US 2024 Presidential Election

[tstorm823]

I "jumped over" that because you specifically asked about what the FAO is doing. Organisations with which it partners are less relevant to that.

Did you notice the only items that suggest presence on site are about training? Who do you think was being trained? Did those people have their memories cancelled too when the FAO lost some funding? Do you think the USDA is incapable of doing the same training? Is that really an international problem requiring an international organization?

 

[Silvanus]

Did you notice the only items that suggest presence on site are about training? Who do you think was being trained? Did those people have their memories cancelled too when the FAO lost some funding? Do you think the USDA is incapable of doing the same training? Is that really an international problem requiring an international organization?

We can move onto your latest batch of self-serving interpretations in a minute, if you like.

But I'm going to need you to acknowledge that the claims you made-- that the FAO "don't have a local presence on this continent", and that they're "sitting on the other side of the world pushing out data, and that's all they ever contributed"-- are flatly contradicted by what I posted. They do have a presence in the Americas. And they don't just "push out data".

Acknowledge those claims turned out to be wrong, and we can move onto your latest pivot.

 

[Schadrach]

Almost every pickup truck driver I see on the road acts like an obnoxious fuckwit on the roads.

Not as much here, but we don't have a lot of bad drivers in general. I imagine that's do to with all the places where one side of the road is a cliff and what's below is far enough down that if you go off that's going to be the last time you drive, or likely do anything else.

We have more guardrails now than when I was learning to drive, which has both reduced mortality some and reduced driver quality some but it's still not that bad. The worst drivers I've ever met come from flat places with straight roads, not roads that resemble kinda lame roller coasters.

My favorites to use as examples are route 60 a ways east of Gauley Bridge, WV and route 61 a ways east of Montgomery, WV - in part because these were the main routes for traffic heading from the Charleston, WV area to the Beckley, WV area before the interstate was built and things get...interesting once they stop being able to just follow the Kanawha River/New River (which are the same river). And lot of the guardrails weren't put there until after the interstate was built, some of them weren't there until into the 21st century.

 

[tstorm823]

We can move onto your latest batch of self-serving interpretations in a minute, if you like.

But I'm going to need you to acknowledge that the claims you made-- that the FAO "don't have a local presence on this continent", and that they're "sitting on the other side of the world pushing out data, and that's all they ever contributed"-- are flatly contradicted by what I posted. They do have a presence in the Americas. And they don't just "push out data".

Acknowledge those claims turned out to be wrong, and we can move onto your latest pivot.

You haven't found a single sentence that confirms any physical presence on this continent.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

*shrug*

 

[Silvanus]

You haven't found a single sentence that confirms any physical presence on this continent.

"FAO operates in seven countries in Central America (Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama), all of which have recently reported active cases of New World Screwworm. On-the-ground operations offer training for veterinary services to strengthen biosecurity and prevent further spread."

"On the ground operations" is right there.

What, you're going to argue they might have shifted topic entirely between those two sentences within the same paragraph, are you?

 

[tstorm823]

What, you're going to argue they might have shifted topic entirely between those two sentences within the same paragraph, are you?

I can guarantee it.

What I was setting you up for was finding one of these pages:

Home | FAO in North America | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Home | FAO in North America | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

www.fao.org

Subregional Office for Mesoamerica

Subregional Office for Mesoamerica | FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean

www.fao.org

You hadn't even gotten to the pages for the offices in the Americas for me to point out the lack of mentions of screwworm in their Central American office and the predominance of "virtual" in their events page. The North American office mentions screwworm... in the context of them starting a new project to actually do something a couple weeks ago.

 

[Silvanus]

I can guarantee it.

What I was setting you up for was finding one of these pages:

Home | FAO in North America | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Home | FAO in North America | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

www.fao.org

Subregional Office for Mesoamerica

Subregional Office for Mesoamerica | FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean

www.fao.org

You hadn't even gotten to the pages for the offices in the Americas for me to point out the lack of mentions of screwworm in their Central American office and the predominance of "virtual" in their events page. The North American office mentions screwworm... in the context of them starting a new project to actually do something a couple weeks ago.

