Jump to content

@~thehung

Superherø
  • Content Count

    5,937
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    83

Everything posted by @~thehung

  1. i'd already discounted that one. but if you remember posting it, i guess that would be it.
  2. 1: the gist is definitely true. have to admit to being jaded about the even handedness of satire at the moment though. i was an intermittent watcher of Sam Bee for quite a while, then a frequent watcher in the lead up to the 2016 election. that show has always worn its politics on its sleeve as decidedly leftist, but i was not prepared for how quickly it became nauseatingly shrill and childish and unwatchable immediately following the election. Colbert, i still watch a lot of, but it too has suffered in quality since it morphed into the Shit-on-Trump show, wherein no joke is too cheap. the Jim Jefferies Show is a rare one in that he can tear conservativism a new one all day without the show feeling like dutifully sanitised humour pitched exclusively to a cheer squad of what the right would call 'liberal snowflakes'. 2. Cybes (i think) linked to a great video on this ages ago, about studies on how left/right biases are somewhat hard-wired in people. mightve been something Jonathan Haidt did, but its not any of those i found
  3. @~thehung

    What's on your mind?

    i always drag my heels on Firefox updates. theyre always fixing stuff that aint broke, and breaking extensions. a problem i am having recently is Reddit is borked. eg. "VIEW ENTIRE DISCUSSION" button doesnt work. i am not sure if it relies on some newer browser feature, or if its now incompatible with something ive done. the kludge, for the time being, is reloading the page as old.reddit.com, but thats really starting to get on my tits...
  4. @~thehung

    What Did You Watch Lately ?

    you acknowledged how long it is, and he himself says its "long and more boring than my usual stuff". he seems likable enough, and the phrase "games as a service" alone pisses me off. hence, you would think i could muster the patience to endure his woefully undisciplined prattling. but alas, no. i really tried. cliff notes? any game in particular that is an exemplar of the crux of this?
  5. @~thehung

    What a joke

    1. The Appointment of the Special Counsel and the President ' s Reaction On May 17, 2017, Acting Attorney General Rosenstein appointed Robert S. Mueller, ITT as Special Counsel and authorized him to conduct the Russia investigation and matters that arose from the investigation. The President learned of the Special Counsel's appointment from Sessions, who was with the President, Hunt, and McGahn conducting interviews for a new FBI Director. Sessions stepped out of the Oval Office to take a call from Rosenstein, who told him about the Special Counsel appointment, and Sessions then returned to inform the President of the news. According to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked." The President became angry and lambasted the Attorney General for his decision to recuse from the investigation , stating, "How could you let this happen, Jeff?" The President said the position of Attorney General was his most important appointment and that Sessions had " let [him] down," contrasting him to Eric Holder and Robert Kennedy. Sessions recalled that the President said to him, " you were supposed to protect me," or words to that effect. The President returned to the consequences of the appointment and said, "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won' t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me." meh. too much is being made out of this. apart from being entertaining to imagine, especially within the context of certain surrounding assumptions, its hearsay and means very little. a non-colluding non-obstructing president could easily utter those words behind closed doors upon learning they are the target of a malicious stitch up which could succeed or at least be an insurmountable distraction. no reality distortion field needed whatsoever. i think someone may have noticed...unless you thought i dutifully transcribed that chunk i post a few pages back https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf
  6. @~thehung

    What a joke

    well thats far more correct. but still not correct. the OLC memos werent ignored at all, but rather it was adherence to them that was clearly stated as instrumental in the report being non-committal on the question of guilt. and to my understanding at least, no specific "statute" applies here. the 'rule' (such that it is) in question, is that of a prevailing (and arguably binding) interpretation of the constitution by the DoJ (detailed here) which was observed during the Nixon and Clinton presidencies.
  7. @~thehung

