of a democratic electoral process, enshrined in:
1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document, paragraphs 5.1 and 7.4;
1948 UDHR, Article 21;
1966 ICCPR, Article 25;
1996 UN HRC General Comment No. 25, paragraph 20;
1953 ECHR, Additional Protocol, Article 3; and
2002 VC Code of Good Practice, sections I.3.2 and I.4.
Effective protection of secrecy of the vote is one of the key challenges posed by some alternative voting methods, particularly when voting takes place outside the controlled environment of polling stations, such as postal or Internet voting, or when voters' choices are revealed to their appointed representatives, as in the case of proxy voting. Secrecy should therefore be at the forefront of decision-making when introducing or expanding the use of alternative voting methods. It requires safeguards in law and regulations, as well as due care and proactive steps by polling staff to protect it and to prevent any breaches. The importance of the secrecy of the vote, as well as measures taken to protect it should be addressed in civic and voter education programmes, as well as through prompt investigation by law enforcement bodies of its potential violation.
Secrecy considerations are also central in the context of polling station layout and set-up, equipment used, as well as in voter processing and flow management. They need to remain as one of the priorities when considering adjustments to polling station arrangements, including any special measures to mitigate public health risks
They continue in detail:
The secrecy of the vote may also be challenged by remote voting systems like postal voting, as it takes place without the presence of election officials or observers. Postal voting also provides for less oversight of certain behaviours, like influencing the vote of others and family voting. States, nevertheless, have an obligation to take measures to ensure that the principle of secrecy is maintained.
Ballot delivery, marking, and counting systems used in postal voting present considerable and unique challenges to the integrity of elections. There are several commonly used procedural safeguards for voting by mail, such as ballot secrecy envelopes, witness requirements and signature verification. However, these technical solutions may not be enough to instill confidence in postal voting if there is diminished public trust in electoral processes and administration.
You can just tell that they know that this is a problem. They know that their 2010 position was widely considered to be the correct position for good reasons. They even point out some of those good reasons. But what can be done about it? "Eh." Probably nothing. Why yes, everyone must obviously agree with the position that ensuring strict voter secrecy is, in principle, an obligation of States holding free and fair elections, but it just doesn't seem like we can figure out any specific advice to make it actually work, since it's, like, not 2010 anymore. So, well, if we can't come up with any good ideas to actually implement the principle in the face of the concrete thing that we want to do right now, the "principle" will just be attested to verbally, as a signalling mechanism, while we proceed in just trodding all over it.
It's absolutely maddening from a historical and theoretical perspective. What's worse is that it threatens to be yet another issue where we had broad consensus across essentially the entire free world, but now could end up being another issue associated with "loony Trumpists", making it ripe for the chopping block. The impact may not be felt today, or even in the next decade... but I cannot imagine what the long-term consequences could be of simply jettisoning this principle for the rest of time.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Bad laws exist. They should be repealed rather than ignored or applied unevenly. Maintaining laws on the books that no one follows just breeds contempt for the law itself, and allows for the law to be used in a discriminate way. But it should be either/or. Repeal the law, or enforce it. You have to choose one.
But what if "you" don't? What if, what we actually see in practice, in the real world, is that laws are maintained on the books that are applied unevenly and in a discriminatory fashion? What do you do then? Do you start to show contempt for the law itself (or at least the uneven appliers of the law)? Or do you sit back and smugly say that your political opponents should have no problem if they just follow the law?
The central bad thing that Trump did is that he attempted to use illegal and illegitimate methods to hold onto power after losing the election. That act is absolutely being prosecuted.
Ok, I think we're getting somewhere. Which counts would you preserve/defend? For the rest of the charges, would you agree that they are somewhere on the spectrum of "questionable to bullshit", primarily being examples of the entrenched bureaucracy's attempt to use their hard power against someone they view as a political opponent?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
If Biden was on stage getting crowds to chant "lock him up"?
I would vastly prefer a world where his crowds chant "lock him up" and yet, his bureaucrats do not, in fact, lock him up.
If Democrats put together alternate slates of electors in states they lost and tried to get Harris to declare them the real ones?
I've seen many a dirty trick attempted to preserve standing. Also, my understanding was that they were trying to get Pence to simply declare that there was a controversy and that it was not clear.
If Biden called up the rare honest Democratic secretary of state and threatened criminal prosecution if he didn't find him some more votes?
