RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Al Franken
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56627
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 7:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Luuuc wrote:
Ughh ... there's nothing worse than moral standards, amirite?


Whose moral standards are we concerned about?



_________________
When all my dime dancin' is through
I run to you
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4842
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 11:21 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Franken urged to reverse his resignation

Quote:
At least four senators are urging Al Franken to reconsider resigning, including two who issued statements calling for the resignation two weeks ago and said they now feel remorse over what they feel was a rush to judgment.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who urged Franken not to step down to begin with — at least not before he went through an Ethics Committee investigation — said the Minnesota senator was railroaded by fellow Democrats.

“What they did to Al was atrocious, the Democrats,” said West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin . . . .

“The most hypocritical thing I’ve ever seen done to a human being — and then have enough guts to sit on the floor, watch him give his speech and go over and hug him? That’s hypocrisy at the highest level I’ve ever seen in my life. Made me sick,” Manchin said.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6393



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 2:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Luuuc wrote:
Ughh ... there's nothing worse than moral standards, amirite?


Whose moral standards are we concerned about?


I hope that we see "war crimes" upgraded to be as bad as sexual harassment. Would like to see presidents and members of Congress having to step down for ordering assassination drone strikes on "bad guys" on other continents, and any family members who happen to be with them.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6393



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 3:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Franken urged to reverse his resignation

Quote:
At least four senators are urging Al Franken to reconsider resigning, including two who issued statements calling for the resignation two weeks ago and said they now feel remorse over what they feel was a rush to judgment.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who urged Franken not to step down to begin with — at least not before he went through an Ethics Committee investigation — said the Minnesota senator was railroaded by fellow Democrats.

“What they did to Al was atrocious, the Democrats,” said West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin . . . .

“The most hypocritical thing I’ve ever seen done to a human being — and then have enough guts to sit on the floor, watch him give his speech and go over and hug him? That’s hypocrisy at the highest level I’ve ever seen in my life. Made me sick,” Manchin said.


What "they" did and "the" Democrats make it sound like he's getting ready to switch parties.

Seems like a Franken un-resignation would not go over well in his party at this point. That is, among the Senate. Don't know about how the votes of Minnesota would be with regard to his re-election in the future, but I suspect they wouldn't hold it against him as much as his colleagues did. But justintyme should have a strong opinion on how they would accept his un-resignation in Minnesota.

Although it appears unlikely:

Quote:
People familiar with Franken's plans said he has not changed his mind and intends to formally resign in early January. He praised the selection of Smith and has begun working with her on the transition.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6973
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 4:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
But justintyme should have a strong opinion on how they would accept his un-resignation in Minnesota.

It would cause a split in the party, but most consequently he would lose his voice on those women's issues that he has long championed.

Ultimately there is no way he would be reelected. Minnesota is not so blue that someone with a split base can win. If the GOP put up a moderate Republican in the David Durenberger or Arne Carlson vein (which is almost certainly what they would do) the Republican would win, even with the despised Trump at the top of the ticket.

Honestly, I think the Dems asking him to stay are playing politics as well. His resignation puts another seat at risk in 2018 and with Doug Jones winning the they are thinking that flipping the Senate along with the House is now in play.

But if he means what he says about being a champion for women he needs to resign, and I am certain he knows that. As much as I like Franken he lacks the credibility to lead on these issues and opens up everything he says to tu quoque fallacies. Which is why there is no way he is going to flip flop on this.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 341
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 11:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Franken said that he is "going to" resign. That means it may not happen until sometime next year, if at all.

It means he is going through the process and getting things in order, while giving Dayton time to pick his replacement and have her ready to go.

Once everything is ready to go he will officially stand down. This is not abnormal.

If that's what you're willing to believe then why not

And when it happens you can see how stupid your claim here is. But that shouldn't be surpising since most of your claims are.

I am starting to think you are just one of Cernovich's troll bots.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/20/when-will-al-franken-resign-308963

So then next year it is, just as I predicted. Now it's official. How stupid of me to make that claim.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6973
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 11:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Franken said that he is "going to" resign. That means it may not happen until sometime next year, if at all.