You can "guarantee" that paragraph unintuitively switches topic halfway through... on the basis of some other pages, which aren't specifically about animal health or this project, not also mentioning it.

Are you genuinely blind to the tortuous gymnastics you're attempting to convince yourself? You know full well that if you weren't searching for narrow loopholes in the language, that the intended meaning clearly indicates they do work on the ground in those countries. You're trying incredibly hard to avoid the obvious, face-value intent of the statement.

 

[Gordon_4]

*shrug*

I cannot see that ending well.

 

[tstorm823]

Are you genuinely blind to the tortuous gymnastics you're attempting to convince yourself?

It's not gymnastics, it's just reason and logic. Let's apply some:

Do you think that the small team of FAO staff in Central America that have dozens of causes they help with has greater specific expertise to qualify them to teach COPEG or agriculture professionals to how to deal with screwworms? Does that situation even make sense? Try to imagine for yourself what the reality actually is, rather than just leave deliberate gaps to aim your judgment towards.

 

[Silvanus]

It's not gymnastics, it's just reason and logic. Let's apply some:

Apply some what?

As you have established, you cannot carry context from one sentence to the next even within a single paragraph, so I'm at a loss as to what you're referring!

Do you think that the small team of FAO staff in Central America that have dozens of causes they help with has greater specific expertise to qualify them to teach COPEG or agriculture professionals to how to deal with screwworms?

This boils down to more derisory speculation about their expertise.

Try to imagine for yourself what the reality actually is, rather than just leave deliberate gaps to aim your judgment towards.

Reality of what? You can't still be talking about FAO expertise in the Americas, can you? I have to assume a new topic has been opened, with which we have no context from the prior sentence.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

To which I respond with the conclusion you're using that proposition to push: " meaning doing that is not considered universally unconstitutional". Because for all that you want to put emphasis on the word "held", the subject is not whether or not you said they were "universally constitutional", but that your rhetoric has instead consistently treated my position as if it claimed they were "universally unconstitutional".

And you saying "meaning doing that is not considered universally unconstitutional" is a direct expression of that. It's literally you stating "that proves that they are not universally unconstitutional" as a retort; as if such a 'proof' directly contradicted my own statement.

Never mind that for all your efforts to erase the record and focus on your most recent post to the exclusion of all else, I was not responding exclusively that sentence but instead to your overall rhetoric, in which you repeatedly made it clear that your position was that the 13 cases I supplied you with upon your request didn't count and could be dismissed out of hand as necessarily wrong.

But more than that, you consistently argued that the simple existence of any 'honored' ICE detainer proved that those cases - which said that ICE detainers constituted another arrest and needed judicial warrants to hold people past their release date - couldn't be correct, going so far as to say - and I quote - "Either all ICE detainers are unconstitutional or none of them are".

Never mind how plainly grotesque it is that you keep on trying to invoke the simple prevalence of ICE detainers as if that were itself a counterargument against judicial rulings that detainers require judicial warrants to hold people past their release date. Your argument is essentially that because a government practice exists and is routinely carried out (without further qualifier), courts cannot find constitutional violations arising from that practice. "Either all [instances of them] are unconstitutional, or none of them are" as you put it.

But by that logic, rulings against excessive force would be wrong because police are authorized to use force in a broad sense, or rulings against unlawful searches would be wrong on the grounds that police conduct searches every day.

I've emphasized the "held" part for several posts now and you keep saying that I keep referring to just the ICE detainers themselves when that isn't true because you don't read what I say. For example this https://forums.escapistmagazine.com/threads/us-2024-presidential-election.288870/page-412#post-13375272]post is from over a month ago where you did not read what I said...