You and I both know that's not what's on that call. But yeah, I'd hate it. I'd be glad that nothing came of it. If the SoS did manage to present evidence of fraudulent votes, I'd want that evidence examined with a fine-tooth comb, and I'd be skeptical. Of course, I'm skeptical of basically everyone's claims when it comes to elections, and I really really don't throw my lot in with thinking that any account is really trustworthy.
If Biden's allies were working to impeach the DA prosecuting him?
I actually haven't been following this story at all. Please point me to further information.
what Trump did was truly egregious and it would be a sick country indeed that let him get away with it.
Then why the hell are you fine with them prosecuting him on mostly bullshit?!?! Like, if it's literal insurrection, prosecute him for insurrection. Bring a case. Bring a real case and prove it. Why bring a bunch of different cases, most of which are on bullshit charges like paying a porn star? And why aren't you focusing specifically on the most truly egregious thing? Or even like a top two? Even here, you're waffling around to this and that and the other thing. Make a specific case for specific egregious behavior.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
To the extent that there has been unfair application of the law, the rectification of that is that other people who have been treated leniently should also be punished. It does not imply that the clearly guilty should go free.
Are you sure you're willing to commit to this? We are a nation of many laws, most of which could be construed expansively (in just the kinds of ways they're doing here), so as to criminalize vast swaths of behavior that no one actually believed was criminal in the first place. Are you really willing to subject your side's politicians, your colleagues, your friends, even yourself, to criminal sanctions for whatever interpretation we can come up with of some abstruse law? Consider this classic post while you're pondering.
If that is the case, and Mr Combetta has been unjustly protected, then the appropriate remedy is to remove those law enforcement officials that have failed to apply the law in an even handed fashion, and to install new ones who will zealously pursue justice against Mr Combetta.
These people are the "entrenched bureaucracy" that we're talking about. You're now sounding like you're flying the MAGA flag.
It would be absurd to have a standard that only successful coups could be punished.
I mean, no one is being prosecuted for even an attempted coup. Remember, they deliberately chose not to prosecute "insurrection".
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
If Christians no longer believe in any kind of detente, any sort of agreement "not to be annoying about it,"
Do you think the same about atheists who no longer believe in any kind of detente, any sort of agreement "not to be annoying about it"? I've heard plenty of atheists talk about the absolutely world-scale horrors that they lay at the feet of Christianity or religion generally, especially in the heyday of the New Atheists. Do you worry at all that that will lead to the extreme outcome, the logical conclusion?
My expectation is that most people conjugate this Russel-style. My concerns can respectfully, softly, and gradually change the world for the better, even if the utopia never comes and the dystopia wasn't imminent anyway. Your concerns are a bit overbearing and annoying, and maybe we should subtly force you to knock it off so we don't have to hear about it. His concerns could cause WWIII if we take them to their logical conclusion, so they must be suppressed By Any Means Necessary.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm asking you to not act like you have no idea what's going on in their minds when you're expressly choosing to not even try to understand what is going on in their minds. Otherwise, the song and dance is going to get tiring. You're going to say on the internet, out of compulsion, that you have no idea what other people are thinking; others will jump in to try to explain what they're thinking; you'll ignore them and go on to say the same things on the internet out of compulsion. Rinse and repeat... onward into the mists of time, as I believe the saying is being used here.
You can either doom yourself to a compulsive cycle of disappointment, or you can attempt to understand the thing that you claim to want to understand. The former path is probably not very good for your mental health or for your productive life outside of compulsive internet arguments.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Most people simply refuse to entertain the idea that there have been unfair applications at all. They rest, as you seemed to have rested, on, 'If he did a crime, he should go to jail.' But that reasoning is completely undermined if, what is actually happening, is unfair application of the law. So, the minimal pathway of arguing is to demonstrate that there are, in fact, unfair applications of the law. This far, you seem to agree. Then, argue that those unfair applications have been targeted against Trump and Trump-adjacents, while being lenient toward others, which dovetails into the claim that the entrenched powers of the bureaucracy are using their hard power in a differential fashion. It is not yet clear what your opinion is on this matter. Finally, we would be in a place to discuss whether these particular charges are of a kind with those or not. But right now, we're at step two.
