covfefe
-
of course it is but in a few decades time, he'll probably be remembered as the champion of America or something even more horrifying.
Either that, or Poegressives of the type that @Polygeekery likes to post about in the garage will have taken over, or a civil war will have made the point moot. My retirement plan now involves learning Spanish and moving to Central America.
-
@antiquarian you could always come to Europe and be a Euroweenie.
-
@Luhmann Indeed. If actual policy and rulings are based on tweets they also need to be part of a permanent record.
No. We need to stop making policy and rulings based upon tweets.
-
@Polygeekery we need to pry the Twitter devices from the President's freakishly tiny hands first.
-
@Arantor why? Does every batshit crazy opinion of his that be spouts off without filtering it need to be a matter of "policy and rulings"?
-
@Polygeekery why give him a platform for his batshit crazy in the first place?
-
@Arantor judging by his current job title, I think that ship has sailed.
Other than that, the First Amendment seems like a good reason.
Also, humor.
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
@Arantor why? Does every batshit crazy opinion of his that be spouts off without filtering it need to be a matter of "policy and rulings"?
He's the freaking president, for chrissakes. Of course everything he says is a matter of public record. Geeze.
We cannot simply ignore what he says on Twitter. Especially when he directly contradicts himself or his team.
-
@ben_lubar I love how most of the "this isn't funny" crowd is also the liberal-bashing crowd. It's almost as if they couldn't bear to see their Dear Leader being made fun of...
Almost like when Obama said that he'd been to 57 states, and the liberals were all like "hurr durr, this isn't funny"?
However, on a scale of misspelling "Syracuse" as "Sycacuse" to accidentally acknowledging the "nigger factor on the right", I'd put covfefe somewhere pretty close to Sycacuse.
-
We cannot simply ignore what he says on Twitter.
It's a good thing no one's suggesting that, then.
-
@antiquarian said in covfefe:
We cannot simply ignore what he says on Twitter.
It's a good thing no one's suggesting that, then.
I quote:
why? Does every batshit crazy opinion of his that be spouts off without filtering it need to be a matter of "policy and rulings"?
That's very much a suggestion that we ignore what he says.
-
He's the freaking president, for chrissakes. Of course everything he says is a matter of public record. Geeze.
Why are you arguing against things I did not even say? Give the shoulder aliens a rest.
-
why? Does every batshit crazy opinion of his that be spouts off without filtering it need to be a matter of "policy and rulings"?
That's very much a suggestion that we ignore what he says.
Parse better.
-
That's very much a suggestion that we ignore what he says.
No it isn't. Stop being retarded. Read the words I actually type and try not to insert any.
-
@Polygeekery Of course you said that. Parse your own sentences better.
-
@Polygeekery Of course you said that. Parse your own sentences better.
How dare you deny my experiences.
Seriously though, I did say that, but it does not say what you said it says.
-
@Polygeekery The point is that this is like those arguments about "Freedom of speech is absolute!" some people here are always making:
You're suggesting that we ignore some of his "batshit insane tweets" in regards to "policy and rulings".
That's a problem though: When exactly is a tweet of his deemed "batshit insane"?
-
@Rhywden I tell you what...let's go back to what was actually said:
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
No. We need to stop making policy and rulings based upon tweets.
and:
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
why? Does every batshit crazy opinion of his that be spouts off without filtering it need to be a matter of "policy and rulings"?
You are saying that this is exactly the same as:
a suggestion that we ignore what he says.
But it is not.
-
@Polygeekery The thing is: Rulings (as in: Done by one or several judges in a court of law) are usually based quite a bit on the intent behind a particular act or action.
In order to know the intent you have to consider every pertinent detail about the persons involved.
Which means that it's important to keep records of everything the president says in public. How else should we decipher the intent behind his actions?
And, yes, "batshit insane tweets" are also something you can glean an intention from.
-
The thing is: Rulings (as in: Done by one or several judges in a court of law) are usually based quite a bit on the intent behind a particular act or action.
Which is a bit retarded in many scenarios. Like in the case of the travel ban.
-
That's a problem though: When exactly is a tweet of his deemed "batshit insane"?
When it's posted?
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
Which is a bit retarded in many scenarios. Like in the case of the travel ban.
