Politics Lying

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I think you mean that lots of people get away with crimes, and so lack of indictment doesn't prove no crime was committed?

In general I'd agree with that. Clinton is a bit of a special case, though, as there has been a huge effort over the last 30 years to find a crime to charge her with.

You can argue that for a portion of that time she was protected from prosecution by friendly administrations. But it's hard to claim that the current administration is cutting her any slack. You would assume if they had any evidence of criminality in the vault, they'd be bringing charges. It would make the base very, very happy.

So I think it's a fairly good bet that there isn't anything to charge her with, at least at the federal level, and within the statute of limitations.

As for the particular issue of the DNC, I don't know what the specific crime would be.

barfo

Its partially that, but also “hard evidence” doesnt always lead to indictments, or the law being enforced, Ive been pulled over and given a warning, they had hard evidence did they not?

Also what constitutes hard evidence? Much of our decision making process as to what to believe or not is not based on what we have “heard, seen, touched”, its based on cognitive bias’, who we trust, what “sources” we trust, etc, etc. Do we expect someone to pull out an receipt from hillary to someone with 150,000k that says “Rig DNC”, on it? If we had that would it prove anything in and of itself? No thered be questions as to its validity. Its just hard to prove just about anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Its why impeachment is hard, its why indictments are hard, its why OJ got off right? Saying oh if there was,”hard evidence”, she’d be indicted it just seems like a few things here, a) hard evidence probably doesnt exist. b) if it happened there would need to be people in the know willing to step forward and even then their testimonies would be called into question.

Do you have a recording of Trumps call with Ukraine on your desk? Have you met him? My guess is no but were using our abilities to deduce to determine our feelins about him, but our deduction abilities are flawed. It doesnt stop us from saying he needs to be impeached though.

 

[barfo]

Its partially that, but also “hard evidence” doesnt always lead to indictments, or the law being enforced, Ive been pulled over and given a warning, they had hard evidence did they not?

True. But if the cop knew that his boss desperately wanted you to get a ticket, that that's all that his boss ever talked about, if there were rallies where they all chanted "Lock TBF Up", he might be less inclined to let you go.

Also what constitutes hard evidence? Much of our decision making process as to what to believe or not is not based on what we have “heard, seen, touched”, its based on cognitive bias’, who we trust, what “sources” we trust, etc, etc. Do we expect someone to pull out an receipt from hillary to someone with 150,000k that says “Rig DNC”, on it? If we had that would it prove anything in and of itself? No thered be questions as to its validity. Its just hard to prove just about anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

True, but there are standards for indictment, and for conviction. Messy, not always applied correctly or consistently standards, but standards nonetheless.

Its why impeachment is hard, its why indictments are hard, its why OJ got off right?

Yes, although he was indicted, at least.

Saying oh if there was,”hard evidence”, she’d be indicted it just seems like a few things here, a) hard evidence probably doesnt exist. b) if it happened there would need to be people in the know willing to step forward and even then their testimonies would be called into question.

Yeah, I think hard evidence is probably an incorrect phrasing. Sufficient evidence to indict is maybe closer?

Do you have a recording of Trumps call with Ukraine on your desk? Have you met him? My guess is no but were using our abilities to deduce to determine our feelins about him, but our deduction abilities are flawed. It doesnt stop us from saying he needs to be impeached though.

Yeah. I will stipulate that me saying that Trump is guilty doesn't mean he's guilty. I have no authority, just an opinion.
And now I've kind of lost track of the thread of the argument, so I'll stop.

barfo

 

[Road Ratt]

Okay, but my original question is still unanswered and it appears to me that you've got nothing but some sort of personal ax to grind with her. I've never yet seen any evidence backing up all these claims that she's crooked other than inner personal feelings. Any hard evidence would surely lead to indictments.

Hillary is corrupt as they come, and that is not just a personal feeling. I have seen what she did with the whole DNC debacle, her making money wooing wall street during her last presidential run, and several other disturbing things that she has done. And, no, it is not an ax to grind (I don't hold grudges anymore, I simply post the truth as I have seen it). I could just as easily accuse you of bias yourself. But that doesn't do this conversation any good. I could also ask you to prove to me that Hillary isn't corrupt. It seems to me that, that is the magnifying glass that I am under here, yet you get off scott free not having to prove anything to me. A little bit on the unfair side I would say.

We clearly both have seen this thing from opposite sides of the coin. From my point of view, from what I have seen, there is plenty of evidence that Hillary is corrupt. The problem is, you seem to need an indictment in order to believe that Hillary is corrupt. I could take days digging up all the links to all the old crap I read/watched several years ago, if I could even find them. But I doubt it would do any good.

