The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. - Page 984 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

...

Page 984 of 5382

First

484 784 884 934 964 974 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 994 1004 1034 1084 1184 1484 1984

Last

Page 984 of 5382

First

484 784 884 934 964 974 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 994 1004 1034 1084 1184 1484 1984

Last

04-05-2017 , 06:22 PM

#24576

Max Cut

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by champstark

NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ties.html?_r=0

also #notheonion

failing NYT troll game is on point

04-05-2017 , 06:25 PM

#24577

sylar

Ivan Drago's homeslice

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 20,307

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

Trump may have a better chance to get an Israel-Palestinian deal than people think. Not because he is a good negotiator but rather because Israel might make concessions that they otherwise wouldn't so that credit goes to Trump and his Orthodox Jewish son in law.

i mean, this reasoning is essentially only plausible when trump is a liability at the negotiating table. like, bibi is going to realize that his ally is so bad, that he'll just take whatever he can at the negotiating table before said ally can cause more damage.

the only problem is that neither trump or netanyahu negotiate in good faith. they are hard-liners like all authoritarian bullies, although one is more of a kleptocrat while the other is more of an ideologue. it is a tactic of their regimes to drag their opponent to exhaustion, rather than resolution.

04-05-2017 , 06:30 PM

#24578

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

If the GOP does go nuclear, I think the response for the Democratic Party is absolutely crystal clear: filibuster EVERY. SINGLE. THING. Until 2018 elections are over or the FBI investigation has been completed, whichever comes last (assuming no indictments, obviously).

04-05-2017 , 06:50 PM

#24579

pudley4

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 6,828

Quote:

Originally Posted by microbet

Tillerson isn't very good at this.

No kidding

Rubio says Tillerson the reason for the Syrian chemical attack

04-05-2017 , 06:53 PM

#24580

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllTheCheese

Yeah I agree, and I've said this a million times. But that's the only reason (well that and **** Trump). All of this flailing around to find other reasons "Holy ****, he copied some facts! --> Intellectually bankrupt, not fit to serve," are not only absurd, but also a waste of time and disingenuous.

He would have likely failed a freshman college course. Downplaying integrity and ethics is part of the Trumpification of America, so this kind of downplaying is not at all surprising.

04-05-2017 , 06:54 PM

#24581

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

Quote:

Originally Posted by einbert

technically, dems should filibuster repubs until their party brings some moderates to the table. Don't allow the extreme wing of the party to hurt our country.

04-05-2017 , 07:03 PM

#24582

th14

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,460

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllTheCheese

Some thought it was plagiarism. Some thought it was sloppy (which is where I'm at). The author of the original text didn't think much of it at all.

I can only speak to text overlap being common in math. There are legal guys here, I hope they will weigh in. But "someone else's definition" is a somewhat wrong way of looking at it in math. They will get cited if they're sufficiently new (under 15 years old) and novel, but standard definitions won't. Many times a definition is just a bunch of existing concepts being isolated in an obvious way. If you define MC(G) to be the (class of a) maximally compact subgroup of G, then you really can't call that definition "your work." The concepts in it already exist and have been studied, and the name is obvious.

There was a court case. An article in the Indiana Law Review analyzed the court case. Gorsuch in his book essentially copy-pasted the analysis, changed a handful of words and presented it as his own without attribution. It's virtually impossible his writing would so mirror the article by coincidence, so he should have cited from whence the text really came.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllTheCheese

Gorsuch's copied text lays out complicated technical facts of a case he will go on to make his own arguments about. No one is assessing his prose writing. To rephrase those facts in his own words would likely open him up to error.

Judge Gorsuch's job routinely involves him assessing a case and summarizing it. Rather than do that, he copied a law student's assessment. That increases the likelihood of error rather than decrease.

04-05-2017 , 07:06 PM

#24583

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib

technically, dems should filibuster repubs until their party brings some moderates to the table. Don't allow the extreme wing of the party to hurt our country.

If Trump can muster up some positive legislation that actually helps people, sure. But I absolutely do not see that happening.

04-05-2017 , 07:06 PM

#24584

AllTheCheese

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 11,898

Quote:

Originally Posted by th14

There was a court case. An article in the Indiana Law Review analyzed the court case. Gorsuch in his book essentially copy-pasted the analysis, changed a handful of words and presented it as his own without attribution. It's virtually impossible his writing would so mirror the article by coincidence, so he should have cited from whence the text really came.

Did he copy paste the analysis? I thought he only copy pasted a factual summary of the events. That's what it looked like from the Politico article. If he actually copied their analysis, that's hugely different and certainly plagiarism.

04-05-2017 , 07:07 PM

#24585

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllTheCheese

This is wrong. It is absolutely plagiarism. It's also a particularly egregious example. It is plagiarism if a writer borrows too much of the language and/or structure of the original work or if the writer fails to provide a citation to a source of information. Gorsuch did both.

Quote:

That's what quotation marks are for. And he still never cited the source he copied from.

Quote:

I would say it is better to quote the whole thing and attribute the source. But it's not egregious to skip the attribution, because again, these are facts written in plain, direct prose.

It's not just better, it's the only way to avoid a potential plagiarism charge.

Quote:

If you go on the arXiv, you will find many math papers with substantial text overlap. From einbert's perspective, this would imply a huge crisis of academic integrity in math. But what it actually is is people copying definitions of complex mathematical quantities, using the exact wording so as to avoid potentially subtle errors.

This doesn't seem like the same thing at all.

04-05-2017 , 07:10 PM

#24586

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 37,840

I question the assumption mathematicians aren't as prone to plagiarism as other scholars.

