I’m OK with plea bargaining from murder second to manslaughter, or armed robbery to assault, because those are all real crimes. I don’t hold with “process crimes” except when they involve threats or damage to persons or property (such as destroying evidence, threatening witnesses, etc.)
Well, true, but given an opportunity the EU would get on board with this, imo. It’d be a negotiation, but dollars to donuts it’d happen. (What’d be the way to translate “dollars to donuts” across the pond, anyway? “Pounds sterling to crumpets”? 
)
I was just at Tim Hortons paying a dollar for a doughnut and contemplating how that phrase has become obsolete.
Anyway, I really don’t know how the EU would respond to the UK trying to back out. I mean, on one hand they presumably want the UK to stay. On the other hand, they may think, “Well, if we let them stay now they’ll just be voting to leave again next year, fuck this.”
3 Likes
Edit: This was supposed to be to @d_r, sorry about the mispost.
From my own personal point of view, if you want to let people know that you’d prefer they use the proper name for your party of choice, that’s great! Education and history are social goods. Even if you are going to refuse to interact with people who don’t meet your purity test, sure, do your thing! You’re a free man, hooray for freedom of association.
When it’s not fine with me is when you insist that people who never heard of this issue are automatically not worth listening to because they didn’t know your shibboleths. Trying to shut down dialog like that is not cool, and I will object and flag every time anyone does it.
Do you get where I’m coming from? No problem with insistence on proper names, big problem with ad hominem and guilt by association posts that label people McCarthyites simply because they don’t know the Democratic Party’s officially blessed naming conventions. At least 90% of the world don’t know and don’t care and that doesn’t make their voices invalid.
2 Likes
Members of the EU leadership have already publicly invited the UK to change their mind.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but as repeatedly pointed out above this particular name mangling has been a part of an intentional, widespread, extremely well-known campaign by repugnant people for many years. It is a completely reasonable conclusion that anyone using that name is doing so either intentionally while aware of this use and therefore a fellow-traveler with the coiners, or is relatively uninformed about a nontrivial aspect of American party politics.
In the latter case the right reaction, as with any such mistake, is to admit the mistake and apologize for the offense. (As, for example, Jesse Jackson did with “H****town”.) Doubling down on the use (eg, by arguing that the term isn’t so bad) doesn’t cut it, and neither does posting in all-caps boldface large type that the person who pointed out the transgression has committed a bannable offense.
2 Likes
Good to know.
1 Like
OK, those two letters are a hill you’re willing to die on, and attempting to delegitimize speech based on in-group shibboleths is the hill for me. I guess we’ve both made our positions clear, then, no need to belabor the point further.
Dude, I’m not the guy that used the offending language and continues to insist he’s the victim, and I never tried to get your posts banned. Use whatever language you want, but don’t expect people to not draw inferences from it.
3 Likes
Actually there is a connection.
(1) Russians hack DNC servers (if 'hacking" is the right term for social engineering John Podesta’s password).
(2) Material on DNC servers is made public.
(3) Trump defeats Clinton.
I don’t believe there is any authenticated Russian action to influence the election process other than the public release of information about the DNC’s processes.
WTF, how thirsty are you right now. It’s hacking. The DNC got hacked, and virtually all of the evidence points toward people working for another state. You’ll now try to bring up the DNC rigging the primary, without actually giving any evidence for it, as if that is germane at all to the crime committed against them. It’s not. The DNC had their private correspondence stolen and leaked with the explicit aim of helping a candidate. That’s a crime under any definition, and the fact that Greenwald thinks that crimes should only be prosecuted when they don’t get in the way of his money says a lot about what he thinks journalism is for.
1 Like
I’ll accept the premise that this was a crime.
(1) I do not think it’s any more of a crime than anything Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning did. (Releasing a massive data dump without first making specific allegations is not “whistleblowing”)
(2) What, specifically, was contained in the DNC’s correspondence which was helpful to Trump?
“Hacking” has been redefined to mean “releasing information that causes people to vote in a way that I don’t like”.
Didn’t you get the memo? It was in the New Red Scare section.
2 Likes
Both Manning and Snowden were alleging crimes being committed, there is nowhere near the level of misdoing contained in the DNC emails because a) the DNC isn’t the government and isn’t accountable in the same ways and b) there is literally no evidence of anybody doing anything against DNC bylaws or tampering with the outcome of the 50+ primary elections that resulted in HRC winning the nomination.
What the DNC emails did was a) embarrass people in the Democratic campaign by revealing all the gossip and catty things they said about other people and b) distract from the very real corruption investigations taking place for Trump and his associates.
4 Likes
Do you contend that those were decisive in the election results?
1 Like
Oh, and one more thing: both Manning and Snowden worked for the places they stole documents from. The DNC emails were stolen by someone who, by definition, could not have known what was in them. That’s not whistleblowing, that’s at best theft with good intentions, but in most every other circumstance, larceny and kompromat.
That’s why dudes were so thirsty for the Seth Rich lie, because then they could pretend that it was anything other than it was.
2 Likes
Well yeah, you magnificent creature. Embarrassment and distraction are time-tested campaign techniques. Why on earth are you being so obtuse about this?
1 Like
Given how close the election was, it is entirely reasonable to think that almost everything was decisive. If we can believe that it shifted a few tenths of a percent of the public opinion, we can believe it decided the election.
3 Likes
1 Like
…and you find evidence in the DNC emails that this was violated, where exactly?
