Latest Diablo 3 News
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Bizzaro World

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Amra, Apr 19, 2018.

  1. Amra

    Amra Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    7,262
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    474
    This is a serious question I need an answer to. Read this to the end please.

    Why did the judge feel the need to release the name of Sean Hannity to the public? He was not charged with a crime. He was not even suspected of a crime. So why? Someone tell me the legal precedent. It is clearly not the norm. Not ever from what I've read.

    Anyone?

    It seems Hannity's name was leaked to the New York TImes and/or CNN. Hmmmm... I wonder by whom...

    And this:

    "Federal Judge Kimba Wood, who is overseeing the court case against Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, officiated the 2013 wedding of George Soros, a billionaire supporter of liberal political causes."

    Read that again. Just so we understand the relationships here.

    The judge who made the decision to release Hannity's name, officiated the wedding of George Soros.*

    *Soros has donated millions to liberal candidates including the parties involved here.

    and more:

    "The government is currently probing Mr. Cohen’s $130,000 payment to porn star Stephanie Clifford, better known as Stormy Daniels, for possible violations of campaign finance laws.

    Judge Wood, who will decide those issues, married [officiated] Mr. Soros, then 83, and his 42-year-old bride Tamiko Bolton, in September 2013....

    The Bedford, New York, wedding was attended by 500 guests, including top Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi...."

    So in summary, the judge deciding key legal issues involving the personal attorney of the President is a key liberal supporter making unprecedented decisions.

    The fix is in folks.

    The Southern District of New York looks like a 4 ring circus now.

    I have a lot of issues with President Trump but what is happening is. not. right. And those on the left know it.

    They know it.

    When they look in the mirror they know it. But it seems they will stop at nothing to bring down a President who was FAIRLY elected.
     
  2. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,179
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    OK, I will roleplay the other side.

    I don't know anything about revealing the name of that guy who is unknown to me. In which manner is it morally questionable or perhaps even illegal to do that? I'm not asking this for rhetorical reasons, I simply don't know. I have heard a bit about the porn star affair, however. Hilarious!

    Regarding the wedding, so what? I don't think that it's morally questionable to do that while presiding a lawsuit about somebody of an opposing faction. I think he should have the qualification for keeping the two issues separate and he certainly will do so because these are public events. If you have the impression that he fails at that, then you will have to bring up evidence. Just having a certain political allegiance isn't enough for that. In the higher ranks, almost every official has chosen a political side. Which one does a judge have to have when dealing with politicians and their minions in the courtroom? The same? Opposing? None at all? That would be silly.

    In politics, it depends on how useful a measure is and not how good, fair and just. I agree that this is disgusting, but discrediting an opponent is an efficient strategy because people love gossip. The ones are throwing mud at Trump and his buddies, others are throwing mud back.

    It seems you are about to join the second faction. The advocatus diaboli within myself tells me that you might really be doing it for that fairness thing, but in politics, you will not get away with that. Others will assume that you are just pretending to be like that, in order to gain an advantage yourself. So what may your motives really be when demanding fair play? Respectively, which good or bad motives can I insinuate on you and in which manner would that be useful for me? I agree that things like fairness, honesty, loyalty etc. are important withing your social environment, but in politics, these matters are just tools and decor.

    Regarding myself, I'm fine with Trump. He's terrible for his own country, but he's probably useful for most of those who don't depend too much on the US.
     
  3. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,909
    Likes Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    220
    Sorry kris, I've tried to follow your reasoning but may have missed a step. Or two.

    Are you suggesting that it is legally, physically and morally impossible to wrong a conservative?

    Or that in general, "All is fair - in love, war and everything else"?

    Thanks!
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  4. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,179
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    All is fair if you can get away with it.

    Moral and ethics come into play when humans deal with personal affairs. It's actually a matter of "all is fair" as well because having these concepts leads to stable relations with others which is generally a useful thing. It's also useful to make individuals strengthen a community or civilization, but successful leadership is more about pragmaticism, calculation and machiavellism. Being a psychopath probably helps at being good at it.
     
  5. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,521
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    509
    First: Let me say what a pleasant surprise I find it for Amra to be out-Smeggying me on the OTF.

    Second: If anyone imagines that the NY courts aren't a wretched hive of Progressive villainy they weren't paying attention. Elliot Spitzer, anyone? Preet Bharara pretends to be a Leftist white knight, but he's under investigation for corruption like pretty much everyone else in NY - he's the one who squawked so loudly about being "fired" by Trump but the reason he lost Democrat support was his failure to lock away Dinesh D'Souza for the mortal crime of offending His Lightworker-iness Lord Obama.

