TheLeviathan
-
Posts
21,583 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by TheLeviathan
-
I edited it because I felt like you'd get distracted by it rather than seeing why that analogy doesn't fit. And it doesn't fit. I mean, if we can just ignore the actual merits of anyone's decisions and concentrate only on the negative consequence and blame them for it, we're going to make all sorts of tortured analogies that don't fit. As an example, I could turn a perfectly fair criticism of Debby Wasserman-Schultz into the same analogy you did. I doubt you'd agree that it fits for the same reasons I'm suggesting your analogy doesn't fit. Because Wasserman-Schultz's actions, like Hillary's, are ones that reasonable people can actually condemn in and of themselves unlike a choice to drink or wear certain clothing.
-
Fair enough, I apologize. I took your aggressive stance on it as dismissive, but if you were just being that aggressive about the criminal angle I can see that. Certainly the "lock her up" stuff is ridiculous.
-
Here is something interesting. O'Reilly's already wacky antics look like they are taking a full turn down the "holy crap that's crazy" path.
-
I think the first criticism is true. I think a great deal of the push back she gets is because she's asserting herself into a role that many feel a woman shouldn't have. And I don't think Hillary should ever answer any question about Bill with any response other than (to this effect) "I'm running for President, not my husband" Anyone who insinuates this is Bill going for a third term or anything of that ilk is absolutely misogynistic. Ditto anything said about her appearance. That's a really tortured analogy. I honestly have no idea how you got to that point to twist the quote that way. A woman choosing to drink or wear whatever she wants is not the same as blatantly disregarding laws/codes of conduct about national security. No reasonable person would say a woman choosing to drink is careless, stupid or arrogant. But Clinton's actions with the server were stupid, arrogant, and careless. Honestly, trying to make that analogy is really misguided and out of context.
-
Sure, but my point was that you were being too dismissive of her actions even if it didn't rise to criminality. There is, at least weakly, a case for negligence on her part. And when you're dealing with classified information and all that jazz, negligence is potentially criminal or, at least, punished with (as I put it) "far worse consequences". I don't think we should dismiss what she did too easily. I think it can, and should, be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not she'd be a good President. As for the legal definitions, I agree that what you were referring to as "carelessness" was probably not intended to rise to a criminal level. But really, when we are deciding criminal negligence we're basically arguing "was the person SO careless it's a crime"? Hence what I was saying about the fact that it can rise to criminality. So, yeah, we're probably not disagreeing, just not being precise enough.
-
Oh, I absolutely think there are times for that. If someone carelessly leaves their child locked in a hot car, I have no problem putting them in jail if their child dies. Again, part of the problem here may be splitting hairs over what the word "careless" means. Negligent homicide would be an example as well.
-
I believe you may have taken my comment as an insinuation that Hillary was guilty of rising to that level. I didn't intend that. My original statement was that carelessness, arrogance, and stupidity can rise to criminal charges. So....yes that can happen. As with any case of carelessness there are a myriad of other factors that will help determine the degree of criminality, but that is still very much something that can and does get charged. Negligence, which is what carelessness/stupidity/arrogance is, can and does rise to criminality. Did it happen in this case? Well, that's a different question isn't it? I tend to agree that it didn't. I also tend to think that if this was a lower ranking person there would be less muddling of "intent". (Though it is important and why I believe she shouldn't be charged) The plain truth, hard as it may be, is that when things like this happen it's rarely the top of the food chain that takes the blame. That's where the privilege comes in. Hillary is no different than many before her in that regard. And many after her either.
-
I agree, she gets too much flak. Has for a long time. I think a sizable portion of that is misogyny, but to run behind that for every criticism weakens it. In fact, i'd argue it's a kind of soft sexism in and of itself. As if Clinton can't be criticized because she's a woman because criticism is always because she's a woman and not because she's, I don't know, worthy of criticism. I mean, if I criticize Obama for his drone policies, am I doing it because he's black? Or can I criticize him independently of his race? If I criticize Cruz for his vile beliefs about homosexuality, am I doing that because he's Canadian/hispanic? Or can I criticize him independently? And here's the thing, again, not everything has to be mutually exclusive: I can criticize her for getting off easy because of her privilege and still agree the right is ridiculous in their criticism, often doing so in a misogynistic way. Again, not mutually exclusive.