It means he is going through the process and getting things in order, while giving Dayton time to pick his replacement and have her ready to go.

Once everything is ready to go he will officially stand down. This is not abnormal.

If that's what you're willing to believe then why not

And when it happens you can see how stupid your claim here is. But that shouldn't be surpising since most of your claims are.

I am starting to think you are just one of Cernovich's troll bots.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/20/when-will-al-franken-resign-308963

So then next year it is, just as I predicted. Now it's official. How stupid of me to make that claim.

No, your claim that we were calling out was the "if at all" part. Everyone assumed it would be early next year to give time for his replacement to get there. We took issue with your baseless claim that this might mean he wasn't leaving at all.

And we were right, and you were, as expected, wrong. Which is nothing new when it comes to your trollish behavior.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 341
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 1:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Franken said that he is "going to" resign. That means it may not happen until sometime next year, if at all.

It means he is going through the process and getting things in order, while giving Dayton time to pick his replacement and have her ready to go.

Once everything is ready to go he will officially stand down. This is not abnormal.

If that's what you're willing to believe then why not

And when it happens you can see how stupid your claim here is. But that shouldn't be surpising since most of your claims are.

I am starting to think you are just one of Cernovich's troll bots.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/20/when-will-al-franken-resign-308963

So then next year it is, just as I predicted. Now it's official. How stupid of me to make that claim.

No, your claim that we were calling out was the "if at all" part. Everyone assumed it would be early next year to give time for his replacement to get there. We took issue with your baseless claim that this might mean he wasn't leaving at all.

And we were right, and you were, as expected, wrong.

Who is "we?" It was you. And I said next year, if at all. So I am right. Nobody else assumed anything different except for you. And you were wrong. Just like you were wrong about the Mueller investigation. And Uranium One. And everything else you argue about.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6973
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 1:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Seriously, stop trolling. You can't throw on "if at all" and pretend it doesn't make a claim. That is not how logic works. Just because half of your premise is true doesn't allow you to make additional assertions which aren't.

By "we" I mean everyone in this community who is sick and tired of your trolling and the ridiculous number of PMs I've gotten from people about your behavior here.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 341
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 3:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Seriously, stop trolling. You can't throw on "if at all" and pretend it doesn't make a claim. That is not how logic works. Just because half of your premise is true doesn't allow you to make additional assertions which aren't.

By "we" I mean everyone in this community who is sick and tired of your trolling and the ridiculous number of PMs I've gotten from people about your behavior here.

Is that how this works? I disagree with you and it's trolling? Who are the people PMing you? The usual 2 suspects that you always agree with? That constitutes trolling in your opinion? You calling me "stupid" isn't trolling in your opinion, right? That must be perfectly OK. Or when you accuse me of being brainwashed by Breitbart and Newsmax when I never cited a single article from them, that must not be trolling either. Just the part where I disagree with you and you don't like it... THAT must be what trolling is.

As far as what I said, don't try to re-interpret my words and make it something it isn't. You must have learned that from your introduction to journalism class that you took as part of your common core requirement. What I said is not only on the record, but 100% correct. You don't get to cry "trolling" because you threw stones and they didn't hit the target. That's not how this works.

I get what you're really doing here... you're trying a different approach to whine about me not agreeing with you... for someone else to rescue you. Here's a thought... fight your own battles or don't throw punches. It's that simple.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56627
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 3:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Franken will probably resign before Trump signs the new tax bill



_________________
When all my dime dancin' is through
I run to you
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 341
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 4:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Franken will probably resign before Trump signs the new tax bill

According to Politico, January 2nd


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4842
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 4:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

"If Franken resigns, it will be next year."

"If Trump signs the tax bill, it will be next year."

Which of these sentences are untrue, illogical or trolling? Why?