    Third: Unfortunately, kris is here an unwitting representative of much of the American electorate. I don't have a good enough handle on German politician misconduct to sketch a similar scenario, but Europeans in general don't seem to share the American mentality of "fairness". Partly that's because they're totally subservient to Progressivism.

    That's not meant as a slur, though y'all know how much I despise Progressive mentality that people are alive to be used & owned. Europeans aren't generally as obsessed as Americans are when the 'big reveal' for the umpteenth time is that politicians are dirtbags who negotiate using others' wealth to achieve their own selfish ends, proclaiming when caught that they were just following orders or that they were raping those girls for the greater good. In particular, Americans such as I who practically have an aneurysm when strategic graft & misconduct of galactic proportions, as seen with the Clinton Foundation, react far more angrily and violently where the similar European reaction is generally only found in French union strikes or the rare soccer game.

    The downside is that Europeans are used to being ruled & having little to no actual freedom, which can be seen with the meek acceptance & excuse of Merkel's actions which kris has presented, or the cavalier way in which Britain has reacted to the concept of the central government treating butter knives as deadly weapons. That's possibly the reason that the most anger displayed by Europeans outside of soccer games is usually from communists/fascists over who is going to get a bigger share of the meagre pie, rather than people genuinely offended that someone wants to steal their pie in the name of "the children" &c.
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  6. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,179
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    So would you say that if a judge is a "leftist", then he's generally incompetent and biased?

    I don't know much about NY courts. If it's that bad, then your country is screwed up. I wonder why it isn't a dictatorship yet... or is it already? There must be a reason why your judges are as they are. You won't get rid of the problem if you don't do anything about the cause. Perhaps there's something to be changed about the system or society that brings a certain kind of people into certain positions. Just replacing them won't be enough.

    What's this "American mentality fairness"? If you believe that fairness has to bring greater success than other deeds, then I would call you naive and silly. It won't happen. However, I understand that it's useful to demand it from others or or to use that belief of others to one's own advantage. It seems to be just a different kind of hypocrisy, mixed with the naive and silly belief that leaders must be like that in order to be competent. They won't because that's not useful. I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.

    Being pragmatic about the ugliness of certain things doesn't mean supporting them. I take note of them and point them out. To a certain extent, we have to get along with the people as they are, there are no better ones available. In order to change that, we would have to change human nature by so much that it would need a tyrannical system with morally perfect leaders.

    Just like before, I won't react to your description of what you believe to know about Europe. I can understand your motives, however.
     
  7. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,909
    Likes Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    220
    Unfortunately, I see more truth in Merv's sketch of Europeans (I include the UK) than falsehood. If it were only not so.
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  8. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,179
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    Traitor!!11!
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  9. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,521
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    509
    What, Brussels is administering loyalty oaths now? :eek:
    Not so much "leftist" as "Progressive". Our courts are steadily becoming (as a bad catchphrase asserts) 'courts of Men and not courts of Law'. More simply put, it's not what the law says as who you know. Or in this case, the politics of the crime. Progressives accept & even demand situational morality, which is why you now have rapists being freed because they come from a different culture, while in Loz' area a geriatric was tried for murder because he defended himself against two armed assailants, killing one.
    It's pretty bad. I don't know how favoritist German courts are, or how much extra-judicial bargaining is involved. Some even say g(G)overnment deliberately keeps the jails full because they make money in doing so (that's a bit far-fetched even for me). The reason it's so bad is because being a judge is like the worst examples of being a tenured teacher; it's a lifetime position & it takes an act of impeachment plus massive bureaucratic hurtles to remove you.

    As for dictatorship, it's hardly that - just as it isn't in your area. However, while you won't be jailed for speaking as you will in Loz' area, you WILL be jailed on vague violations if you've pissed someone powerful off (as was the case with Dinesh D'Souza) and protected from legal violations if you're favored (as the bodyguards for ex-NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg regularly are). So you could consider it as being
    It's another sort of reference to the "Laws, not Men" concept. The Divine Right of Kings is a mostly European concept, along with the world-wide concept of social classes, which the American founders objected against. The overall idea of "fairness" is that of the "level playing field", where one company or individual doesn't have the odds stacked against them by others or in particular by Government.

