The rise of American authoritarianism

[grumbler]

well, let's remember how this tangent started. he was saying more silly things, and one thing was a non-literal "grumbler thinks Trump is harmless!" you focused on that bit and naturally ignored the nonsense, because there'd been so much of it already. you're correct that you didn't say trump was harmless, and viper is also correct that he didn't lie -- he probably never meant literal harmless. some people toss around words with less precision than others, which leads to misunderstandings when one side takes the actual definition of the word

Again, you fail to comprehend that the problem was not that he used a word that wasn't true, it is that he attributed that untrue word to me.  When, in a debate, a person attempts to pin an untrue assertion on an opponent, and the opponent objects, then one retracts.  One does not double down on the dishonesty by saying that the opponent "kinda" said the untrue thing, especially when the opponent is arguing the opposite of the untrue assertion.  That is just another lie on top of the original lie.  Lying is bad.  Serial lying... well, we all know what that indicates.

I never said anything "kinda" like "Trump is harmless."

[LaCroix]

Again, you fail to comprehend that the problem was not that he used a word that wasn't true, it is that he attributed that untrue word to me.  When, in a debate, a person attempts to pin an untrue assertion on an opponent, and the opponent objects, then one retracts.  One does not double down on the dishonesty by saying that the opponent "kinda" said the untrue thing, especially when the opponent is arguing the opposite of the untrue assertion.  That is just another lie on top of the original lie.  Lying is bad.  Serial lying... well, we all know what that indicates.

I never said anything "kinda" like "Trump is harmless."

no, I get it. when you call someone a liar who didn't intend to lie, they're going to try to explain themselves. to the accuser, this could appear similar to doubling down

[Eddie Teach]

That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

I think the explanation is simpler.  Whenever a discussion turns into a genuinely unpleasant shit storm, it's almost invariable that one certain poster is involved.  Doesn't matter if he/she is right or wrong, though when he/she is wrong, all of what you described is certainly applicable to him/her.  Can't really have good faith discussions with a maniac who seems to thrive on insulting other people.

It's not Brazen, so you can go ahead and describe the poster as "he".

[DGuller]

I think the explanation is simpler.  Whenever a discussion turns into a genuinely unpleasant shit storm, it's almost invariable that one certain poster is involved.  Doesn't matter if he/she is right or wrong, though when he/she is wrong, all of what you described is certainly applicable to him/her.  Can't really have good faith discussions with a maniac who seems to thrive on insulting other people.

  This is untrue, for what it is worth.  There have been genuinely unpleasant shitstorms that didn't even involve you.  They are somewhat rare, true, but it is an exaggeration to say that it is "almost invariable" that you are involved.

Clever.

[Razgovory]

That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

I think the explanation is simpler.  Whenever a discussion turns into a genuinely unpleasant shit storm, it's almost invariable that one certain poster is involved.  Doesn't matter if he/she is right or wrong, though when he/she is wrong, all of what you described is certainly applicable to him/her.  Can't really have good faith discussions with a maniac who seems to thrive on insulting other people.

My ears are burning!

[DGuller]

That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

I think the explanation is simpler.  Whenever a discussion turns into a genuinely unpleasant shit storm, it's almost invariable that one certain poster is involved.  Doesn't matter if he/she is right or wrong, though when he/she is wrong, all of what you described is certainly applicable to him/her.  Can't really have good faith discussions with a maniac who seems to thrive on insulting other people.

It's not Brazen, so you can go ahead and describe the poster as "he".

I was trying to make it sufficiently vague. 

[Habbaku]

Good thing grumbler's around to decode things for us!

[PDH]

  He has always been around.

[The Minsky Moment]

  As for the courts, the Gitmo case has proven that laws ain't that clear.  Lots of legal rulings contradicting each other and even if ultimately most of it is judged illegal, the President can pretty much chose to ignore the ruling (besides, there's still the Andrew Jackson precedent, even if it is a long time ago in another... well, it's just something that GOP supporters use to quote whenever there was a ruling against the Bush administration).

There were two legal cases concerning Gitmo.  One held that the US court jurisdiction extended to Gitmo, the other that persons, including non-citizens, present at Gitmo could invoke constitutional rights and get a hearing, even if designated an enemy combatant.    So there is no contradiction or lack of clarity.  It is quite clear.  And the President did not ignore the rulings.  I can't think of a time in recent memory where a President simply disobeyed a Supreme Court ruling.

[dps]

I can't think of a time in recent memory where a President simply disobeyed a Supreme Court ruling.

Off hand, I'm not aware of any Presidents doing so other than Jackson and Lincoln.

[Valmy]

I can't think of a time in recent memory where a President simply disobeyed a Supreme Court ruling.

Off hand, I'm not aware of any Presidents doing so other than Jackson and Lincoln.

Lincoln? Which ruling was this?

[dps]

I can't think of a time in recent memory where a President simply disobeyed a Supreme Court ruling.

Off hand, I'm not aware of any Presidents doing so other than Jackson and Lincoln.

Lincoln? Which ruling was this?

Suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.  Don't recall the name of the case offhand.

EDIT:  Looked it up, it was ex Parte Merryman, but that wasn't a SCOTUS ruling, it was a US Circuit Court ruling.

[Valmy]

Suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.  Don't recall the name of the case offhand.

That was because there was no Supreme Court case and no Supreme Court ruling. It all went down through a circuit court where the Chief Justice was the sitting judge, as the Supremes did that back then. But there was no actual court case, just some writs issued.

And in any case the Constitution very clearly gave the Federal Government the power to do that, the only beef was whether Congress or the President could do it, the Constitution itself makes no indication. Knowing Congress' mood at the time they probably would have shot Merryman at dawn so he probably should be grateful he only got detained for awhile. But of course Congress was in recess and the city practically under siege so Tawney seems a bit disingenious with his shenanigans here IMO

[Valmy]

EDIT:  Looked it up, it was ex Parte Merryman, but that wasn't a SCOTUS ruling, it was a US Circuit Court ruling.

Yep.

Edit: Of course despite all the hype around the Merryman situation both the Confederate and Union armies detained people all the freaking time without warrant as the war went on.

[Admiral Yi]

Where in the Constitution is someone given the power to suspend habeas corpus?