    What a joke

    LOL Fox no. no, lets use our brains and actually read the FACTS, shall we? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III Submitted Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c) Washington, D.C. March 2019 INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I ... The report on our investigation consists of two volumes: Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel' s investigation of Russia' s interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Section IV describes links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions. Volume II addresses the President' s actions towards the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the Special Counsel's investigation. Volume II separately states its framework and the considerations that guided that investigation. ... ... INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME II First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2 Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available. Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5 The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report' s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220. Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. ... ... [footnotes to Volume II] 1 A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 222, 260 (2000) (OLC Op.). 2 See U.S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President). 3 OLC Op. at 257 n.36 ("A grand jury could continue to gather evidence throughout the period of immunity"). 4 OLC Op. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment"). 1087 OLC applied such a balancing test in concluding that the President is not subject to criminal prosecution while in office, relying on many of the same precedents discussed in this section. See A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 237-238, 244-245 (2000) (relying on, interalia, United States v. Nixon, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, and Clinton v. Jones, and quoting the legal standard from Administrator of General Services v. Nixon that is applied in the text). OLC recognized that "[t]he balancing analysis" it had initially relied on in finding that a sitting President is immune from prosecution had "been adopted as the appropriate mode of analysis by the Court." Id. at 244. 1091 A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official's conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment. See U.S. CONST. ART. l, § 3, cl. 7. Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President, as OLC has recognized. A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment."). _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ yeah, from the first line of the introduction on, you can really tell he just wasnt influenced by "the not indict a sitting president rule at all" /smfh
  8. @~thehung

    It's Compass O'Clock

    as for medicare, if you check my response to SN, you can see i am pretty much in agreement. i just dont have as my starting point a presumption that any and all money spent on the private system is a Bad Thing™, as though its a rule of the universe. ive done some cursory reading now, but for all i knew, the subsidies drastically sped up hospital waiting times to the detriment of x, y, z. hence, my request for education. and for i all know, dependent on devils in the details, there is a proportion of the spend that should/must be retained long term. but turning everything up to 11, and speaking in broad absolutes is not very conducive to discussion is it? re: fracking, see my response to fliptopia.
  9. @~thehung

    What a joke

    what does whipping cream have to do with the price of eggs in china?
  10. @~thehung

    It's Compass O'Clock

    the allusion to big pharma weaselwordery was intended :) side effects may include: fish kills
  11. @~thehung

    It's Compass O'Clock

    as i alluded to above, everything comes at a cost. need a new road? then kill x amount of flora and fauna, and disturb ecosystems, possibly permanently. thats true even of urbanised areas. our willingness to undertake these sorts of bargains is what makes our modern civilisation possible. there is always a list of side effects, and those of fracking seem relatively benign, provided the sites are properly chosen and appropriate measures are in place. the NT inquiry's draft report makes 120 regulatory recommendations and "It is the panel's opinion that, provided that the recommendations made in this report are adopted and implemented, not only should the risk of any harm be minimised to an acceptable level, in some instances, it can be avoided altogether". ergo, its all tickety-boo :) well, not really. this is very much a devils advocate argument, because i am all about renewables after all. and of course i am not naive enough to think the independence of this inquiry hasnt been or cant be corrupted up the wazoo by big money interests. but i am making it because anything with the whiff of mindless tribalism disturbs me. suppose for a second that the final report is not only not anti-fracking but also — shock horror — rigorous, accurate, honest, and legit. would it ever be afforded the chance to be judged fairly? or would those raising reasonable questions about the pros and cons be shouted down as if they were calling for a Chernobyl style reactor to be built on top of Uluru?
  12. @~thehung

    It's Compass O'Clock

    well, i am trying to find a benefit of the doubt rationale from the govts perspective. its conceivable to me that encouraging more participation and competition at the private end could in theory streamline things to the advantage of all, although it seems that hasnt happened, and in any case, the spend has ballooned beyond any kind of justifiable stimulus to the point of functioning as a handout — to the privileged. ergo, it seems so undeniably fucked in the head that i dont trust my own understanding of it.
  13. @~thehung

    It's Compass O'Clock

    medicare is great. whats your point? educate me. "can any economic benefit be weighed up against that sort of vandalism?" = sentimentalist bunkum. you owe much of your high standard of living to "vandalised" natural resources. again, educate me.
  14. @~thehung