    Sadly, using the excuse that racism has been allowed in America (while ignoring that their Democrat Party has always been the wellspring of it), Progressives have now come to insist that "fairness" means the most theoretically disadvantaged interest groups must be given unfair advantage and even cash. When you point out the absurdity of this pattern of thought, or that said Progressives are pocketing much of the cash in question during the process, you're called a racist... and frequently a Nazi. :oops:

    Incidentally, that's how Trump was elected. Enough people are sick of the power of Gov't being used inequitably to reward the rich & punish the "Forgotten Man" (low-to-middle income workers, which you might label Arbeiter). It's funny how there's echoes of Marxism in all of this, because the people claiming Marxist motivations are in fact the Establishment, screwing over the workers.

    EDIT - re-reading my response, I'm stunned at how close to thread topic I actually was!
     
  10. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,179
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    We don't appreciate loyalty oaths, but loyalty. That appears naive, but I think I can distinguish well enough between real and feigned loyalty.

    I think that Germany is a country with a healthy amount of pragmatic people. I'm not always pragmatic myself, mainly for the sake of having some kind of entertainment and having a reason to make life worth living, but if it depends, then I will decide for the most useful solution. That's sometimes (rarely! almost never!) not what fairness will demand. In personal affairs, I will decide for fairness, however. That even includes matters like dealing with you BTW... and Loz, of course!
     
  11. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,521
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    509
    We dislike that sort of 'realpolitik' tendency, or at least the admission of having it (how else to claim that Anthroprogenic Global Warming is literally killing Gaia, while at the same time flying around in a personal LearJet?). Particularly undesirable is admitting to self-interest at the expense of society, even though that's the rule rather than exception.

    Underneath there's far more naked & aggressive self-interest in Judicial affairs, which could be just as evident in Europe but not given the same systemic reach unless comparing our "Circuit Courts" to whatever the EU high courts are. America commands the World economy, but it therefore also allows Soros, Zuckerberg, Clinton, & others unbridled exercise of political power through graft & "Lawfare".

    “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.” - Justice Scalia

    P.S. Both Trump & the Koch Brothers are pikers by comparison, yet they're often painted as being megalomaniacal users of unlimited wealth. Turns out Trump may even have been hoaxing these, claiming $100M in assets while actually only having around $5M.
     
  12. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,909
    Likes Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    220
    An important correction here. The 78 y/o was arrested for murder and subsequently released a day or two later without charge. I waggishly commented at the time that the old gent had served more time than either would-be burglar would have done had they been convicted in a court of law, instead of receiving the richly-deserved justice they in fact received.

    The arrest I approve of. Any killing must be properly investigated. The insanity that followed the old guy's release is what I found, without exaggeration, staggering.

    The deceased's family, from that beloved, beyond-the-reach-of-the-law minority known as "travellers", placed tributes to the departed, would-be murderer/burglar, outside the old fella's house. Local people did what any decent human being would do and tore that shit down, only for the tribute to be replaced. The local police have had to mount a guard to protect the tribute and have appealed to local residents not to make matters worse by spoiling or removing the tribute.

    I'm going to let all that sink in for a while, with only the assurance of an "I shit you not".

    Bizzaro World doesn't even begin to cover it.
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  13. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,521
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    509
    My mistake; I thought he had been charged with murder but released pending trial.

    Here in rootin' tootin' shootin' land we might have cuffed him but even that's not certain. We certainly wouldn't have had charges filed by the state.

    Which is why one of life's lessons is to double-tap, center of mass. It's a lot harder for someone to press charges when you're the only witness left.
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  14. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,909
    Likes Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    220
    They found the other "witness" to the burglar stabbing just now. He'd been on the run.

    I assume he'll have a book deal by now and an interview lined up with some BHL BBC interviewer - "Life On the Road And In Other People's Houses - My Ordeal".
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  15. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,179
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    The important part of the term realpolitik is its two components, real and politik. First, it's about things as they are and making actions and reactions which meet problems in a useful manner. Second, it's about politics, not about personal interaction. Politics is made by states and states have strategical concerns that decide about the welfare of millions or even billions. Just being upset is not enough, it's a kind of denial of what the world is about.

    I share the dislike about it, but that's me as a single person, so I understand that there's a point in applying it. When two entities of equal power are in a conflict and one does what's fair and just while the other does what's most useful, the second will almost certainly win, so the first has missed their goals and will have to endure the consequences. That's worse for them than getting things done a bit more ugly, but in a more successful manner.