Do you accept that Mike Flynn was prosecuted for something that Paul Combetta was given a pass for, even though Combetta far more clearly and egregiously violated the law in question? If not, why not? If so, do you have an explanation for this other than that the entrenched powers of the bureaucracy are using their hard power in a differential fashion against Trump-adjacents?
This is the easy part, where we can hopefully come to some relatively benign agreement, in order to show that we are reasoning from similar-enough premises that we don't have to discuss the final topic across a vast inferential gap.
I'm arguing that does not give him a free pass to attempt to illegally hold onto power.
Given that he, in fact, gave up office as scheduled, do you think that he should be allowed to run again in a free and fair election?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
In that case, what does it mean to be the "opposition candidate"?
The candidate for which the entrenched powers of the bureaucracy will pull out every stop in order to oppose.
Perhaps in the early Putin elections, one could say that they were free, as well. It was only after Navalny committed a bunch of crimes that he made himself constitutionally ineligible.
if he had just followed the law, he would have no impediment to doing so again.
This relies on two premises: 1) That he didn't follow the law, at least to the same extent that most people follow the law, and 2) That other people would be equally prosecuted for not following the law, at least to the same extent that Trump can be said to have not followed the law. Both points are highly disputed and to the extent you simply ignore the dispute and ignore the details of people claiming a double standard, no one who you're trying to reach is going to believe you. If you want an explanation why they're not going to magically wake up and suddenly think like you, it's because you haven't even actually tried to engage with what makes them think differently.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Ok, thanks for clearing up your literary turn of phrase.
Back to the main quest. So, you're actually just ignorant of the examples people have of a double standard. Perhaps you could check out the IG report on the matter, with choice quotes from agents who were sure that he committed the same crime, more blatantly, and had no idea why he wasn't prosecuted?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Trump wasn't in opposition to the entrenched powers in the bureaucracy.
Allow me to clarify. The entrenched powers in the bureaucracy were in opposition to Trump. Regardless of whether Trump viewed himself as being in opposition to them, whether he took actions to weaken them, or whether he was successful in such actions. None of those things are actually relevant for determining whether the entrenched powers in the bureaucracy believed themselves to be in opposition to Trump or whether they took actions to weaken him, or whether they were successful in such actions.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Ok, I'll venture on this side quest with you. I'll promise to come back to the main point afterward.
But at this stage I feel like too many people are in too deep to ever find their way out. Trump is a winner, so if he loses, it's because they cheated. And if he goes to jail it's because he was unfairly targeted, definitely not because he committed a stupendous number of crimes trying to illegally hold on to power. So another loss will simply become even more evidence of how rigged the system is, and another reason to support Trump even harder, onwards into the mists of time.
I am not the best at literary interpretation, so please help me understand what you mean here. When I look up the phrase "mists of time", it says, "used to show that something happened a very long time ago and is difficult to remember clearly". My sense is that this is because of the ultimate nature of mist - it is fleeting, never pinned down to being concretely known in the specifics. My sense is that the point here is that any allegations of double-standards aren't actually true, and that you think Trump-supporters are the ones who won't get pinned down to concrete specifics. Instead, they'll just roll it into the amorphous mist. Is this not what you meant?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Ah, so you're actually just ignorant of the examples people have of a double standard. That's why you think they're just mists of time. Perhaps you could check out the IG report on the matter, with choice quotes from agents who were sure that he committed the same crime, more blatantly, and had no idea why he wasn't prosecuted? Perhaps you could look in to some of the allegations before broadly declaring that they're all nothing but mist?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
You're mistaking what it means to be "opposition". I think everyone else is saying that "opposition" means "opposition to entrenched powers in the bureaucracy". But that mark, only one of the two last presidential elections was won by the opposition. We saw it happen the first time, and then we saw the entrenched powers in the bureaucracy absolutely freak out and go totally mad, we saw them publicly declare that they felt bad about not pulling out all the stops to prevent it, publicly declare that they were going to pull out all the stops to prevent it from happening again, and then we saw them actually pull out all the stops to prevent it from happening again.
It would be as if Putin somehow lost an election, spent a term essentially running the government from afar, saw that Navalny had zero success in wrangling any of the organs of power, and then saw all those organs of power ensure that Navalny lost the following election to Putin and was promptly jailed.
It appears as though you have pretty much already stated that you would like such people to be prosecuted. My question to you is why you think people like Mike Flynn were vigorously prosecuted for substantially less troubling behavior, with respect to the same law, while it was just known that these folks were never going to get prosecuted.