04-05-2017 , 07:12 PM

#24587

ScreaminAsian

For President

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 33,333

you should cite paraphrasing especially the way he did it. he didn't cite his source because he didn't want to read into the case and would rather present someone else's summary as if it's his own words, to trick the reader into thinking he did read into the case. scumbag

04-05-2017 , 07:12 PM

#24588

AllTheCheese

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 11,898

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

I question the assumption mathematicians aren't as prone to plagiarism as other scholars.

Am I supposed to be the one making that assumption? How so? It's not something I believe in any case.

04-05-2017 , 07:18 PM

#24589

+rep_lol

banned

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 14,900

Quote:

Originally Posted by einbert

If Trump can muster up some positive legislation that actually helps people, sure. But I absolutely do not see that happening.

ya i mean i don't sit around badmouthing nixon for creating the EPA, or gwb for creating medicare part D

04-05-2017 , 07:25 PM

#24590

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,273

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

Who knew the secret to solving the Israeli/Palestinesn conflict was to have a token Jewish friend?

My presumption is that Kushner will be a major part of the negotiations, not just Trump's Jewish friend. Has there ever been an Orthodox Jew leading the American side in the past? This could help not only because Israel would trust him more and would like to see credit be given one of their own, but also because Kushner might have a better feel for what issues Israel could be persuaded to relent on.

04-05-2017 , 07:26 PM

#24591

Max Cut

Guest

Posts: n/a

Not sure mathematicians should be expected to craft prose. Advances might suffer!

04-05-2017 , 07:29 PM

#24592

5ive

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 6,766

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Like if there is one thing the turnout rates show, it was lower than expected minority turnout. Hillary should've called Trump racist more often. Like, IDK, once. Hillary never brought up the Central Park Five. Her attack on the birth certificate was a rambling request for an apology to black people(???) for like, hurting Obama's feelings(???).

Unless there were two birtherism callouts, the one I'm thinking of was pretty straightforward and she dropped the R-bomb, I believe in the 3rd debate. That was my first of two 'I'm With Her' moments, late in the game.

04-05-2017 , 07:35 PM

#24593

Clovis8

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 16,503

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

Seriously? This can't be serious.

04-05-2017 , 07:37 PM

#24594

bobman0330

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 24,234

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllTheCheese

I would hold him accountable in the sense that if I was his editor I'd tell him he should cite the source. But it's not plagiarism as you understand it. It would raise a red flag if he were an undergraduate student, because in all undergraduate writing assignments, they're partly being assessed on writing ability.

Gorsuch's copied text lays out complicated technical facts of a case he will go on to make his own arguments about. No one is assessing his prose writing. To rephrase those facts in his own words would likely open him up to error.

I would say it is better to quote the whole thing and attribute the source. But it's not egregious to skip the attribution, because again, these are facts written in plain, direct prose.

If you go on the arXiv, you will find many math papers with substantial text overlap. From einbert's perspective, this would imply a huge crisis of academic integrity in math. But what it actually is is people copying definitions of complex mathematical quantities, using the exact wording so as to avoid potentially subtle errors.

I buy this exactly zero percent. Summarizing the relevant facts of a case for further analysis is real legal work that requires thought, care, and judgment. Stealing someone else's summary both deprives them of the credit they deserve and also misinforms the reader about whose judgment went into preparing the summary. It's also unconscionably lazy and careless. How the **** do you analyze a case you don't understand well enough to summarize?

04-05-2017 , 07:49 PM

#24595

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 37,840

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

Kissinger and Albright were both refugees from the Holocaust.

04-05-2017 , 07:53 PM

#24596

TheHip41

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,049

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllTheCheese

Did sessions lie? Or did he answer a different questions so it wasn't a lie.

You ****s are all the same. 2+2=5

We got it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

04-05-2017 , 07:55 PM

#24597

Chips Ahoy

help me help you

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,869

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

https://newrepublic.com/article/1187...eace-deal-died

Here's a long article about the last serious attempt at peace. If you read it you'll see the problem is difficult and Israel not trusting Americans because our negotiators aren't Jewish enough is not an obstacle or an opportunity.

From that article:

Quote:

Benjamin Netanyahu and John Kerry first met each other in the mid-’70s, in Boston, when Netanyahu (better known as Bibi) worked there as a management consultant. Years later, during Kerry’s frequent trips to Israel as a senator, the two would typically get together for catch-up dinners; it never seemed to bother them that their politics were so different. “There’s a sense [on Netanyahu’s part] that Kerry has an emotional commitment to Israel,” said Israeli Ambassador to the United States and longtime Bibi confidante Ron Dermer.

Quote:

Abbas had always been more wary. From the beginning, he felt as if Kerry was privileging Netanyahu’s needs over his. And the numbers seemed to bear the Palestinian leader out: Kerry had met with Netanyahu nearly twice as often as he had with him. It was not lost on the Palestinians, either, that the secretary’s team—Indyk, Lowenstein, Makovsky, Schwartz, Yaffe, Goldenberg, Blumenfeld—sounded like a Bar Mitzvah guest list.

The issues are real, they are difficult. Impossible?

Israel will move because it makes internal political sense. Their care levels about US politics are about the same as your care levels about Israeli politics.

04-05-2017 , 07:57 PM

#24598

AllTheCheese

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 11,898

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHip41

Did sessions lie? Or did he answer a different questions so it wasn't a lie.

You ****s are all the same. 2+2=5

We got it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, Sessions lied. 2+2 = 4. You might know that I believed Sessions lied from the dozens of posts I made arguing with Sushy et al about it.

Amazing how little impression my 1000 or so posts itf have left that you think I'm a Trump supporter (which I presume is what you mean by "you ****s")