If it's any consolation, they don't always do it (see Interstate Commerce clause).
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
The thing is: Rulings (as in: Done by one or several judges in a court of law) are usually based quite a bit on the intent behind a particular act or action.
Which is a bit retarded in many scenarios. Like in the case of the travel ban.
I'm not quite sure you comprehend how law actually works.
Let me put it this way: If you were whining about "Big Government" before then you should see how big government would have to become if you tried to take out "intent".
-
I'd say I can't wait for the next USian presidential elections, but that's a different brand of crazy altogether.
Isn't it about time the campaigning started for those?
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
The thing is: Rulings (as in: Done by one or several judges in a court of law) are usually based quite a bit on the intent behind a particular act or action.
Which is a bit retarded in many scenarios. Like in the case of the travel ban.
I'm not quite sure you comprehend how law actually works.
Let me put it this way: If you were whining about "Big Government" before then you should see how big government would have to become if you tried to take out "intent".
Let me put it to you this way: When the ACLU lawyers said that if Hillary had instituted a travel ban it would be constitutional, that was fucking retarded.
-
@antiquarian you could always come to Europe and be a Euroweenie.
Just take into consideration our tiny cars aren't sized for overweight Americans.
-
@antiquarian said in covfefe:
tweets that were being cited as precedent towards legal rulings.
:theresyourproblem.jpg:
Why is that a problem? If I remember correctly, the court case that was used as precedent for considering a politician's public comments as part of the motivation for a discriminatory law was from the 1980s.
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
@Arantor why? Does every batshit crazy opinion of his that be spouts off without filtering it need to be a matter of "policy and rulings"?
He's the freaking president, for chrissakes. Of course everything he says is a matter of public record. Geeze.
We cannot simply ignore what he says on Twitter. Especially when he directly contradicts himself or his team.
Politician contradicts himself. News at a 11.
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
@Arantor why? Does every batshit crazy opinion of his that be spouts off without filtering it need to be a matter of "policy and rulings"?
He's the freaking president, for chrissakes. Of course everything he says is a matter of public record. Geeze.
We cannot simply ignore what he says on Twitter. Especially when he directly contradicts himself or his team.
Republican Politician contradicts himself. News at a 11.
I doubt you'd have been so blase about the idea of Obama contradicting himself
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
Let me put it to you this way: When the ACLU lawyers said that if Hillary had instituted a travel ban it would be constitutional, that was fucking retarded.
Rules are for losers.
@Dragnslcr said in covfefe:
If I remember correctly, the court case that was used as precedent for considering a politician's public comments as part of the motivation for a discriminatory law was from the 1980s.
OK, but there's no rule limiting public comments to 175 characters or less.
I doubt you'd have been so blase about the idea of Obama contradicting himself
Why?
-
@antiquarian said in covfefe:
Why?
Because everyone notices and revels in it when the Other Guys mess up, but disregard it when Our People mess up, because they totally had a reason. Basic human nature, and I'm certainly not trying to imply that it;s restricted to the right
-
@Jaloopa But don't you think it's possible for at least some people to rise above tribalism and actually treat people's actions objectively?
-
@antiquarian It's possible for people to try, and it's certainly possible to think they've succeeded, but I suspect very few actually manage to eliminate or even recognise most of their biases. I'm certain I don't and I generally try to show at least as much skepticism to claims I'm inclined to believe as I do to stuff from the other side
-
@antiquarian said in covfefe:
But don't you think it's possible for at least some people to rise above tribalism and actually treat people's actions objectively?
On the internet?
-
@Jaloopa But that means that you're admitting that you're incapable of objectivity, and therefore no one has any reason to take what you say seriously. By the way, you can safely disregard anything cultural Marxists have to say for basically the same reason.
-
@antiquarian said in covfefe:
But that means that you're admitting that you're incapable of objectivity, and therefore no one has any reason to take what you say seriously
I'm incapable of complete objectivity, and with that caveat and knowledge of my biases it is possible to decide whether my views on a particular subject are to be taken with a pinch or a bucket of salt. It's not an absolute thing where you're either completely objective or completely batshit crazy, and suggesting so is a bit of a strawman
-
@Jaloopa Or you could just judge what people have to say on its merits and leave their possible biases out of it entirely.
