jakee

There's nothing to adjudicate - he didn't. But he did keep them long after he knew the national archives needed them back, and he did lie to the government about having given them back.

How much?

But didn’t. Then refused to give them back, then lied to the government about having given them back.

If the differences are significant then it isn’t splitting fucking hairs, is it? What is it with you people?

Yes, I think they will have. Glad you agree!

Right… but they were also pursuing a campaign of terrorism against the civilian populace as a matter of policy. And that’s not looking at historical tactics through a modern lens - it’s precisely what they said they were doing. On learning of the effect of the Anglo-American raid on Dresden on 13/14 February 1945, Churchill minuted: “It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing.” https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-137/churchill-proceedings-churchill-and-bombing-policy/

Can’t tell if serious? The day after the directive was issued (on 15 February), the Chief of the Air Staff Charles Portal sought clarification from the Deputy Chief of Air Staff Air Vice Marshal Norman Bottomley who had drafted it:[5][8][9] “ref the new bombing directive: I suppose it is clear the aiming points will be the built up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories where these are mentioned in Appendix A. This must be made quite clear if it is not already understood.” Area Bombing Also Hiroshima.

Hi Rob, You're missing his point. He's not talking about killing civilians, he's talking about killing people. You said hired killers deserve the death penalty. Soldiers who deliberately kill people in war, including enemy soldiers, are by definition hired killers. I'm not really sure it's a discussion worth pursuing but you must concede that you're drawing a line where on one side some hired killers are the worst of the worst and on the other side some hired killers are among the best of the best. My question would be why you do think that (specifically among criminal murderers) hired killers particularly deserve the death penalty? Do we know that they're particularly more or less likely to re-offend than other people? Or morally, is (for example) a guy paid by a drug dealer to kill a rival drug dealer that much worse than an angry man who kills his wife because she made his dinner wrong?

But you're talking about university and Professors, and as GD just pointed out at that level those who can do, and those who teach also do - a lot.

But you do care. This entire line of discussion (a complete derailment of the OP, by the way) came about because you care about the miniscule number of transgender minors undergoing medical procedures who might regret it later in life so much that it was the only thing you could think to say in response to "Did you know there really aren't too many LGBT characters on TV?" Why did you decide to start discussing this (and I quote directly) "when there are larger problems"? (And a secondary question simply out of curiosity, when was the last time you had a self aware moment?)

Errr, no. It's not. Democrat tactics didn't get those people elected, the Republican base in hardcore Republican areas did. I think at this point you're intentionally misunderstanding what's being said. Good thing it's not a poker game then. It's not that either. Again, I can't help but feel you're wilfully misunderstanding things. Those people won primaries in hardcore Republican districts, then went on to win their elections. Thus the Republican party as a whole doesn't see much downside in supporting the nominations of crazy people. The Dems are trying to help get crazy people nominated in swing districts where they're more likely to lose the main election than moderates. If a whole bunch of them are nominated and lose all in one go, the Republican party might shy away from supporting crazy people in general.

They can’t actually pick the candidates. The dems could support all the batshit crazy candidates they want but if the R base wasn’t willing to vote for batshit crazy candidates it wouldn’t have a chance of working. Again, take Gaetz, Boebert, Hawley, Walker, Lake etc… this is what the Rs have chosen all on their own. It’s possible that the Dem strategy has given then a little less power to play with.

Man, I know you are really fuckin’ stretching to make everything the Democrat’s fault but money only goes so far. Ultimately the Republicans heard the whack jobs’ messages and decided they should represent the party. While the article does make a good case for it to be a bad strategy in the long run, there’s also the chance that a bump in extreme candidates being chosen in primaries and then losing will make the GOP less likely to support extremists in future.

Good thing you’re not pretentious enough to drink champagne, who knows what the penalties for mishandling that would be?