    It's Compass O'Clock

    ive done the test a couple of times, but i am still refining my responses. first time around i made some guesses, next time i opted for a handful of "don't knows"... examples: i cant claim to know the rammifications of private health insurance subsidies. "The government should fund the expansion of preschool to three-year-olds." what is this about? i was under the impression that i was in govt funded preschool when i was 3 yo. fracking. i know theres all sort of negatives, but in the wasteland of NT, could the economic benefits override them? probably not, but i cant claim to know...
  15. @~thehung

    It's Compass O'Clock

    "If Malcolm Turnbull were still Prime Minister would you be more or less likely to vote for the Coalition?" how to answer this leading question? because 1% of 0 is still 0, i am left with "just as likely" — which doesnt sit well. where is my "not bloody likely in either case, how very dare you" option?
  16. @~thehung

    What a joke

    https://www.epermarket.com/product/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductID=23814
  17. @~thehung

    What's on your mind?

    yeah, i am very eclectic and random in my sports watching. but even with the things i really get into, theres the question of how much of it you need in your life. i mean, i love ice cream, but i dont eat it every meal. beyond a certain point, sport is just useless fast food for the mind. and its peculiar that we live on a constant diet of it in this country. lately ive been recording ABC news breakfast and fast forwarding to the good bits. it bewilders me that across 3 hours of coverage theres maybe 8 mins of sport for every half hour. thats. too. fucking. much. news stories get rehashed ad nauseum, but quite often they develop throughout a day. oh but whats that? Joe Blow is rumoured to have a bit of a crook knee and is looking suspect for the whateverthefuck game next friday? well then, be sure to update the nation on that knee every half hour, because obviously we need info like that to manage our brokelads betting portfolios, plus, its endlessly fascinating in its own right. thank you, news service, youre a real credit to the power of the technology. motor racing is a funny one to me, because i can easily get into the technical side of it but can also laugh along with those who think its just cars going around in circles. but horse racing is unambiguously double fucked. not only is it bereft of anything to chew on mentally, its really is just people torturing animals the right amount to keep them running around in circles real fast for years.
  18. @~thehung

    What's on your mind?

    i didnt bet. I JUST DONT GIVE A SHIT, and dont understand why half the country does. isnt there some super fast cockroach out there we could all be having a circle jerk over instead?
  19. woohoo! at long last, i finally find it: Doctor Snuggles ...doctor fucking snuggles? never wouldve remembered that! - so the 'seagull' was an ambiguous dove/seagull/pelican that flies around with a satchel bag around its neck and delivers the mail - the 'flying bicycle' was actually his pogo stick which is also an umbrella and a talking duck, obviously, WTF haha - the 'steampunk kiosk' was his wooden rocket ship, and he had a robot assistant he'd MacGuyvered up out of old junk - no John Cleese, but voiced by Peter Ustinov :) on my travels, i came across this interesting read 6 terrifying children's cartoons from around the world
  20. @~thehung

    What's on your mind?

    fuck Winx's jockey, AND the horse he rode in on.
  21. *** I NEED HELP! *** okay, so ive got one of my own thats been bothering me for quite a while...... my memory is really sketchy, and i mostly remember it because the theme song was annoyingly catchy. - the main character was old and white haired and vaguely mad scientist looking, and he lived in a vaguely steampunk looking kiosk type building in the forest - he would look through a telescope a lot, and there was a seagull or something...and did he deliver the mail??? and was there a flying bicycle??? - 1980s episodic animated short, maybe only 5 minutes long? - ABC TV, over many years in either mornings or afternoons?? - british maybe
  22. @~thehung

    how crap is this government ?

    it's back https://votecompass.abc.net.au/
  23. @~thehung

    What a joke

    not sure what comments Melania may have made, but the source of that may be Ivanka Ivana from this 1990 Vanity Fair article
  24. @~thehung

    What's on your mind?

    not to worry, Gladys is probably already in negotiations to convert the Opera House into one.
×