https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1326230270421426183 ooo maybve you get your wish for second term after all? I see he's having more rallies???? what's that about? gonna unveil the swastika & new emergency powers for the supreme chancellor?

see that press conference yesterday? It was a doozy. let me summarize (quotes paraphrased):

He starts with a detailed outline in his propaganda commercial video 'yes we knew about it in January and how dangerous it was, then we did absolutely nothing for the entire month of February, and then we declared an emergency in March'

reporters - 'you say you bought yourself a month's time, why didn't you do anything in February?'

and then what follows is pretty insane

I have never heard someone sound so much like a dictator. 'all the information needs to come from me and everyone knows all of you are fake (talking to the room). I have all the power. The president's powers are limitless.'

A lot of explanation about how he has the ultimate authority and can choose to do whatever he chooses;
Governor's of states should have known this was coming and stockpiled their own ventilators

Is pressed again: What did you do during this time yo help lower the number of cases ?
'YOU ARE FFFFFAAAAKEeeeeeeeeeeeeeee NHHHEEEEWWZZZ'


Edit: I almost forgot the best part where he gets called on his "absolute power" and the 10th amendment is brought up

This is an exact quote "WHEN YOU SAY MY AUTHORITY? THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY. WHEN SOMEBODY IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE AUTHORITY IS TOTAL AND THAT IS THE WAY IT'S GOT TO BE. " from that cspan transcript, you can click the play next to it to hear him say it.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?471160-1/white-house-coronavirus-task-force-briefing

I copied this from a transcript from CSpan, and wrote a lead in that matches this headline.

I found it pretty damning, too.

(I stopped at the strong statement of "these were lies.")

The cspan clip was good but the dude that made this video is fucking annoying. I'd tube chop his ass out

For anyone that hasn't followed what this is about...

For the problems itemized in this video.
Loss of :
- power brake assist
- airbags
- power steering.

This affair was actually about 1 specific issue :
The detent in the key socket rotator was not as strong as it should have been.

What that specifically meant was that :
IF you had a large heavy keychain on your key, and you jerked it, or knocked it such that it swings hard, the keychain could pull on the key hard enough to turn the key to the OFF position.

So when the car would turn off, you'd lose the power brakes, power steering, and airbags would be inactive.

Under "normal" circumstances, this wasn't a problem.
But for the folks with a christmas tree hanging off of their key, it was a chance to turn off their car while driving.

(side note : Crying about the power steering and power brakes really misses the big issue : The steering lock can kick in while moving... which apparently no one gave enough of a crap about to think for the 2 seconds it takes to notice that elephant in the room)



In this case, the contention over whether or not the core problem with the key socket was negligence boils down to semantics.

Car companies buy their parts from sub contractors.
They spec out the parts, and sub contractors manufacture the parts 'to spec'.

The spec isn't a 'hard' requirement.
If you say "5 Newtons of force", that doesn't mean that 4.999999999999123 Newtons is unacceptable.

Actually, it's standard for ~all parts to not be exactly the spec. They just have to be 'close enough to work right'.

And for that matter, many of the numbers in various specs are 'off the cuff' values that are 'generally known to work fine'. Getting hung up on a specific number isn't salient - what matters is 'does it work right?'.

So the question becomes, what is "good enough to work right?".
In practice, that ends up being a judgment call. Often made by engineers that try out the parts.


Here's where congress and GM differed.

Congress said : The ignition socket wasn't 100% exactly what GM had in the spec that they sent to the subcontractors, so it was wrong from day 1, and they knew it wasn't 100% the spec since pre-production. Hence, GM was negligent.

GM said : Of course it wasn't 100% exactly the spec. That was to be expected. At the time, we had no indication that the actual provided part was so far out of spec that it would not work right.


My personal take :
If this was something as simple as 'actual malfunctions/breakages of parts', then it would be black and white.
But in these cases, nothing was actually broken or malfunctioning.
So you had to rely on statistics and analysis to identify the issue.
Statistics require data, data requires evidence, evidence requires time to collect.
Seeing as how the vast majority of cars had no problem, this isn't the kind of thing that just leaps out at you.

Since any given car, when made in massive quantities, will have all kinds of multiple complaints about multiple systems, you can't just go back and point at incident(s) X and Y and say that it was the smoking gun - because if it was, then you'd have a pile of smoking guns for every other part out there.
Every instance of every part has a small chance of going bad, and with enough cars, you'll have a lot of 'item A went bad' reports to sift through.
You can't jump to the conclusion after the first couple reports that the part is improper, and it's unrealistic to expect anyone to immediately make that conclusion.
In order to make an informed determination, you simply need a pattern to emerge.

(I listened to the CSPAN coverage of the hearings while driving.)

-scheherazade

Someone should embed a feed from CSPAN for this zzz-fest...

How do you stop a kleptoplutocracy??
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Kleptoplutocracy

I dig her accent~ESPECIALLY if it is offensive to "proper" French nationals!

I know nothing at all about the space program but methinks this brave woman deserves a fucking medal! The same tirades should be a regular feature in the U.S. house and senate. CSPAN would become a ratings MACHINE!!

GUY IN DRESS: "ORDER, ORDER."

PEOPLE WHO CAN SEE THROUGH HIS DRESS: "Fuck order, WHO DRESSED YOU THIS MORNING?!"

