--- Log opened Thu Apr 25 00:00:44 2019 00:23 -!- K`Tetch_ [~no@47.39.211.239] has quit [Quit: ( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.22 :: www.esnation.com )] 00:23 -!- K`Tetch [~no@unaffiliated/ktetch] has joined #se2600 01:13 < aestetix> sigh 01:13 < aestetix> five minutes of basically any site that has "news" and I get pissed off now 01:13 < aestetix> left or right no difference 06:30 <@Shadow404> stay in the middle? or quit the game, realize humanity has no hope and press the global nuke button to reset. 07:04 < aestetix> Shadow404: ok what news site is middle 07:12 <@Shadow404> irc discussions 07:23 < aestetix> hahah 07:26 <@Corydon76> NPR is generally middle of the road. They sometimes even bend over backwards to cover conservative viewpoints. 07:36 < aestetix> NPR is left leaning, but I agree they offer counterpoints. 07:37 < aestetix> What's more important is that they aren't sensationalist 07:37 <@Corydon76> Not generally, no. They do a good job of avoiding it, but sometimes, due to the culture, they can't help it. cf their coverage of Monsanto. 07:38 < xray> By definition news is sensationalist based, other wise the content wouldn't be news. Such is the conundrum. 07:38 < aestetix> But comparing NPR side by side to CNN or something.... 07:38 < aestetix> NPR wins hands down 07:38 < xray> I agree they don't need to get all "breathless" about it. 07:40 <@Corydon76> CNN is an asset in every crisis. For the rest of the time, though, they try to make ordinary seem exciting, usually unsuccessfully 07:41 <@Corydon76> Oh, and if you want nonpolitical news, there is one excellent option: The Weather Channel 08:41 <@Evilpig> not true. climate change news is politically motivated. aka fake news 08:46 <@Corydon76> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f71Rasj_0JY 08:47 <@Corydon76> What happened to the bot? 08:49 <@Evilpig> I need to fix that reconnect 08:49 <@Evilpig> I think my wan connection flapped last night and it didn't reconnect 08:49 -!- PigBot [~PigBot@wilpig.org] has joined #se2600 08:50 <@Evilpig> ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f71Rasj_0JY 08:50 <@Evilpig> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f71Rasj_0JY 08:50 < PigBot> Mueller Report: A Lawyer's Analysis (Real Law Review) (at www.youtube.com) 08:55 <@opticron> does anyone else hate consuming information from videos? 08:55 <@opticron> I'd much rather just read some shit 08:56 * opticron virtue signals as an old man 08:57 <@Corydon76> I generally hate it, as well, but I haven't found another source for that analysis... and even when you do, it's easy to skim over and miss the point. 09:00 <@Dolemite> mr0ning, be0tches and h0ez! 09:02 * aestetix hugs Dolemite 09:22 < xray> Thank you for the link to "Mueller Report: A Lawyer's Analysis (Real Law Review)", it is very informative. 09:22 <@opticron> yeah, I did end up watching it 09:23 < xray> I watch them at higher speeds. 09:23 <@Corydon76> I'm thankful that a lawyer read it over, understood it, and then took the time to explain what it says in a short segment. 09:24 <@opticron> boils down to "the report could only have exhonorated the president regardless of the evidence presented (of which there was a lot). it's up to the other branches to move forward if they think it's necessary. this was mostly a fact-finding mission" 09:24 <@opticron> and also "trump was definitely not exhonorated" 09:27 < xray> What I got was that the didn't find the evidence of Trump colluding with Russia but they did find evidence that he obstructed Justice. The question is what will The People do with this and will Congress uphold the Will of the People. I'm guessing Congress will do nothing. 09:28 < xray> Which is sad. 09:29 <@Corydon76> I predicted this long ago, echoes of the Clinton scandal. There was no original crime, but politicians generally get hit with obstruction of justice when they try to cover up an embarassing situation. 09:36 < aestetix> So wait a second 09:36 < aestetix> halfway through the video 09:36 < aestetix> If it's not possible to indict a sitting president, then why the hell does an office like special prosecutor (Kenn Starr, etc) exist? 09:37 <@Corydon76> Because impeachment is a political process, so Congress prefers to outsource the job of collecting evidence to the most neutral person they can find. 09:38 < aestetix> The issue is that this is going to turn into a bloodbath where for each president, the opposing party will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate them now 09:38 <@Corydon76> The problem is that if indicting a sitting President is unconstitutional, Congress cannot override it with just another law. They'd have to amend the Constitution. 09:38 < aestetix> Well, the constitution is kind of overdue for some kind of amendment.... 09:39 <@Corydon76> Why? Amendments generally throw a lot of case law out the window or at least put it into question. It's a boon for lawyers, and introduces uncertainty to everyone else 09:40 < aestetix> Are there any existing amendments that you think also threw case law out the window? 09:40 <@Corydon76> Before an amendment, you can know that there are some legal precedents you don't agree with, and how you might work around them. After an amendment, you have no idea how the court will rule, because it's all new territory. 09:41 <@Corydon76> Certainly. Both the 13th and 14th Amendments threw a ton of case law out the window 09:41 <@Corydon76> The 14th is still being applied anew to new areas even now. 09:42 < aestetix> Yeah, IMHO it has gone too far 09:42 < aestetix> But that's for another day 09:42 <@Corydon76> So did the 16th. 09:42 <@Corydon76> How about the 19th? 09:42 < aestetix> What would you think of an amendment requiring presidential candidates to make all their financials transparent? 09:43 <@Corydon76> All? Nobody has yet contemplated that extreme. 09:43 < aestetix> Well, major party nominations 09:44 < aestetix> They already get access to classified CIA briefings. Might as well compell financials too 09:44 <@Corydon76> I mean that nobody has contemplated making candidates expose all of their financials 09:44 < aestetix> Well I mean tax returns 09:44 <@Corydon76> That's a different thing. 09:45 <@Corydon76> Switched a few words, and the meaning changed massively 09:45 < aestetix> ok 09:45 < aestetix> So how about an amendment requiring all candidates to release their tax returns? 09:45 <@Corydon76> What does it mean to 'release'? 09:46 <@Corydon76> Up to the court to decide. 09:46 <@Corydon76> What does it mean to be a candidate. Are you a candidate if you place in the polls, or only if you've declared? 09:47 <@Corydon76> What if you're a candidate only by draft and not by will? 09:47 <@Dolemite> And before you open your big mouth, aestetix, no, I am not a candidate 09:47 < aestetix> well Dolemite clearly we'd put in a clause exempting you 09:47 <@Corydon76> Can a person be on the ballot without ever technically being a declared candidate? 09:48 < aestetix> Or who insists that they are not a candidate? 09:48 <@Corydon76> You see how this opens up questions to be litigated? You thought what you wrote was clear, but it just introduces more uncertainty 09:49 < aestetix> Seeing as Dolemite is clearly in denial about his qualifications 09:49 <@Corydon76> If you put Constitutional implications on the term 'candidate', some people will delay their candidacy for as long as possible. 09:50 <@Corydon76> Maybe they're only a candidate on the morning of the day of the general election. 09:50 <@Corydon76> So the tax returns don't have to be released until then. 09:51 <@Corydon76> What if a politician changes it so that the word 'tax return' only applies to a very small set of tax filings that require a refund. So if a candidate underreports and pays taxes on Tax Day, they haven't filed a tax return, so they're not required to release it. 09:53 <@Corydon76> Again, you thought this language was clear. We can parse it a million different ways, and we will. That makes it uncertain. 10:36 -!- strages [uid11297@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-uozkarwaytsigccz] has joined #se2600 10:39 -!- crashcartpro [uid29931@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nrafwemvuqucrozk] has joined #se2600 15:47 -!- crashcartpro [uid29931@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nrafwemvuqucrozk] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 16:06 <@Mirage> i don't think it's possible for anything to be clear and written in legalese at the same time. i think the whole reason for it is to make conciseness impossible (thereby giving lawyers loopholes to work with and perpetuate their jobs) while also obviscating meaning to anyone but a lawyer (once again..to perpetuate them having a job) 16:07 < K`Tetch> 10:46:37 «@Corydon76» What does it mean to be a candidate. Are you a candidate if you place in the polls, or only if you've declared? you can't be a candidate if you've not declaired 16:07 -!- PigBot [~PigBot@wilpig.org] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:07 -!- PigBot [~PigBot@wilpig.org] has joined #se2600 16:08 < K`Tetch> certainly not for president 16:09 < K`Tetch> well, not in GA, in Alabama you can 16:11 < K`Tetch> 10:47:54 «@Corydon76» Can a person be on the ballot without ever technically being a declared candidate? <-- in only 7states can you be an undeclared write-in candidate. Alabama, Iowa, new hampshire, New jersey, Pensylvania, rhode island and vermont 16:11 -!- PigBot [~PigBot@wilpig.org] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:11 -!- PigBot [~PigBot@wilpig.org] has joined #se2600 16:13 < K`Tetch> Oregon says you have 4 weeks after the election to register, wyoming is 2 days after, DC 3 days after, that's it 16:14 < K`Tetch> (guess who went through all the laws a few years ago - http://ktetch.co.uk/2016/10/can-you-write-in-for-bernie-or-pence/ 16:14 < PigBot> Can You Write-in For Bernie or Pence? | Politics & P2P (at ktetch.co.uk) http://tinyurl.com/y32kzpve 17:50 <@Shadow404> anyone have any leads on remote ccna op's, please pm me, kthx. 19:05 <@Shadow404> Happy puppy is happy. https://imgur.com/a/0l93V6J 19:05 < PigBot> Happy puppy is happy. - Album on Imgur (at imgur.com) 20:13 -!- strages [uid11297@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-uozkarwaytsigccz] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 21:23 -!- Catonic [~catonic@2602:ffc5:70::1:31a7] has joined #se2600 21:23 -!- mode/#se2600 [+o Catonic] by ChanServ 22:42 -!- Dagmar_ is now known as Dagmar --- Log closed Fri Apr 26 00:00:46 2019