There's lots of judicial rulings that are obviously wrong that just don't get appealed because it's not a big enough issue or people don't care enough about it. ICE operates federally across the entire country and they are following the law that they are supposed to. This is a big enough and wide spanning issue that will have to eventually heard by the Supreme Court and if they rule like the other courts, then they will have to change the ICE law and how they operate. That law will be changed in a way to allow ICE to continue operating essentially as they do with slightly altered procedures to not be infringing on the constitution. If something is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional everywhere and not just in certain places is my point.

The sad thing is I have to use a SUV because Columbus Ohio's roads are insane in the winter, but my SUV is closer to the size of a sedan than to a Pickup Truck or even a larger ABC agency SUV, the better solution is to force car companies to have all cars use winter wheels in my state/winter-heavy states, possibly force more AWD cars.

People just don't know how to drive in the snow. I've driven in Chicagoland for my entire life and only had cars with just front wheel drive, that's all you need to drive well in the snow. People depend on either driving slow enough so that their car like never slides (which it will obviously slide at some point) or depend on the technologies like AWD or traction control and expect their car to never slide because of those (I had a co-worker that literally thought his Subaru would never slide in the snow until it did and he hit someone). And people never learn how to actually get out of a slide and thus cause accidents when they do eventually end up sliding. It's like how cars have blindspot indicators because people don't know how to set up the side mirrors properly.

 

[Schadrach]

People just don't know how to drive in the snow. I've driven in Chicagoland for my entire life and only had cars with just front wheel drive, that's all you need to drive well in the snow. People depend on either driving slow enough so that their car like never slides (which it will obviously slide at some point) or depend on the technologies like AWD or traction control and expect their car to never slide because of those (I had a co-worker that literally thought his Subaru would never slide in the snow until it did and he hit someone). And people never learn how to actually get out of a slide and thus cause accidents when they do eventually end up sliding. It's like how cars have blindspot indicators because people don't know how to set up the side mirrors properly.

I suspect a difference of geography. For example, this is a pretty typical stretch of semi-rural road from my neck of the woods. That's maybe 5 minutes outside the main strip of Kanawha City, one of the largest suburbs of Charleston, WV. I have a friend that used to live up that road and when I was in high school those guard rails weren't there yet. I drive a front wheel drive, but my routine is mostly on the roads where that's not a problem. I once stayed at the house of that friend I mentioned because it started a hard snow while I was there and my 2-seater Geo Metro was not a smart thing to go down the hill in. Some of the fun roads aren't on Google street view at all - I have to assume they decided that mapping them wasn't worth it.

 

[tstorm823]

Apply some what?

Oh, are you unfamiliar with logic and reason?

I think we can probably just make final statements on this one. DOGE had nothing to do with screwworms in the US, and the only reason you would ever even suggest it again is out of stubborn spite.

 

[thebobmaster]

And now Trump is apparently a spirit medium.

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)

Trump: "I even had a conversation with Theodore Roosevelt. I said, 'What do you think about the Panama Canal? Do you consider that your greatest achievement and how do you feel about the fact that the Democrats gave the Panama Canal away to Panama for $1?'"

bsky.app

ETA: I have been informed by multiple sources that this was actually an AI impersonating Teddy Roosevelt. So...on the one hand, my spirit medium joke now falls flat. On the other..we have AI Teddy Roosevelt now communicating with the President. I hate this timeline.

 

[tstorm823]

And now Trump is apparently a spirit medium.

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)

Trump: "I even had a conversation with Theodore Roosevelt. I said, 'What do you think about the Panama Canal? Do you consider that your greatest achievement and how do you feel about the fact that the Democrats gave the Panama Canal away to Panama for $1?'"

bsky.app

It was an AI representation of Teddy Roosevelt they put together at the new library that Trump was giving the speech at. Those present were aware of the context.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

I cannot see that ending well.

Certainly not for the Cubans sadly

 

[Asita]

I've emphasized the "held" part for several posts now and you keep saying that I keep referring to just the ICE detainers themselves when that isn't true because you don't read what I say. For example this https://forums.escapistmagazine.com/threads/us-2024-presidential-election.288870/page-412#post-13375272]post is from over a month ago where you did not read what I said...