    How upset are US Americans about being allied with Saudi Arabia, a dictatorship that denies basic human rights to more than half of their population, playing a pretty ugly role in the civil war of one their neighbours and which was the main breeding ground of those who blew up the WTC? A fair decision would have been to invade Arabia as well and not just that country that hosted the terrorists, but which had no serious allies and was of no value to the US. I understand the realpolitik part of what happened, however, I even accept it. Perhaps there are a lot Americans who are upset about that, but I don't hear much from them.

    Before we sink into a tu quoque game: An example about Germany is the war between France and Germany in 1870-71 and what happened before. That was one of the most brilliant pieces of realpolitik that has ever been achieved, but it was pretty vile as wel. Not just by the Prussians, but the Prussians won while France suffered one of their most dire defeats. In fact, the term realpolitik was created by the central figure in that game. Here's a pretty entertaining Youtube playlist about it.

    "But Bismarck had a plan. Bismarck ALWAYS had a plan."
     
  16. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,521
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    509
    I've been in agreement with Loz far too frequently in recent times. We may need to make another thread to discuss Maggie Thatcher's policies.
    Here's the nub: America used to know that what you're calling the "most useful" was in reality what was most fair - allowing people to rule themselves. Europe only learned that to the extent that America supplied the lessons; the "Nordic" countries grasp that economically and Germany understood that with some others, but there was never a wholesale adaptation of American Constitutional concepts. Indeed, if there was a preference it was for Marx, who built on the false precepts of the French Revolution.
    Far many more than you'd imagine, but it's the proletariat rather than the political class.
    Interestingly enough, I was thinking about Otto regarding this conversation, but in a more general sense. Most Americans know F-all about WW1 and scarce few know more than cursory information about WW2, but "Bismarck" is generally only remembered as the pocket battleship. In reality, as with many Progressive and military concepts, America adapted German & Prussian strategic thinking in the same fashion it had started to adapt some "French" (really more English Enlightenment) thinking during the Revolution. Otto was the dude who established true Progressive education - the concept of public schools gearing & rearing children to become a useful, skilled proletariat rather than encouraging actual thought.

    If there's someone to whose feet the secondary social issues behind the judicial problems ought to be laid, it's Otto's. America no longer teaches "Civics" in class, but we damn well shove Martin Luther King & homosexuality down children's throats, often in more than one school year. The reason for this is that the Progressive establishment has decided that instilling racism & sexism as negative values is more critical to the society even than teaching the children to be effective workers. Certainly more critical than teaching them logic, classics, or critical thinking. Back in the day, racism & sexism would have been taught by the family, but there's been an equal degree of abrogation of those prerogatives by the State & abdication of that responsibility by the Citizenry.
     
  17. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,179
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    The famous pocket battleship is the Graf Spee, you probably confused that. The Bismarck was a "real" battleship.

    How long ago is that "used to know" phase?
     
  18. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,521
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    509
    Hmm, I seem to recall that the Bismarck wasn't really all that big - not that I've thought about it in years, but most of the British & American battleships had far more tonnage. I remember the Graf Spee being a 'pocket battleship' but it always seemed more like a heavy cruiser.

    Again, going by memory, it was that the Bismarck (& Tirpitz) 'punched above their weight' & were more agile than the British. I could have sworn ships like HMS Hood had something like 1/3 less guns as well.

    1930-ish, when the Progressives pushed the "New Deal". Bear in mind that American Progressives thought Hitler was fandabadoozy.
     
  19. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,179
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    So the various dubious, but successful things were matters of "well, not the best and not the most fair, but we got what we wanted, heh heh"? When people ruled themselves, some of them started doing things like massacres among the natives, keeping slaves and other deeds, without having to fear consequences.

    I don't think there was ever a time in which the most useful measure was always the most fair as well, neither for the US nor for any other country.

    The nazis got that strange acknowledgement from a lot of different people, not just from "Progressives" because it had more elements than just a fascistic ideology. However, I'm not going to start a debate about how racisn, antisemitism or fascim there is among "Progressives" and how much elsewhere..
     
  20. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,521
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    509
    They didn't fear consequences because those horrible things were supported by government (which ruled them). Gotcha.
    Progressives <are> fascist, unless they're communist (or laughably, royalist). There's only so many ways you can skin the "totalitarianism-pretending-to-be-benign" cat.

    Also, I'm currently reading a nice book...

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page