-
@antiquarian It's worth being aware of biases, both yours and other parties'.
-
@Jaloopa That might be true if we were capable of accurately determining what those biases are, but you don't seem to be based on your assumption about @Karla. And in the context, "possibly biased" has about has much value as "possibly pregnant". If it matters, we probably need to find out for sure. And if we can't find out for sure, it probably doesn't matter.
-
@antiquarian said in covfefe:
And in the context, "possibly biased" has about has much value as "possibly pregnant". If it matters, we probably need to find out for sure. And if we can't find out for sure, it probably doesn't matter.
BABY KILLER!!!!
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
The thing is: Rulings (as in: Done by one or several judges in a court of law) are usually based quite a bit on the intent behind a particular act or action.
Which is a bit retarded in many scenarios. Like in the case of the travel ban.
I'm not quite sure you comprehend how law actually works.
Let me put it this way: If you were whining about "Big Government" before then you should see how big government would have to become if you tried to take out "intent".
Let me put it to you this way: When the ACLU lawyers said that if Hillary had instituted a travel ban it would be constitutional, that was fucking retarded.
Wake me up when judges say the same thing.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
The thing is: Rulings (as in: Done by one or several judges in a court of law) are usually based quite a bit on the intent behind a particular act or action.
Which is a bit retarded in many scenarios. Like in the case of the travel ban.
I'm not quite sure you comprehend how law actually works.
Let me put it this way: If you were whining about "Big Government" before then you should see how big government would have to become if you tried to take out "intent".
Let me put it to you this way: When the ACLU lawyers said that if Hillary had instituted a travel ban it would be constitutional, that was fucking retarded.
Wake me up when judges say the same thing.
The only thing that mattered to me in that scenario was whether or not it needed to be done and if he was constitutionally allowed to do so.
It was not a "Muslim ban", because there were two other countries with more Muslims in them that did not fall under the travel ban. It was clearly meant to ban travel from countries known to have a shitload of terrorists. Those terrorists happen to be Muslim.
-
Where's your balls? Just go ahead and say it.
-
@Polygeekery I assumed double post, especially since it happened around when I was seeing cooties
-
@Jaloopa yeah, what's up with that? Performance seems to really be going to shit lately.
-
@Polygeekery I assumed double post, especially since it happened around when I was seeing cooties
Yeah, that.
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
The thing is: Rulings (as in: Done by one or several judges in a court of law) are usually based quite a bit on the intent behind a particular act or action.
Which is a bit retarded in many scenarios. Like in the case of the travel ban.
I'm not quite sure you comprehend how law actually works.
Let me put it this way: If you were whining about "Big Government" before then you should see how big government would have to become if you tried to take out "intent".
Let me put it to you this way: When the ACLU lawyers said that if Hillary had instituted a travel ban it would be constitutional, that was fucking retarded.
Wake me up when judges say the same thing.
The only thing that mattered to me in that scenario was whether or not it needed to be done and if he was constitutionally allowed to do so.
It was not a "Muslim ban", because there were two other countries with more Muslims in them that did not fall under the travel ban. It was clearly meant to ban travel from countries known to have a shitload of terrorists. Those terrorists happen to be Muslim.
I rather question that there's an actual need for such a ban. Plus, the way he went about it he threw quite a number of people under the bus. Like translators for the US forces who worked for you guys and as a result, their life is now in danger.
See London. That was a homegrown problem.
-
Like translators for the US forces who worked for you guys and as a result, their life is now in danger.
And? So we can never do anything if there is ever unintended consequences? We can never weigh cost vs benefits? We cannot write an exemption in the law for translators?
See London. That was a homegrown problem.
A homegrown problem that attempted to travel to Syria for further radicalization. Had he been better trained, the incident could have been worse. There have been other attackers who have traveled to IS areas for further radicalization.
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
@Arantor why? Does every batshit crazy opinion of his that be spouts off without filtering it need to be a matter of "policy and rulings"?
He's the freaking president, for chrissakes. Of course everything he says is a matter of public record. Geeze.
We cannot simply ignore what he says on Twitter. Especially when he directly contradicts himself or his team.
Republican Politician contradicts himself. News at a 11.
I doubt you'd have been so blase about the idea of Obama contradicting himself
You can doubt the earth is round, doesn't change anything.