When did science tell you to use chromosomes instead of body morphology to decide when to call someone male or female? ‘We’ don’t want to make it subjective, it is subjective. The people currently discussed who have birth certificates, guess what those certificates are going to say? The opposite of what you say. Why would anyone think a baby who looks and functions like a female isn’t a female? By the way, here is the incorrigibly woke, liberal rag Forbes weighing in; Most think chromosomes hold the key to biological sex, but that’s not always the case…. According to the BBC documentary, Me, My Sex and I, “There are about a dozen different conditions that blur the line between male and female. They’re known as disorders of sexual development or DSDs…. Altogether, DSDs occur as frequently as twins or red hair.”

What a nuanced understanding of the human condition.

Funny how it’s illustrated the limit of Trump’s power as well. These 20 are the hardcore MAGA Trumpists and they invoke his name at every step of their election campaigns and vision for the party. Some of them had called for Trump to tell McCarthy to step down, seemingly suggesting that he’d have to listen. Then Trump did intervene telling them to vote for McCarthy and saying he’ll do a great job… and they completely ignored him.

Wait, are you saying that not all ice in the world is floating? Thats just crazy talk.

In 2021 how many people predicted that electric vehicles would take over… by now? In 2021 how many people predicted that coal would be gone… by now? In 2021 how many people predicted that we’d have checked CO2 emissions… by now? Making those predictions is about as impressive as correctly putting on your pants in the morning. And a grown man bragging that he knows how to put on pants? Not the message you wanna send, good buddy.

Some millennials are in their 40s. A few years ago I was still seeing articles about how spoiled millennials will struggle in real world job interviews from authors who were clearly unaware that many of the middle managers and HR people doing the interviewing already were millennials. Anyway, as the article states the current conservative economic policies are hurting the chances of more millennials moving into those high brackets and in particular mortgage free home ownership. Add in their obsession with insulting and belittling anyone who holds modern social values - often for no apparent reason other than pure spite and a desire to ‘own the libs’ - and it doesn’t look pretty for the future. What isn’t even mentioned as much in the article is why would anyone not already ‘in the church’ look at the state of current conservatism and conclude that they are the safe pair of hands? From BoJo’s myriad inadequacies to Truss’s utter economic humiliation on this side of the Atlantic to Trumpism and the congressional cultists like Gaetz and Boebert who can’t even act grown up enough to choose a leader within their own branch of their own party. What does modern conservatism offer to non-conservatives?

The right thrives on bullying ‘snowflakes’. But who will vote for it when they grow old? According to new research and survey data, millennials are defying a supposed iron law of politics, that we shift to the right as we age. No other generation in recorded political history has retained such an entrenched rejection of rightwing politics as they’ve grown older. The right has become its own gravedigger for two reasons. First, by building an economic model that promised individual freedom but delivered mass insecurity; and second, by intentionally and repeatedly insulting the social values of the young…. Commentators and politicians treat younger people as woke barbarians at the gates threatening to tear down everything conservatives hold dear… Younger people are more likely to defend the rights of the minorities bullied and harassed by rightwing politicians, and conservatives hate them for it. And so the British and US right have apparently condemned themselves to a political doom loop: savaging the progressive values of younger generations, and in doing so driving them further into the arms of the left. …What’s intriguing is how rightwing politicians and commentators alike have doubled down on poisonous invectives that alienate young people... …In building and benefiting from an economic model that has left younger people bereft of a secure future, and repelling them with a “culture war” against progressive values, British and US conservatism seems to be authoring its own demise. Hope you enjoy your retirement home echo chamber, Brent

Well he already covered that with 'we need more non partisan studies'. Though of course any study that concludes action is needed immediately becomes partisan...

But not as many. Does that not matter, or does everything have to be perfect to be justifiable? Murder is illegal but people are still murdered. Should we just not bother with homicide laws? What lines weren’t crossed?

I’m not entirely sure you know what the word caveat means, because I can’t really make out what you’re trying to say here. Anyway, I would say that making laws without any regard for how people are impacted by them is not something to aim for.

And what exactly does that have to do with fraud and lying? Pro tip - if you have to immediately change the subject when your point is challenged, it probably wasn’t a very good point.