-
There are entire sections of the law related to criminal negligence. What are you talking about? Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm. And look - I didn't even have to argue until I'm blue in the face! And it's not just tort law, things like manslaughter, reckless driving, etc. are also in the same category. So my statement is absolutely true.
-
Obama doesn't do carelessly stupid **** when he knows people are out to get him? Seems like a good place to start.
-
I have no doubt some of the flak she gets is misogynistic and sexist. If it's going to be the rallying cry against every criticism....you've lost me.
-
So your ridiculous link you posted was an honest attempt at discussion?
-
Absolutely, is that not exactly the response I got above? A ridiculous strawman? Look, Powell and Clinton both got away with it because of privilege. Powell got less scrutiny because he's a largely respected man of honor by both parties. (Even with his own history of mistakes) Clinton is unfairly reviled by half the country and luke-warmly accepted by the other half. Of course that person is going to get more scrutiny. Doubly so when she, as you put it, was carelessly stupid. It's not a gender thing, that **** is going to get real old, real fast if it's the comeback for every criticism. Obama is despised by nearly half the country as well and somehow has managed to avoid anything other than ridiculous claims that he's Muslim and Kenyan. Hillary has walked herself into plenty of problems all by herself.
-
Hillary = perfect. Got it. That delusion is going to hurt extra hard when she continues this losing pace of hers.....
-
I think Vox wraps up my view rather nicely on this. Some of this is unfair targeting and some of this is the Clintons just don't give a rip.
-
Thing is, you're right, she has been treated unfairly. It can also be true that she has been involved in a fair share of shady activity. It'd be hard not to with being in politics for 3-4 decades. She and Colin Powell aren't different because of their sex. They're different because one is a distinguished, squeaky clean general and the other has been on-again, off-again associated with scandals for as long as I've been alive. But they both skated away from the server thing because of their prominence. If it had been some lowly public servant they'd never be allowed near classified info again at minimum.
-
I think in your very fair, even handed take you forgot to bogusly claim she kills puppies for fun. But that's ok, if you want to disqualify yourself as someone willing to talk about it fairly that's fine. That's your decision.
-
Well, yes, Powell has a far less dicey track record than Hillary. He sort of earned more leniency. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
-
Being careless, stupid, and arrogant absolutely can be a criminal offense. Again, I'd argue if someone with less prominence had done the same exact thing, there would have been far worse consequences. I don't know why anyone would argue differently. Same goes for Colin Powell, he likely got away with it for the same reason. The right is pounding away too hard on this, but the left's dismissive nature of it is just as bad. If her name was Bush we'd just take opposite sides on it - that's the worst part.
-
Twins Trade Deadline Tidbits
TheLeviathan replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
I think this says how I'm feeling these days.... -
I love John Turturro, he's one of the main reasons I'm watching, but I'm very much with you Dave. Between the cat and his feet we could've probably cut 40 minutes of screen time already. I'm hoping these things factor in at the end some how so that the time invested pays off, but it's getting harder to believe that the more time spent on it. I am going to hold off recommending it to anyone yet because this thing could still go The Killing on me and completely fizzle despite a couple strong acting performances I'm already impressed with.
-
There is some of this that is so important for the left to hear. Sometimes perception becomes truth, no matter how much the facts disagree with it. (And we're not in a competition of facts here, like it or not) Trump is preying on perceptions, but he's also preying on some common tendencies in the right and left. The right wants to be fed lowest common denominator, red meat nonsense and the left loves to be in total denial of reality when it doesn't fit their cushy narrative. Here slides in Trump to give the right what it wants and to call out the left for what a lot of us see in it. I'm more worried by the day that Trump is going to win this. The emailer to Barreiro is right. Hillary needs to stop fighting evil with sunny denials of reality and start acknowledging concerns and offering a different path. I tend to think she will, but how long will it take for that message to shine out?
-
Casting has been very good. I'm invested, I just feel like there hasn't been enough for me to slide up from "good" to "great".
-
I like it, but some parts of it are moving a bit slowly for my liking. It feels like the last two episodes could have been condensed to one IMO.
-
Fangraphs (and other national publications) on the Twins
TheLeviathan replied to Mike Sixel's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Any little bit is interesting to hear, thank you!