Which actions would those be?
Like, for example, when Glenn Greenwald possessed national defense information belonging to the NSA, he had no right to retain them and should have handed them over rather than publish them on the internet? Would you support vigorous prosecution of Glenn Greenwald?
There must always be a process. There must always be a "who decides" and a when that decision is made. I think in nearly all cases, such determination would flow from Article II, just the same as for classified information.
Right, but the question is whether he actually solicited something illegal. "Can y'all have a special session and look into this?" doesn't seem like soliciting something illegal.
I think these hypos are focused precisely where they should be: on the secretary of state or public official who is actually doing something. At that point, we can look at what they've actually done, we can start to look at the rationales involved and such. But this is a vast step removed. "Hey, can you look in to whether Trump is less than 35?" is monumentally stupid, but it seems to beggar belief that it should be criminal.
This is a good segue to the other comment, where Trump's tweet is apparently an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy. I don't necessarily agree with the implications of his claims in the tweet, but IIRC, there were, in fact, some state legislatures who had tried to or expressed desires to exert some power over the process, given some of the weirdness that occurred with last minute judicial changes to the election proceedings. The validity of those attempts are pretty complicated, and while I might agree for any particular state that, in the end, the balance of state and federal law leans against that being the proper outcome, it is surely more akin to, "Section 3 is a complicated question involving deep questions of law and history," than, "Is Trump under 35?"
I would also note that, as best as I can tell, the indictment did not cite that tweet in support of the claim that he is guilty of the charge in question.
Scoping back out, I think my major point is that, even if at the end of the day we can construct some minimally plausible way to "get Trump" on at least one of the charges, nearly every single charge that we've seen has either deep theoretical or practical complications/issues, or both. They implicate incredibly deep and complicated issues of statutory interpretation, Constitutional boundaries, and Presidential powers. They all require quite a bit of straining to even get close. And when we cut into them, we see something like, "He didn't have to do anything; he just had to ask someone to look in to something," which is extremely troubling.
With such incredible complications, if I were to scope way out and try to do a similar estimate to what I did back in the Hillary case (of "success"), I'd probably have to say something similar. Perhaps with an additional caveat or two. Caveat one: my estimate is going to be, "What would the chances be for a successful prosecution under these theories/facts, but not in a world involving such immense polarization around it being Trump, like if it was just a regular, non-polarizing person?" The question without this caveat would be more of an exercise in predicting the forum and the resulting composition. The second caveat is that my estimate is going to be after appeals have gone up to actually balance these deep theoretical/historical concerns with at least some care taken for not completely fucking up the future. That is, Ted Stevens may have been found guilty, and that may have been enough to sink his political career, but after the partisan incentives subsided, we realized that it was not supportable if we're going to have even minimal concern for the way things should be done in a healthy democracy.
So, with those caveats, I would similarly put "success" on these charges at something closer to 50/50 than 80/20. And similarly to what I said about Hillary's non-prosecute, I would be just fine with seeing a non-prosecute of Trump, too, especially considering that everyone knows that he's a major frontrunner candidate. It is deeply troubling that some politicians, the ones disliked by the permanent bureaucracy, are going to get hounded on questionable charges as a mechanism to prevent them from (re)attaining political office, while the ones who are liked by the permanent bureacracy skate freely. It is an absolutely unsustainable situation that will drive further polarization, further disbelief in the legitimacy of our institutions, further disbelief in the legitimacy of our elections, and even more damage to the health of our democracy.
I would put my preferences in order of 1) Just fucking vote against the guy and make him lose again, 2) Actually lay out a real, solid case that he "engaged in" or "provided aid and comfort" to an insurrection and go through a proper process of rendering him ineligible under Section 3, 3) Bring endless ticky-tack charges that fill the pages of numerous indictments, trying to win by the persuasiveness of many words and hoping that any, just one, of your charges happens to find an left-enough-leaning jury to get it to stick (at least until appeals long after it matters). So far, I'm really getting the sense that you're gradually retreating toward, "Ehhhh, if we really squint our eyes, we can mayyyybe teeeechnically get him on X," than, "No, actually, right here is a clear example of obvious lawbreaking that is squarely within the purpose of the law and its long-standing application, without any serious theoretical/factual deficiencies/questions."
More options
Context Copy link