I’m not going to litigate the word "held," because that is not the issue.

Whether or not you use that wording does not change the underlying question, and it does not create a contradiction in my position.

The question is not whether people are physically detained under ICE detainers in practice. I have never disputed that they are.

The question is whether there is sufficient legal authority for continued detention once state-law custody has ended, when the only basis is a civil ICE detainer.

My position has never been that ICE detainers are universally invalid or that they cannot result in someone being physically detained. My position is and has always been narrower: whether an ICE detainer, by itself, provides lawful authority for a local jail to continue detention after state-law custody has ended.

Courts have repeatedly held that it does not. Where detention continues solely on that basis - without independent legal authority or a judicial warrant - courts have found Fourth Amendment violations.

So when you point to "people being held" as if that contradicts my argument, you are treating the existence of detention as if it resolves the legal question those cases address. It does not.

That is the point you have not engaged with.

There's lots of judicial rulings that are obviously wrong that just don't get appealed because it's not a big enough issue or people don't care enough about it. ICE operates federally across the entire country and they are following the law that they are supposed to. This is a big enough and wide spanning issue that will have to eventually heard by the Supreme Court and if they rule like the other courts, then they will have to change the ICE law and how they operate. That law will be changed in a way to allow ICE to continue operating essentially as they do with slightly altered procedures to not be infringing on the constitution. If something is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional everywhere and not just in certain places is my point.

I'm not interested in your self-serving rationalizations, Phoenix. And make no mistake, that's all this is.

I'll remind you again: you asked for that case law. I gave it to you in the very next post. Since then, I've re-cited those same authorities - and the same legal summary containing even more of them - over and over again. For six weeks you've given no indication that you had even bothered to look at any of it.

Now you've finally acknowledged those cases exist, but only to declare that they don't count.

Why? Not because you've identified some flaw in their reasoning. Not because you've distinguished them on the facts. Not because you've cited contrary authority.

Instead, you've decided that, because the Supreme Court hasn't "ruled ICE detainers unconstitutional" (a claim neither made by me nor the cases), and because ICE continues issuing detainers, the cases can simply be dismissed out of hand. And if that isn't enough, you wave them away with, "There's lots of judicial rulings that are obviously wrong."

That's not an argument. It's a justification for ignoring the very evidence you asked me to provide.

You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, and your entire side of this exchange has consisted of repeatedly substituting your own assumptions for the authorities actually put in front of you. You asked for judicial decisions. You got them. Rather than engage with them, you've spent the last six weeks acting as though they didn't exist, and now that you've finally acknowledged them, your response is simply to announce that you've decided they aren't worth considering.

That says considerably more about your approach to this discussion than it does about the case law.

 

[Silvanus]

Oh, are you unfamiliar with logic and reason?

Oh, I'm familiar with those, but they were mentioned a sentence before! You were quite insistent that context cannot be carried from one sentence to the next, even within the same paragraph!

I think we can probably just make final statements on this one. DOGE had nothing to do with screwworms in the US, and the only reason you would ever even suggest it again is out of stubborn spite.

As usual, your ultimate argument is speculating about your opponent's motive, rather than any real engagement. Each statement you made about the FAO's work was derisory guff that fell apart quickly under scrutiny, faced with directly contradictory statements from the org. Until finally, all you're left with is denying the obvious meaning of the words, and hurling childish insults.

 

[Schadrach]

ETA: I have been informed by multiple sources that this was actually an AI impersonating Teddy Roosevelt. So...on the one hand, my spirit medium joke now falls flat. On the other..we have AI Teddy Roosevelt now communicating with the President. I hate this timeline.

...and now I want to train a model on all of Trump's speeches, then have it write speeches for progressive causes just to see what a MAGA-infecting brainworm for those causes might look like.