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by geo321.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by RhesusMonk. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Blatant-BLACKOUT-of-Ron-Paul-on-CSPAN

Sorry, but I think this is a dupe: http://videosift.com/video/Blatant-BLACKOUT-of-Ron-Paul-on-CSPAN

Although your's is much higher quality

Conspiracy implies colusion, I think they all just hate him seperately. I don't understand why.
Wiki page here said he caried 2 states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
Touche, I did infer you thought he's my guy.
The all caps was to emphasize the important part, not to 'yell', people often tend to read the first few words and begin their arguement against a straw man arguement, and I hate replying to them.
He is intelligent, if not smart. He is honest to a fault. Many of his ideas are outrageous at best, but come from an intelligent arguement perhaps taken too far. He will not win, and won't be the retardican nominee, but may force them to ignore the vote to deny him!
And NO, I am not dumbocratic QM, fuck you right back! ;-}
I'm an old school republican (fiscal conservative, social liberal) that's more pissed at the neocons than I ever could be at the democrats. The dumbocrats are useless, but somewhat consistant, the retardicans drank the coolaid and went bat shit crazy on me. What does that leave me with, and don't say 'Tea party', they're a big part of the problem.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^newtboy:
You didn't hear that he won 2 states because the GOP claimed he didn't and the media repeated it, all before the votes were counted. Apparently audits have shown that he did win.

Ahh, so it's a conspiracy. Fair enough. Unfortunately that's not what you said. You said:
>> ^newtboy: Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,

Please show me where it says that.
>> ^newtboy:
What I'm saying is that apparently Paul is the only one smart enough to play BY THE RULES set up by the retardicans which allow you to win without the most votes...if you think that's underhanded, blame the retardicans that set it up that way so THEY don't have to follow the votes. What I NEVER said is that he's my candidate, you infered that.

Actaully, I didn't. I told you to get over the fact that he lost. I never claimed he was your candidate. You inferred that I inferred that.
>> ^newtboy:
I agree that this WOULD be underhanded and sneaky IF HE DIDN"T TELL EVERYONE PUBLICLY THAT WAS THE PLAN. Saddly for those wanting to denegrate him, he DID repeatedly state this plan, and was ignored.
THANK YOU FOR USING ALL CAPS. I WOULD NEVER HAVE UNDERSTOOD OTHERWISE!!
Publicly stating you plan to ignore the will of the voters does not make it better.
>> ^newtboy:
If you want someone to be mad at, it's the retardicans and the media who ignore this intelligent, honest candidate.

"intelligent, honest candidate"? I don't think so.
Oh, and "retardicans"? What are you, the democrat @quantummushroom?

>> ^newtboy:


You didn't hear that he won 2 states because the GOP claimed he didn't and the media repeated it, all before the votes were counted. Apparently audits have shown that he did win.


Ahh, so it's a conspiracy. Fair enough. Unfortunately that's not what you said. You said:
>> ^newtboy: Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,

Please show me where it says that.

>> ^newtboy:

What I'm saying is that apparently Paul is the only one smart enough to play BY THE RULES set up by the retardicans which allow you to win without the most votes...if you think that's underhanded, blame the retardicans that set it up that way so THEY don't have to follow the votes. What I NEVER said is that he's my candidate, you infered that.


Actaully, I didn't. I told you to get over the fact that he lost. I never claimed he was your candidate. You inferred that I inferred that.

>> ^newtboy:

I agree that this WOULD be underhanded and sneaky IF HE DIDN"T TELL EVERYONE PUBLICLY THAT WAS THE PLAN. Saddly for those wanting to denegrate him, he DID repeatedly state this plan, and was ignored.

THANK YOU FOR USING ALL CAPS. I WOULD NEVER HAVE UNDERSTOOD OTHERWISE!!

Publicly stating you plan to ignore the will of the voters does not make it better.

>> ^newtboy:

If you want someone to be mad at, it's the retardicans and the media who ignore this intelligent, honest candidate.


"intelligent, honest candidate"? I don't think so.

Oh, and "retardicans"? What are you, the democrat @quantummushroom?

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^newtboy:
I'm sorry to break it to you, but Ron Paul is running a close second, possibly first in delegates. Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,

Well, my reading must be broken then, because I missed the bit where he won anything.
>> ^newtboy:
contrary to your claim, and coming in second in 13 more with up to 36% of the vote. The rub is that is primary vote results, not delegates. The Paul campaign has made no secret that they are working for delegates, not votes...they are not the same thing. The delegates are elected in meetings held AFTER the primary vote, and are not required to vote with the populace...and Paul supporters more than anyone stayed and voted for delegates, and voted for themselves AS delegates, so Paul MAY have the most delegates and be the candidate at this point, there's no real telling until the convention.

So basically what you're saying is that Paul is working to subvert the will of the electorate and get in with backroom deals? Wow, what a great candidate.
He lost. Romney is the candidate. Get over it.

You didn't hear that he won 2 states because the GOP claimed he didn't and the media repeated it, all before the votes were counted. Apparently audits have shown that he did win.
What I'm saying is that apparently Paul is the only one smart enough to play BY THE RULES set up by the retardicans which allow you to win without the most votes...if you think that's underhanded, blame the retardicans that set it up that way so THEY don't have to follow the votes. What I NEVER said is that he's my candidate, you infered that.
I agree that this WOULD be underhanded and sneaky IF HE DIDN"T TELL EVERYONE PUBLICLY THAT WAS THE PLAN. Saddly for those wanting to denegrate him, he DID repeatedly state this plan, and was ignored. If you want someone to be mad at, it's the retardicans and the media who ignore this intelligent, honest candidate.