I'm not interested in Franken any more, as I gave my opinion long ago that he shouldn't resign. However, I find this dispute about semantics, logic and trolling to be interesting.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6973
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 4:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Seriously, stop trolling. You can't throw on "if at all" and pretend it doesn't make a claim. That is not how logic works. Just because half of your premise is true doesn't allow you to make additional assertions which aren't.

By "we" I mean everyone in this community who is sick and tired of your trolling and the ridiculous number of PMs I've gotten from people about your behavior here.

As far as what I said, don't try to re-interpret my words and make it something it isn't. You must have learned that from your introduction to journalism class that you took as part of your common core requirement. What I said is not only on the record, but 100% correct. You don't get to cry "trolling" because you threw stones and they didn't hit the target. That's not how this works.

Since you seem to be under the assumption that I am making an unfair interpretation of your words, lets go back to the source and what you said specifically. This was your post verbatim:
Quote:
That means it may not happen until sometime next year, if at all.

No one here disagreed with the part in red. The posts after that in which I noted that he had to give Dayton time to pick his replacement and get things in order speak to that. Everyone and their mother expected him to wait until next year to resign, this was not a contentious statement.

However, the part in blue clearly is making another claim that he doesn't plan to resign at all. In context of the post it suggests that something abnormal was going on and that there was a chance that he would ultimately not leave. Those are your words directly, unless there is some other interpretation of "if at all" other than that. You will have to explain to us what those words meant to you if they are not meant to be used in the way they most commonly are.

And just to point out, calling your claim stupid is not the same as calling you stupid. Otherwise normal people make stupid claims all the time. And, ultimately, "if at all" has proven to be a false claim based upon zero evidence. So I pretty much nailed the "stupid" part.

But I suspect that you already know all this, which is why I am calling you a troll.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6973
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 4:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
"If Franken resigns, it will be next year."

"If Trump signs the tax bill, it will be next year."

Which of these sentences are untrue, illogical or trolling? Why?

I'm not interested in Franken any more, as I gave my opinion long ago that he shouldn't resign. However, I find this dispute about semantics, logic and trolling to be interesting.

With the Franken comment you wrote the true part, but left out the untrue.

The statement:

"Franken won't resign until next year" is a logically sound statement. It is based upon true premises that the conclusion follows from.

"Franken won't resign until next year, if at all" is logically unsound, as it makes a claim that he might not resign at all. For an argument to be sound, all of the premises must be true. You cannot just tack on insinuations to an otherwise true statement that are not supported, or in this case are patently false, and claim the statement was true because part of it was.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56627
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 5:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
pilight wrote:
Franken will probably resign before Trump signs the new tax bill

According to Politico, January 2nd


You know why they're waiting until January? Because doing it earlier would trigger automatic spending cuts. Despite their rhetoric, the GOP has zero interest in cutting spending.



_________________
When all my dime dancin' is through
I run to you
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2804
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 8:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
pilight wrote:
Franken will probably resign before Trump signs the new tax bill

According to Politico, January 2nd


You know why they're waiting until January? Because doing it earlier would trigger automatic spending cuts. Despite their rhetoric, the GOP has zero interest in cutting spending.


Yes, but I suspect Trump will want to sign it January 1. The only thing that would stop him is if somebody gets him to realize that signing over a trillion dollars to the super wealthy from the poor and middle class might not be the best optics.

I wish I was part of the wealthy; maybe I wouldn't feel so sick. I think I'd just feel dirty.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56627
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 9:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
Yes, but I suspect Trump will want to sign it January 1. The only thing that would stop him is if somebody gets him to realize that signing over a trillion dollars to the super wealthy from the poor and middle class might not be the best optics.


The reason the congressional Republicans are delaying enrollment is that they're afraid he would just sign it immediately and let them deal with the fallout.