Like I said before, We will just have to agree to disagree sir.

I made one seemingly uncontroversial post in this thread and opened up a giant can of worms.

Who knew talking to humans could be so exhausting?

 

[Lanny]

I think your line of thinking on this is very, very illogical. You’re free to your opinion though, so I’ll just leave at that.

I've dedicated my life to logic so I find your statement illogical.
Plus, I'm an engineer so I'm used to looking at things from a technical point of view. I think you'll find the logic behind my calculations within the category of as good as it gets.
Glad to hear you're leaving it at that because if there's anything I hate it's going round and round with someone. I want to be productive rather than waste away my valuable time.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

True. But if the cop knew that his boss desperately wanted you to get a ticket, that that's all that his boss ever talked about, if there were rallies where they all chanted "Lock TBF Up", he might be less inclined to let you go.



True, but there are standards for indictment, and for conviction. Messy, not always applied correctly or consistently standards, but standards nonetheless.



Yes, although he was indicted, at least.



Yeah, I think hard evidence is probably an incorrect phrasing. Sufficient evidence to indict is maybe closer?



Yeah. I will stipulate that me saying that Trump is guilty doesn't mean he's guilty. I have no authority, just an opinion.
And now I've kind of lost track of the thread of the argument, so I'll stop.

barfo

It is the OT section.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I've dedicated my life to logic so I find your statement illogical.
Plus, I'm an engineer so I'm used to looking at things from a technical point of view. I think you'll find the logic behind my calculations within the category of as good as it gets.
Glad to hear you're leaving it at that because if there's anything I hate it's going round and round with someone. I want to be productive rather than waste away my valuable time.

Smart people can disagree, neither of us have infallible logic, or opinions.

 

[donkiez]

Excuse me, but what buying power are you talking about? In my 20s, I parked cars for tips and sold magazines over the phone for $7/hr. We were coming off the era of Carter malaise and the brutal Reagan recession.

Unlike you, we didn't have side gigs, or remote work, or flextime, or LinkedIn connections or anything else. Just shitty, low-paying jobs.

Personally, things didn't change for me until I went back to school and then started my own business. That is what I am suggesting you should consider too. No one is gong to protect "workers" in this gig economy; those days are gone.

How much did you pay for school?

How much did you pay for health care?

How much did you pay for rent?

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

I've dedicated my life to logic so I find your statement illogical.
Plus, I'm an engineer so I'm used to looking at things from a technical point of view. I think you'll find the logic behind my calculations within the category of as good as it gets.
Glad to hear you're leaving it at that because if there's anything I hate it's going round and round with someone. I want to be productive rather than waste away my valuable time.

As a former public works employee for over 35 years, I find your claim (or allusion) that engineers are grounded in “logic” and that engineering calculations “as good as it gets” to be delusional at best and arrogant at worst. History has pretty much shown that engineers have at least as many failures as they have successes. But your comments just continue to prove what my professional lifetime has already shown me, and that is that I have yet to meet an engineer who can admit to being professionally infallible. Must be some sort of secret engineering school sacred death oath or something. But if nothing else, you guys sure make it sound plausible when called out......

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

As a former public works employee for over 35 years, I find your claim (or allusion) that engineers are grounded in “logic” and that engineering calculations “as good as it gets” to be delusional at best and arrogant at worst. History has pretty much shown that engineers have at least as many failures as they have successes. But your comments just continue to prove what my professional lifetime has already shown me, and that is that I have yet to meet an engineer who can admit to being professionally infallible. Must be some sort of secret engineering school sacred death oath or something. But if nothing else, you guys sure make it sound plausible when called out......

Hey, I'm an SW Engineer, and probably not as skilled or as "good" as many of the incredibly bright minds out there, but I'm pretty offended right now, you're saying I've been wrong before? What the heck!! lol

 

[Lanny]

As a former public works employee for over 35 years, I find your claim (or allusion) that engineers are grounded in “logic” and that engineering calculations “as good as it gets” to be delusional at best and arrogant at worst. History has pretty much shown that engineers have at least as many failures as they have successes. But your comments just continue to prove what my professional lifetime has already shown me, and that is that I have yet to meet an engineer who can admit to being professionally infallible. Must be some sort of secret engineering school sacred death oath or something. But if nothing else, you guys sure make it sound plausible when called out......

Engineers don't fail. Management fails in that they have unrealistic deadlines. We use to call our part of a project as being partially complete and then thrown "over the fence" for the next poor sap to have to complete plus do his work. The farther down the road you got the worse the compressed schedule got.

Also, I never said engineering calculations were as good as it gets. Try reading the whole statement taking in the context. I said the calculations were in the category of as good as it gets. Some system engineer is going to have to define the totality of the complications and then the affected engineers will do the intricate calculations. This is really tough to do when figuring the odds of finding life in the Universe, but I think you can get a rough idea.

There's an old engineering joke about the three men who were shown a room with a beautiful woman on the other side. They were told that if they could walk to the other side following the rules they could have the beautiful woman. The rules were that your first step could be as big as you could make it but each succeeding step had to be half the size of it's predecessor. The first man was a physicist. He said you can't get there by those rules and stepped aside. The second man, a mathematician said "The physicist was right and here's why." and he proceeded to pencil out a proof. The third man, an engineer, said "Both the physicist and the mathematician are correct, you can't get there." But as he took a giant step he said "But you can get close enough." I hope this little allegory describes the value of engineering.

Yes, engineers rule.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Engineers don't fail. Management fails in that they have unrealistic deadlines. We use to call our part of a project as being partially complete and then thrown "over the fence" for the next poor sap to have to complete plus do his work. The farther down the road you got the worse the compressed schedule got.

Also, I never said engineering calculations were as good as it gets. Try reading the whole statement taking in the context. I said the calculations were in the category of as good as it gets. Some system engineer is going to have to define the totality of the complications and then the affected engineers will do the intricate calculations. This is really tough to do when figuring the odds of finding life in the Universe, but I think you can get a rough idea.

There's an old engineering joke about the three men who were shown a room with a beautiful woman on the other side. They were told that if they could walk to the other side following the rules they could have the beautiful woman. The rules were that your first step could be as big as you could make it but each succeeding step had to be half the size of it's predecessor. The first man was a physicist. He said you can't get there by those rules and stepped aside. The second man, a mathematician said "The physicist was right and here's why." and he proceeded to pencil out a proof. The third man, an engineer, said "Both the physicist and the mathematician are correct, you can't get there." But as he took a giant step he said "But you can get close enough." I hope this little allegory describes the value of engineering.

Yes, engineers rule.

This thread is about Lying, Trump, Hillary politics and all that. I think you're getting this and the archaeology thread confused.

 

[andalusian]

Since we are on engineer jokes, my favorite is about the guy in the hot air balloon that spots a man on a beach and asks him where he is because he promised his friend that he will meet him in 30 minutes.

The man on the beach tells him - you are 30 ft in the air, here are your longitude and latitude coordinates and the wind flows from the north at such and such speed.

The man in the air balloon says "you must be an engineer".
- 'I am, how did you know?'
- 'Whatever you told me might be right - but it did not help me at all and I am still lost'

The engineer counters:
- 'You must be a manager'
- 'How did you know?'
- 'you don't know where you are or where you are going, you made a promise you can't keep and somehow you believe that it is my fault'.

 

[MarAzul]

I think Microsoft is pretty freaking close to the black plague, but here I am on windows 10.

It's enough to give me heart burn too. But what you going to do?

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

It's enough to give me heart burn too. But what you going to do?

Linux! Which I pretty much hate working with lol.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Engineers don't fail. Management fails in that they have unrealistic deadlines. We use to call our part of a project as being partially complete and then thrown "over the fence" for the next poor sap to have to complete plus do his work. The farther down the road you got the worse the compressed schedule got.

Also, I never said engineering calculations were as good as it gets. Try reading the whole statement taking in the context. I said the calculations were in the category of as good as it gets. Some system engineer is going to have to define the totality of the complications and then the affected engineers will do the intricate calculations. This is really tough to do when figuring the odds of finding life in the Universe, but I think you can get a rough idea.

There's an old engineering joke about the three men who were shown a room with a beautiful woman on the other side. They were told that if they could walk to the other side following the rules they could have the beautiful woman. The rules were that your first step could be as big as you could make it but each succeeding step had to be half the size of it's predecessor. The first man was a physicist. He said you can't get there by those rules and stepped aside. The second man, a mathematician said "The physicist was right and here's why." and he proceeded to pencil out a proof. The third man, an engineer, said "Both the physicist and the mathematician are correct, you can't get there." But as he took a giant step he said "But you can get close enough." I hope this little allegory describes the value of engineering.

Yes, engineers rule.

Your “joke” hits the nail right on the head. Engineers are never wrong, it’s always someone else’s screw up, and close enough” is good enough to get paid and who cares anyway? It some other poor sap’s job to operate the piece of shit. Time for the engineer to move on to the next boondoggle. At least you’re honest about it.....thank you for that.

 

[Lanny]

Your “joke” hits the nail right on the head. Engineers are never wrong, it’s always someone else’s screw up, and close enough” is good enough to get paid and who cares anyway? It some other poor sap’s job to operate the piece of shit. Time for the engineer to move on to the next boondoggle. At least you’re honest about it.....thank you for that.

That's full of shit. I told you, engineers are not the screw ups, management is. Who do you think screwed up the Boeing 737 Max? Engineers? No, it was management. The engineers knew there was a problem and wanted to fix it but management overrode them because of schedule problems for them.
I remember working at Emerson Electric and I showed management how we could build a power supply cheaper and more reliable based on my experience at Tektronix and was told no thanks because they already had a design and they had a schedule to keep. I also had a design which someone didn't want to do because they were going to use off the shelf government parts which meant that my design which offered users of this armored anti tank weapon more communications range did not get picked.
As for the close enough addage, you'd have no electronic medical instruments if everything had to be absolutely perfect or if you did have such instruments they would cost so much that only the ueber wealthy could afford operations that required those instruments. No, you'd best thank engineers for the life style that you demand. I don't think you'd be willing to live in a cave and hunt with a spear. I take it you drive a car or perhaps ride a bike.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

That's full of shit. I told you, engineers are not the screw ups, management is. Who do you think screwed up the Boeing 737 Max? Engineers? No, it was management. The engineers knew there was a problem and wanted to fix it but management overrode them because of schedule problems for them.
I remember working at Emerson Electric and I showed management how we could build a power supply cheaper and more reliable based on my experience at Tektronix and was told no thanks because they already had a design and they had a schedule to keep. I also had a design which someone didn't want to do because they were going to use off the shelf government parts which meant that my design which offered users of this armored anti tank weapon more communications range did not get picked.
As for the close enough addage, you'd have no electronic medical instruments if everything had to be absolutely perfect or if you did have such instruments they would cost so much that only the ueber wealthy could afford operations that required those instruments. No, you'd best thank engineers for the life style that you demand. I don't think you'd be willing to live in a cave and hunt with a spear. I take it you drive a car or perhaps ride a bike.

Whatever. My experiences are the absolute direct opposite of yours. I learned a very long time ago that the only thanks I could give an engineer was when they drove away and left us alone. Ironically, whenever it was proven the engineers were wrong, virtually every one invariably responded with, “Oh well. Why point fingers? What is the value in that?” It never crossed their minds that the “value” was in learning humility, along with other (also correct) points of view. There was a very good reason we never seemed to stick with an engineering consultant for very long until we finally found one that (for whatever reason) was more “enlightened”.....anyway Lanny, this is a topic you and I will never see eye to eye on so let’s not waste any more of our time. Go Blazers!

 

[Lanny]

Whatever. My experiences are the absolute direct opposite of yours. I learned a very long time ago that the only thanks I could give an engineer was when they drove away and left us alone. Ironically, whenever it was proven the engineers were wrong, virtually every one invariably responded with, “Oh well. Why point fingers? What is the value in that?” It never crossed their minds that the “value” was in learning humility, along with other (also correct) points of view. There was a very good reason we never seemed to stick with an engineering consultant for very long until we finally found one that (for whatever reason) was more “enlightened”.....anyway Lanny, this is a topic you and I will never see eye to eye on so let’s not waste any more of our time. Go Blazers!

Agreed, I positively hate wasting my time going round and round while getting nowhere.

 

[Stevenson]

Well, I am going to add my tangentially relevant favorite government worker joke:

Three boys are on the playground.
The first says: "My dad is superman, and he's so fast, he gets home from work in one minute."
The second says, "So what, my dad is the Flash and he gets home from work in one second!"
The third says, " I have you both beat. My dad works for the state and he gets home from work an hour early."

 

[SlyPokerDog]

TIL Jesus was an engineer.

But then again so was Pontius Pilate, that cross worked perfectly.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

TIL Jesus was an engineer.

But then again so was Pontius Pilate, that cross worked perfectly.

I don't think Pilate put the plans together for it. He was the manager in this scenario.

 

[Hoopguru]

I don't think Pilate put the plans together for it. He was the manager in this scenario.

yep....he was an imported intern pulling duty in Jerusalem.

 

[MarAzul]

The engineers knew there was a problem and wanted to fix it

umm, fix what? And engineering screw up.

 

[Hoopguru]

Your “joke” hits the nail right on the head. Engineers are never wrong, it’s always someone else’s screw up, and close enough” is good enough to get paid and who cares anyway? It some other poor sap’s job to operate the piece of shit. Time for the engineer to move on to the next boondoggle. At least you’re honest about it.....thank you for that.

lol...accountants and engineers! necessary evils!
Theres nothing more boring than to sit in an annual sales meeting listening to 1/2 doz engineers talk about the next phase and why the last phase didn't meet performance criteria.
Lanny, for an engineer you have a great personality and ornery streak which is great!

 

[barfo]

There's an old engineering joke about the three men who were shown a room with a beautiful woman on the other side. They were told that if they could walk to the other side following the rules they could have the beautiful woman. The rules were that your first step could be as big as you could make it but each succeeding step had to be half the size of it's predecessor. The first man was a physicist. He said you can't get there by those rules and stepped aside. The second man, a mathematician said "The physicist was right and here's why." and he proceeded to pencil out a proof. The third man, an engineer, said "Both the physicist and the mathematician are correct, you can't get there." But as he took a giant step he said "But you can get close enough." I hope this little allegory describes the value of engineering.

As described here, the engineer isn't going to get his prize. The rule is that you get the woman if you get to the other side. It doesn't say that she's willing to move within 2" of the line so that the engineer's dick can touch her.

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

As described here, the engineer isn't going to get his prize. The rule is that you get the woman if you get to the other side. It doesn't say that she's willing to move within 2" of the line so that the engineer's dick can touch her.

barfo

I dint know engineers had sex?

 

[Lanny]

lol...accountants and engineers! necessary evils!
Theres nothing more boring than to sit in an annual sales meeting listening to 1/2 doz engineers talk about the next phase and why the last phase didn't meet performance criteria.
Lanny, for an engineer you have a great personality and ornery streak which is great!

I do my job well. One time I shared a design with a big shot engineer who turned manager of an engineering group. I gave him my written proof that my design would work under all conditions. He had the authority and turned it down. He submitted a different design and said it was quicker to implement and less complicated. His design failed and we had to use my design which for all I know is still in use some 35 years later. I calculated mine while his was done with gut feeling, i.e. on the fly. That was at Tektronix.
A few years later the same thing happened at my new job at Emerson Electric. This time it was a lead engineer who said we didn't need all the material on my mechanical design (not my forte) and he opted for his design which didn't work. Whose design did we wind up using? Yep, moi.
One common human frailty I've noticed. Whenever the boss asks how soon we will be done on a task every single human being be they manager, salesman or even a lot of engineers will give an answer that is considerably shorter than the task will actually take. This is particularly troublesome in estimating which includes schedule modifications when I worked at Boeing. Nobody wants to hear the truth and I guess that drives a lot of the error. This was first pointed out to me by a fellow engineer and I observed that he was right. Now, I get to pass it along to you.

 

[Lanny]

As described here, the engineer isn't going to get his prize. The rule is that you get the woman if you get to the other side. It doesn't say that she's willing to move within 2" of the line so that the engineer's dick can touch her.

barfo

Not true, the rule says if you reach the line you can have the woman.
Now, what does reach the line mean? To the engineer it means getting close enough but to the other two nerds it means getting exactly to the line.
No prize for you.
Yet another night of beer and tv.

 

[Hoopguru]

I do my job well. One time I shared a design with a big shot engineer who turned manager of an engineering group. I gave him my written proof that my design would work under all conditions. He had the authority and turned it down. He submitted a different design and said it was quicker to implement and less complicated. His design failed and we had to use my design which for all I know is still in use some 35 years later. I calculated mine while his was done with gut feeling, i.e. on the fly. That was at Tektronix.
A few years later the same thing happened at my new job at Emerson Electric. This time it was a lead engineer who said we didn't need all the material on my mechanical design (not my forte) and he opted for his design which didn't work. Whose design did we wind up using? Yep, moi.
One common human frailty I've noticed. Whenever the boss asks how soon we will be done on a task every single human being be they manager, salesman or even a lot of engineers will give an answer that is considerably shorter than the task will actually take. This is particularly troublesome in estimating which includes schedule modifications when I worked at Boeing. Nobody wants to hear the truth and I guess that drives a lot of the error. This was first pointed out to me by a fellow engineer and I observed that he was right. Now, I get to pass it along to you.

You know i'm razzing you! Ive always felt engineers were like some politicians, they never listen to what customers want in the way of creature comforts or cost.

 

[barfo]

Not true, the rule says if you reach the line you can have the woman.
Now, what does reach the line mean? To the engineer it means getting close enough but to the other two nerds it means getting exactly to the line.

"Reach the line" means whatever the rulemaker says it means.

Engineers don't make the rules.

barfo