_________________
When all my dime dancin' is through
I run to you
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4842
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/22/17 11:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Defying logic, truth, RebKell and probably just to be a troll, Trump signs the tax bill into law on December 22, leaving us to wait -- if at all -- for the truth about Franken.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56627
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/22/17 11:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Dems just gave in on the PayGo waiver without even the pretense of a fight



_________________
When all my dime dancin' is through
I run to you
Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15767
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/23/17 9:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
The Dems just gave in on the PayGo waiver without even the pretense of a fight


Ah, yes, the guiding principle of the Democratic party.



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4842
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/23/17 4:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
"If Franken resigns, it will be next year."

"If Trump signs the tax bill, it will be next year."

Which of these sentences are untrue, illogical or trolling? Why?

I'm not interested in Franken any more, as I gave my opinion long ago that he shouldn't resign. However, I find this dispute about semantics, logic and trolling to be interesting.

With the Franken comment you wrote the true part, but left out the untrue.

The statement:

"Franken won't resign until next year" is a logically sound statement. It is based upon true premises that the conclusion follows from.

"Franken won't resign until next year, if at all" is logically unsound, as it makes a claim that he might not resign at all. For an argument to be sound, all of the premises must be true. You cannot just tack on insinuations to an otherwise true statement that are not supported, or in this case are patently false, and claim the statement was true because part of it was.


This is just a sort of lay logic debate, which you're good at.

I don't think "if at all" is a claim or a premiss. It's simply a conditional. Therefore, I don't see any logical difference between these two conditioned claims:

"Franken will resign in 2018, if at all."

"If Franken resigns, it will be in 2018."

Both statements have the same condition. A condition may, of course, have a high probability or a low probability, but that doesn't change it from a conditional into an affirmative truth claim.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6973
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/23/17 7:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
justintyme wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
"If Franken resigns, it will be next year."

"If Trump signs the tax bill, it will be next year."

Which of these sentences are untrue, illogical or trolling? Why?

I'm not interested in Franken any more, as I gave my opinion long ago that he shouldn't resign. However, I find this dispute about semantics, logic and trolling to be interesting.

With the Franken comment you wrote the true part, but left out the untrue.

The statement:

"Franken won't resign until next year" is a logically sound statement. It is based upon true premises that the conclusion follows from.

"Franken won't resign until next year, if at all" is logically unsound, as it makes a claim that he might not resign at all. For an argument to be sound, all of the premises must be true. You cannot just tack on insinuations to an otherwise true statement that are not supported, or in this case are patently false, and claim the statement was true because part of it was.


This is just a sort of lay logic debate, which you're good at.

I don't think "if at all" is a claim or a premiss. It's simply a conditional. Therefore, I don't see any logical difference between these two conditioned claims:

"Franken will resign in 2018, if at all."

"If Franken resigns, it will be in 2018."

Both statements have the same condition. A condition may, of course, have a high probability or a low probability, but that doesn't change it from a conditional into an affirmative truth claim.

I agree that those both have the same condition and are fundamentally the same sentence.

However, the issue at hand is the very presence of that conditional.

Phrasing the statement the way the original poster did is nothing more than a rhetorical trick that uses a conditional to raise a possibility that is not really in play. Here it rasies the possibily that Franken might not resign at all. That is what was being disagreed with.

In other words, if all the poster really meant was that Franken wouldn't resign until 2018, all they had to do was write, "Franken won't resign until 2018". They write that and there is no issue since everyone was in agreement about that point. Instead by writing what they did they change the entire connotation of the statement.

Here is another example; think about how the connotation of these two statements differ:

"I will get paid next year"

"If I get paid at all, it will be next year".

Sure, if I get paid next year I can claim that I was technically "correct" in both of these. But anyone listening to these statements when I made them are going to get a dramatically different feel for what is happening. In the first I am suggesting just what I said, that I expect to get paid next year. But phrasing it the second way I am suggesting that something may be off, that I believe I might not actually get paid.

In the case of Franken, the only thing in contention was that superfluous conditional. That not resigning was a real possibility. Since it wasn't, I was calling out the poster for their insinuation. The fact that they later claimed to have been correct when the only issue being debated was that they raised the possibility of him not resigning at all, is silly. Their insinuated claim was proven false.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin