Donald Trump Argues That Use Of 'Electric Avenue' In Campaign Video Was Transformative
from the um,-no dept
The election is over and, no matter the current administration's flailings, Joe Biden is now President Elect. It was, well, quite a campaign season, filled with loud interruptions, a deluge of lies, and some of the most bizarre presidential behavior on record. And, rather than running on his own record, the Trump Campaign mostly went 100% negative, filling the digital space with all kinds of hits on Biden.
One of those was a crudely put together video that showed a Trump/Pence train zipping by on some tracks, with a Biden hand-car chugging behind him. On the Biden train car were fun references to smelling hair and other childish digs. Some clips of Biden speaking made up the audio for the spot, along with the hit song from 1983 "Electric Avenue." Tweeted out on Trump's personal Twitter account, it turns out that nobody had licensed the song for the video, leading Eddy Grant to sue the President.
Trump's defense in a motion to dismiss is... fair use. How? Well...
His campaign argues that it was transformative to use the song over a cartoon version of Joe Biden driving an old-fashioned train car interspersed with his rival's speeches.
"The purpose of the Animation is not to disseminate the Song or to supplant sales of the original Song," states the motion. The motion points to lyrics from "Electric Carnival": “[N]ow in the street, there is violence... And a lots of work to be done.”
"These lyrics, however, stand in stark juxtaposition to the comedic nature of the animated caricature of Former VP Biden, squatting and pumping a handcar with a sign that says, 'Your Hair Smells Terrific', and to the excerpt of the overlayed speech that references 'hairy legs' and kids playing with his leg hair. Obviously, Mr. Grant’s purpose of creating a meaningful song for the pop music market is completely different from the Animation creator’s purpose of using the song 'to denigrate ... Former Vice President Joseph Biden.'”
On that last bit, we can agree. However, using the song in a campaign ad meant to denigrate Joe Biden no more makes that use transformative than if a grocery store used it to sell steaks. That isn't what makes the use transformative, despite my near certainty that Eddy Grant didn't intend to sell steaks with "Electric Avenue".
The motion goes on to suggest that nobody is going to go watch the campaign video instead of buying Grant's song, therefore the use doesn't effect the market for the song. While true, the claims about the other two factors in considering fair use -- the nature of the copyrighted work and the portion of the work used -- don't sound particularly convincing. The motion says that the video only used 17% of the song in the video, or forty seconds of the song in total. Again, true, except that the video itself is something like 50 seconds long, so the copyrighted work is playing for nearly the entire video. And it's played prominently.
As to the nature of the copyrighted work... hoo boy.
Here, the Song is a creative work, but it was published in 1983 (Compl. ¶ 25), and it remains, more than 37 years later, available to the public. This weighs in favor of fair use.
Um, no. The fact that it's a creative work, as opposed to one comprised of factual information, weighs against fair use, not for it. It being published in the 80s and still available now is, well, completely besides the fucking point.
I will be absolutely shocked if this motion isn't laughed out of the courthouse.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertisements, campaign ad, copyright, donald trump, eddy grant, elections, electric avenue, fair use, transformative
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'What do you mean the law applies to us too?'
Never fails to amuse how often politicians and their teams fail to do even the most basic things due to incompetence, laziness or because they're so used to the rules being for other people. All they had to do was license the song and that would have been it, at most they might have faced the band making a public statement opposing their use and making clear that they didn't support the ad, but whether due to laziness or indifference to the law they now get to spend significantly more trying to defend their actions in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the bright side if the campaign were to win, assuming it isn't through a novel interpretation of copyright that allows only politicians/campaigns to use this argument, it would be a major expansion of fair use. So major that I don't think the RIAA or record labels would ever let it stand. They would either appeal all the way to the USSC or push new, more restrictive, legislation to 'fix' it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sell steaks with "Electric Avenue".
Except that some public parks have electric Barbecues, and a steak is exactly what you hope someone will sell you. Many times upon hearing "Electric Avenue", I was reminded of those electric barbecues.
Kenny Everett even removed the need to find a public park, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RJxYH6d15s
Speaking of transformation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDDzC5yiLSk
And someone whose presidency was out of this world, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRcTCUTXr5M
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the bestest and most impressive location selected for a press conference ever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: most impressive location .. for a press conference ever!
Then maybe they should have gone with Antonio Vivaldi. At least he wouldn't be suing over unlicensed works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, the avenue Rudy chose certainly gave the president's campaign the dignity it deserved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's almost refreshing that they misused a song in this way and didn't just take a song critical of America and pretend it's a patriotic anthem (Born In The USA, Fortunate Son, etc.), or somehow not seeing the irony in using a gay anthem to promote a party that loves to remove the rights of the LGBT community.
"Here, the Song is a creative work, but it was published in 1983 (Compl. ¶ 25), and it remains, more than 37 years later, available to the public. This weighs in favor of fair use."
Actually, that weighs in favour of copyright being brought back to a sensible length where songs that old that have not been as popular to the public cease to be orphaned works and stand to be rediscovered. I'd be OK with Grant having the option to extend the copyright within his lifetime, if the work of those no longer with us who didn't crack the top 40 is now available for us to discover on Spotify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, about that irony - Electric Avenue is exactly about protests (some turned riot) due to police abuse and brutality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And, well, therein lies the problem. No matter the administration, even the people most keen on draconian copyright law are always quick to point to fair use as an excuse when they've been caught infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lockdown to Electric Avenue
Infection rates are higher
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TBH, given the parlous state of his own record, that's perhaps not the most surprising strategy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, the sobering thing about this election is that in spite of both the Biden campaign and the Trump campaign focusing on Biden's agenda (or some purported Biden agenda), the actual prospect bringing voters to the polls was "4 more years of Trump, and maybe more". For both sides.
The respective perceived realities have diverged that much that staying on the fence is becoming painful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah. It's par for the course given that this toddler completely misses the irony that he, the village idiot, of all people is making fun of Biden's way to speak. Talk about a pot calling the Kettle black. It's probably best summed up in Sam Harris characterization of Trump from before the 2016 election:
If you want to understand how I see Trump? Blow up a balloon without tying off the end, and hold it up high, and then release and watch it fly chaotically around the room. That’s trumps mind.
[...]
When I hear Trump speak extemporaneously, I hear someone very often getting prompted by his own misstatements to complete a thought in a way that he clearly didn’t intend to, which is to say that the thing he’s now saying doesn’t reflect anything he believed or even thought about before, but he’s saying it now because the last phrase he spoke just launch him there. Right? It’s as though he’s speaking in verse and he’s forced again and again to complete the rhyme. It’s like he says, “There was once a man from Nantucket…”, and he’s got to finish the thought. Right? So he says “…who always carried a bucket”, but he didn’t know he was going to say “bucket”, and now he’s stuck with it. And now he’ll go to the mat defending “bucket”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are bullies - Trump despite all reason dictating otherwise has too much power protecting him. I'd say money and power but he is clearly in debt given loan seeking and refusal to disclose his earnings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Conservative News Network is down the hall and to the right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Bring back impartial news reporting!"
If you were coming to an opinion blog for impartial reporting, you have more problems than the opinions being given here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'In todays news, politics and politicians exist.'
That line reminds me of the last Jimquisition where he did a 'completely apolitical' video, and it went about as well as you can imagine.
If someone does or says a bad/stupid thing then they deserve to get called out on that, and if that doesn't count as 'impartial' then impartiality can go hang because it's getting in the way of describing what happened, whether it's good or bad and the chance to get anything done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'In todays news, politics and politicians exist.'
Did anyone except me reflect on that these types of posts (I've been a Techdirt reader for years and years, because of it's impartiality. however....) have been cropping up recently.
It's almost they are going after a script.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'In todays news, politics and politicians exist.'
Oh it's absolutely from a script and a particularly stupid one at that, as anyone who's spent even a year on TD would know that it's an opinion blog where the writers put together articles on subjects that they are interested in and give their opinions within those articles, and the writers will absolutely take shots at both parties when people in them do/say stupid things.
It's like someone complaining that a particular fast food place just isn't as good these days since they stopped offering a particular food, except they never offered that food; the complaint itself shows the dishonesty of the one making it to anyone familiar with the place as they're complaining about the absence of something that was never there in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'In todays news, politics and politicians exist.'
I know, Hardees just hasn't been the same since they stopped serving McRibs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'In todays news, politics and politicians exist.'
Agreed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'In todays news, politics and politicians exist.'
"It's almost they are going after a script."
It is a script. And what you get when you pay some poor schmuck a very, very low amount each month to lay as much astroturf as they can put down in the hour of two of their time a poorly paid PAC can be arsed to invest. Or a troll trying to sound like an astroturfer crying "shame, shame!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wasn't aware this was an opinion piece. Doesn't say so in the headline or marked article icon that says Copyright.
I've always taken who writes articles for Techdirt to report detailed facts, not BIASED opinion pieces. SIgh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shut the fuck up, Hamilton
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The irony of a troll without the cognition to tie his own shoelaces trying out the nickname of Alexander fucking Hamilton always gets to me.
I never thought anyone would come close to Baghdad Bob's case of dunning-kruger before the Trump era. Now? I guess I shouldn't be too surprised old Bob came out throwing feces in defense of someone who must seem so sympathetic to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As far as I recall, TD has not really been painting Biden as an angel. Indeed I seem to recall a few articles critical of him.
Of course there's probably been more criticism of Trump, but I rather suspect that's because Trump has been very very careful to do primarily things that justly deserve criticism.
Of course if you have some proof that TD has been painting Biden as an angel, feel free to post it (hint: such proof would probably look like links to a couple TD articles, as well as at least a small logical argument of why each link qualifies as proof).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Of course there's probably been more criticism of Trump, but I rather suspect that's because Trump has been very very careful to do primarily things that justly deserve criticism"
Also because he's actually been the president for the last 4 years and his actions have likely resulted in many thousands of needless deaths, the destruction of America's position on the world stage and a bunch of extraordinarily negative consequences to both the social and financial well being of the country.
Say what you want about Biden, but his most recently powerful position was one where those things did not happen. Even many of his voters were voting against Trump rather than for him specifically and have many misgivings about his future policy - but there's no comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll never g
Last I checked, TD has years and years of articles pointing out how corrupt Biden is. You should check them out, simply search Joe Biden.
Here
https://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=Joe+Biden
Oh, and TorrentFreak did some great article worth reading too.
Here
https://torrentfreak.com/?s=Joe+Biden
oh yea, among some of my favorite are.
here
https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-joe-biden-ordered-the-megaupload-shutdown-120703/
here
https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-anti-piracy-lobbying-targets-fbi-110622/
and here
https://torrentfreak.com/ifpi-governments-should-push-for-3-strikes-anti-piracy-plans-130407/
T hose links are just a few. Try looking up Trump, and he's barely there. But if they are, most have some bias involved, unfortunately, such as this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll nev
..yet we still elected him. We Americans is stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll
To be fair in both this election and the last one literally millions more people voted for the 'not Trump' option than the 'for Trump' one, and it was the stupid as all hell voting system the US has that allowed him in the last time and the only way he even has a chance to get in this time because he isn't getting in legitimately.
That said literally tens of millions of people did vote for him in both instances, and even with a solid multi-million vote lead by Biden this election was way closer than it should have been after four years of everyone seeing what Trump does in and to the office, so that 'defense' only goes so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll
"..yet we still elected him. We Americans is stupid."
Well, you had the choice between a crook who at least knows to present himself well and a deranged and actively malicious maniac. Biden would have to be VERY much worse before he wasn't preferable to Trump. Hell, even Nixon would fill those shoes.
No, the reason we can consider americans stupid would be because all the enormous issues about systemic racism, bigotry, misogyny, fascism and a police corps more brutal than that of most third world warlords have existed in clear and public view for decades. Yet two thirds of the american citizenry has just passed through life pretending the last third didn't exist.
The one and only silver lining I can think of to emerge from Trump's presidency is that it tore the mask straight off. There are 70+ million americans who'd vote for Hitler if he was the GOP choice - and the GOP has been pretty damn clear some guy like that, possibly with a less silly moustache, is their dream leader.
One out of three americans are either actively malicious or so mind-numbingly moronic there's no difference between their stupidity and actual malice.
The other two out of three americans have enabled and nourished those one in three by never staying angry, always trying to compromise, always putting the blinders right back on, and generally never giving a shit about politics beyond "my party, right or wrong" come election day.
And yeah. That is stupid. Mind-bogglingly so. Europeans are also slowly forgetting the lessons taught us the last time not enough people stood up to say "Not In My Name" but I guess Trump was a good wakeup call for us as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For fuck's sake will you sad sacks get a new gorram script already?
'Long time reader upset that the site is 'biased'(read: saying mean things about the people they support) and wants them to be more 'impartial'(read: stop calling their side out on bullshit)' has been done so many freakin' times by now, find a new way to tone troll already.
On the off chance that that wasn't just trolling(which I highly doubt) nothing's forcing you to read articles you don't want to(well, except for the magic coding but we don't talk about that), when someone in an important position does something stupid and/or bad it's not biased in the slightest to call them on it, and if your side's being called out on bullshit more often that's probably because it's engaging in more bullshit and they're in a position where it matters more, so tell them to knock it off and the problem solves itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not so much "don't" talk about it as "can't" - the magic sees to that. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Techdirt is not biased, neither is Masnick. I am a long time reader and as far as I can tell, the author of this article is biased against Trump using the story to trash him, though it's not true what happened was because of Trump, so the article is biased trash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And you're biased in favor of Trump and against Biden. By your own logic that makes you biased trash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Point out: 1) the bias, 2) what that bias actually is, 3) any effect bias has on reporting of facts.
Does it matter?
Further: How is one to have an opinion, based on evidence, regarding anything important, without being "biased" against people, etc., which are doing the thing one thinks is wrong?
Specific side note: If Trump ever did anything remotely right, it would be noted. So... is it just magical bias against Trump, or is it that some people find certain things problematic, and Trump does mostly things which form a set withing all the problematic things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’d hope that they’re still teaching Journalism 101: “If someone says it’s raining & another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the fucking window and find out which is true.”
Nobody can separate bias from journalism. Someone must decide what to publish, what to distill out of the mass of available data, and what facts to check. Look at any publication, even those deemed more “unbiased” or “impartial” than others, and you will find bias. Even “view from nowhere” publications can’t print everything.
You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll never get it. Make peace with that reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One of the silver linings of this whole mess is that anyone who considers them an actual journalist is starting to call bullshit. Hopefully that continues.
Even Fox has been pushing back on this subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll never g
"You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll never get it. Make peace with that reality."
In journalism 101: Most good reporting, even here on Techdirt, doesn't reflect bias. "If it's raining outside, un-bias reporting would probably be from a meteorologist stating how much precipitation is expected from where and for how long, that's good journalism". If it's raining outside and the reporting is biased, they might say it's raining because of COVID and it's all Trump's fault.
In which case, one is good reporting because it reflects the facts, while the other dodges the point of reporting what was supposed to be reported entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: flagged!
Wow! I was flagged, and my opinion hidden. For what? Was I being insensitive to someone's feelings? This is clearly where America is going wrong when we can't have open discussions without being censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: flagged!
It was hidden because it was nonsense. Also, it can still be seen on this site, so how was it censored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: flagged!
"Wow! I was flagged"
Yes, rambling fact-free nonsense tends to get that sort of treatment here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: flagged!
"Wow! I was flagged"
Yep. And I got flagged below for Pancakes, Trump's non-concession speech, and Trump's conceding hairline, but I'll get over it.
See, gone already.
Any one can flag anyone for any reason. While I consider my comments basically harmless, I'm not sure they were flagged by the regular commenters, but there certainly have been some giblet-fondlers on here lately, and a story like this is sure likely to attract them. Even the one's who claim to be sharing a computer.
I am much more concerned that some of our commenters might have been affected by COVID. But I guess I don't need to be, because according to the Great Orangeacle, it magically went away on the 4th of November.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TBH, while Trump is responsible for many many fuckups, this one wasn't done by him. It was done by his minions, who are incompetent idiots (seems to be a prerequisite for the position) and probably didn't know it was a fuckup. In this Administration, "the buck stops here" is only true if it refers to money. The "it's very old, so shouldn't count" argument is being made by the lawyers, who are hired guns and whose job it is to make the best case they can, even if they know it's a stupid one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
" It was done by his minions, who are incompetent idiots (seems to be a prerequisite for the position)..."
Well, the prerequisite for the position of Trump minion is fairly strict. You need to be able to always tell Dear Leader "Yes" in a clear voice, never be a likely scapegoat for his failures, and if he suddenly shits himself you had better be able to catch it with your mouth before it hits the floor.
For some reason those prerequisites always seem to exclude actual cognitive ability and standards of logic. Can't imagine why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make America PANCAKES Again - MAPA
Lovely Blue Pancakes, https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/11/14/1995739/-Million-MAGA-March-and-PANCAKES with K-Pop frosting, https://www.msn.com/en-in/entertainment/southcinema/k-pop-fans-are-protesting-a-pro-trump-rally-by-f looding-the-millionmagamarch-hashtag-with-pictures-of-pancakes/ar-BB1b0E1n
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make America PANCAKES Again - MAPA
No one wants delicious pancakes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DONALD TRüMP, WEISS HAUS, POLITICAL TESTAMENT
BEFORE MY CONTINUING ADMINISTRATION, I AM EXPELLING THE FORMER DEFENCE SECRETARY MARK ESPER FROM THE PARTY AND DEPRIVING HIM OF ALL RIGHTS WHICH HE ENJOYED BY VIRTUE OF THE DECREE OF 10 NOVEMBER 2020; AND ALSO BY VIRTUE OF MY STATEMENT IN THE WEISS HAUS ON 10 NOVEMBER 2020. I APPOINT IN HIS PLACE GRAND ADMIRAL CHRISTOPHER MILLER, PRESIDENT OF THE RIGHT AND SUPREME COMMANDER OF THE NATIONAL COUNTER-ELECTION CENTER.
I HAVE THEREFORE DECIDED TO STAY IN THE WEISS HAUS AND, OF MY OWN FREE WILL, TO CHOOSE CONTINUATION THERE AT THE MOMENT WHEN I BELIEVE THAT THE POSITION OF TRüMPENFüHRER AND CHANCELLOR ITSELF IS FOREVER TENABLE.
I LIE WITH A HAPPY HEART, CONSCIOUS OF THE IMMEASURABLE DEEDS AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF OUR SOLDIERS AT THE FRONT, OF OUR WOMEN AT HOME, THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF OUR FARMERS AND WORKERS AND THE WORK, UNIQUE IN HISTORY, OF OUR PROUD BOYS, WHO BEAR MY NAME.
THAT I EXPRESS MY THANKS TO YOU ALL FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART, IS JUST AS SELF-EVIDENT AS MY DESIRE THAT YOU SHOULD, BECAUSE OF THAT, ON NO ACCOUNT GIVE UP THE STRUGGLE, BUT RATHER CONTINUE IT AGAINST THE ENEMIES OF THE FATHERLAND, NO MATTER WHERE, TRUE TO THE CREED OF THE GRAND WIZARD.
FURTHER I EXPEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN AND GORDON SONDLAND, FROM THE PARTY AND FROM ALL OFFICES OF STATE. IN THEIR STEAD I APPOINT DONALD TRUMP JR AS TRUTH DIVINER-US AND CHIEF OF THE MAGA POLICE, AND JARED KUSHNER AS MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.
VINDMAN AND SONDLAND, QUITE APART FROM THEIR DISLOYALTY TO MY PERSON, HAVE DONE IMMEASURABLE HARM TO THE COUNTRY AND THE WHOLE NATION BY SECRET NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE ENEMY, WHICH THEY CONDUCTED WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE AND AGAINST MY WISHES, AND BY ILLEGALLY ATTEMPTING TO SEIZE POWER IN THE STATE FOR THEMSELVES.
IN ORDER TO GIVE THE MAGA PEOPLE A GOVERNMENT COMPOSED OF HONOURABLE MEN - GOVERNMENT WHICH WILL FULFILL ITS PLEDGE TO CONTINUE THE WAR ON FAKE NEWS BY EVERY MEANS - APPOINT NEW MEMBERS OF THE NEW CONGRESS AS LEADERS OF THE NATION.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump unveils his Conceding Hairline
Is he washing it with White Power? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-hair-white-new-look-a4499336.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This article is truly all about hating/insulting Trump
With a starting sentence with "The election is over*when it is not) and, no matter the current administration's flailings(asserting as if he failed his entire presidency, asserting he himself is a failure), Joe Biden is now President-Elect. This article is Bias, sure there's other informative information in this article, but the fact is the author isn't doing journalism/reporting, rather making the article an insult towards the Trump presidency in its entirety. Granted, Trump's legal team/campaign made claims of fair use of the song Electric Avenue and was sued, the article should have been written in an un-bias fashion that reported on the story that actually was aligned with what happened because it wasn't because of Trump or his"minions", someone made a mistake and tried to cover it up with fair use claims and got sued anyway.
Also, be prepared to be shocked. I am certain that nobody will be laughed out of the courthouse.
Waiting for the Trump-hating Trolls to start mocking what I wrote now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He allowed COVID-19 to spread unimpeded until even he could no longer ignore it, then he did virtually nothing to help stop its spread — and even tried (successfully, in many regards) to undermine the scientists who did do something. That alone proves Donald Trump is a failure as a president and a human being.
A quarter-million Americans are dead because of his incompetence, his selfishness, and his unwillingness to admit he isn’t the smartest man alive. Hundreds of thousands of people died and that was a sacrifice he was willing to make.
But sure, keep trolling and hatereading here, see what that does for your psyche in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think this is basically their way of saying they want abuse. (I've classifying logical arguments disagreeing with them as 'abuse' since it makes the most sense for what they wrote. However I guess expecting sense might be too high of a bar)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, I think he meant, he was waiting on insults to start on what he wrote, calling him names, trashing him for being a Trump supporter, etc. He didn't say anything about responses in disagreement with what he wrote, so I think you're wrong.
Granted he made some grammar mistakes. Someone is bound to make fun of them for that but I won't, he made his point. The article reflects bias when it did not need to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They might be a she and not a he, but I get your drift.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop talking to yourself lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was my girlfriend, I made the larger arguments. My girlfriend put in the agreement bits. So, not talking to myself, though she is. It's just the same IP is showing up. Though, I stand by my argument and opinion and so does my girlfriend, lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. If true, how is that any more sensible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Though, I stand by my argument and opinion and so does my girlfriend, lol."
Cool, so we're dealing with 2 delusional people instead of one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What you are saying isn't true, clearly you have bias hatred for Trump. Your portrayal of how Trump managed the pandemic isn't true. Trump and his staffers had daily briefings on the crisis and what they were doing about it while maintaining from shutting down the country. Just because it wasn't to your liking, doesn't mean it's how you are portraying what happened, you're making COVID out to be Trump's fault when it isn't. Each state has its own governors and they were briefed and in charge of how to manage the situation, it is not his job to do theirs for them. Also, your portrayal that he did not listen to scientists and prevented them from doing their job isn't accurate or true. Trump never undermined scientist developing a vaccine because he requested they develop one in record time and he made good on his promise that that would happen.
I've read your prior recent statements and you pounce on anyone who supports Trump with complete garbage.
Trump is not responsible for the deaths of any American that died from contracting Covid. The Governor of each state has their own briefings and decisions to make involving the safety and security of the citizens of those states. They call Trump, Trump asks, what do you need? They tell Trump what they need, and he tries to make that happen. If the governors want lockdowns, it is their responsibility to order lockdowns. The Trump administration went by CDC guidelines and suggested each state act accordingly or do what they see fit to accommodate citizens, hopefully, without putting a stop to the economy. So, no, a quarter-million Americans are NOT dead because of his "incompetence, selfishness, and his "unwillingness" to admit he isn't the smartest ma alive.
Trump worked with every state official willing to work with him, Democrat or Republican. He signed an executive order preventing evictions, he worked out a stimulus package which was a compromise and turned out to be a Democrat/Big business scam/slush-fund(democrats wrote in a way that they took advantage of it), screwing many small business owners. for the largest wealth transfer in history. But that wasn't Trump's fault what happened, he tried to help everyone, and even tried to get another stimulus package pushed through with Pelosi screwing Americans out of it, again, not Trumps fault.
Everything you said was baseless, none of it was Trump's fault or due to his handling. Trump couldn't have done much more than he has already done, which was to inform everyone nationwide and request they use cation and their best judgment when in public places and requested state and local officials to help in every way they could while getting a vaccine tested and prepared for mass distribution, which has been announced as of yesterday was coming shortly.
It's obvious you hate Trump, but you're completely wrong about Trump. He's none of the things you said, and he certainly had no intention to let Americans get COVID and die. Trump could only do so much which was what he did. Sure, I'm certain he wished he knew better himself having gotten covid. But he wasn't about to institute a draconian lockdown screwing his upcoming election. He did the best he could by allowing the states to decide, keeping them informed, and getting a vaccine worked on asap. For that, I don't blame or hate trump. Obviously, you do. Doesn't make you right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Trump and his staffers had daily briefings on the crisis and what they were doing about it while maintaining from shutting down the country"
...and they ignored them, first lying about the disease being real, then calling it a Chinese attack, then calling it. a Democrat hoax, then claiming it will just magically disappear. There's good evidence that they had a decent plan in place to shut the spread down, but opted not to because it was mostly affecting blue states at that time. Not to mention that Trump crippled himself early on by firing the pandemic team that would have been their best chance at an early response that would have saved thousands of lives during just the first 2 months.
Say all you want about this, but objective reality is not on your side.
"he certainly had no intention to let Americans get COVID and die"
Yet, he did just that anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...and they ignored them.
No, they weren't ignored. Trump and staffers still had daily briefing, still let the states decide how to take on Covid, advised to use CDC guidelines, responded when asked for help by those states by providing ppe, etc. Trump was optimistic that the virus would go by the end of the season. He didn't ignore the states asking for help, he gave them all the help he could. That has nothing to do with the pandemic team. Trump still was in the works in getting a vacinne worked on during that time while colaborating with top pharmacuticle companies and thier lead scientiest that took on the challenge to do trials after, again, nothing th pandemic team would have been able to do sooner than was already in the works, though to their credit they did help with these talks and is why Trump appointed them to help, which didn't stop the vacine from getting done any sooner. So no, Trump did not cripple himself early and no the loss of lives was in the hands of States Govornors who were advised to adhere to CDC guidelines, advise the public to use their best judgement, use PPE, wash hands, refrain from large crowds/gatherings etc.
What is Trumps fault is, he's not perfect, neither are you. But you're all about blaming Trump for your interpretations of what he could/should have done that wouldn't have saved any more people than the states govornors who were in charge of their own states to decide how to manage the crisis, which isn't Trumps Job. Trump did not turn down the states that asked for help and he's not at fault for anyone that contracted Covid.
"There's good evidence that they had a decent plan in place to shut the spread down, but opted not to because it was mostly affecting blue states at that time."
No, that's not true. Each state was advised to respond by CDC guidelines and offered help to each state, regardless of their political affiliation. Democrats did however blame trump for the deaths that happened in the states they were in charge of, when Trump gave them the help they asked for.
Trump isn't perfect, that's your accusation that he's at fault of, nothing more.
"he certainly had no intention to let Americans get COVID and die"
"Yet, he did just that anyway."
No, that's false. Trump gave every state the help they asked for within his powers. Just because you hate Trump, doesn't mean that what you say is true, because it's not. Trump deserves credit for not being a draconian dictator ordering everyone locked in their homes or face jail/prison, excessive fines etc.
Each state govorner has always been in power to exersize their discretion on how the Covid pandemic would be handled in their own states. The chain of custody of political powers does not put Trump responsbile to tell each stte what to do, he acts as an advisor and offers the help each state needs during any given crissis, but they have to ask for the help, otherwise, he's uneable to do much else besides put in place executive orders.
You're not satisfied with how trump managed the situation, but he's not a bad president for how he managed it.
I'm not going to satisfy you, you'll keep dragging on about how Trump is soo bad, when he's not. That's just BS! Everything you said is complete GARBAGE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not interested in your excuses. What do you hope to accomplish here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not interested in your BIASED accusations that TRUMP is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths for pandemic nobody, not even him could have been prepared enough to expact the results. But he tried, he did what a president should do, worth with everyone in every state but never overpower their own judgement to decide what to do with their own states.
So, my objective to accomplish is to get that through your thick skull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donald Trump…
fired the government’s pandemic response team months before
refused to use the pandemic playbook left for him by the Obama administration
either refused or didn’t care enough to have the federal government build a larger stockpile of emergency equipment in case of a pandemic
refused to work with the states, especially “blue” states, to coördinate a national response (including the distribution of PPE and other essential equipment to hospitals located within hotspots)
refused to listen to (and constantly tried to undermine) scientists and other experts in the field of disease control
refused to even admit the pandemic would spread as far as it would
tried to push “miracle” treatments such as injecting bleach and swallowing disinfectants (which might not kill the virus but would most certainly kill the person carrying it)
continually tried to push certain drugs as treatments for the disease (possibly because he had a small financial stake in doing so)
continually made a big deal about where the virus came from despite that ultimately not being relevant to anyone but racist Trumpians and virus researchers
continually said it would simply “go away”
continually said the U.S. was “rounding the corner” right before another wave of infections hit
directed his administration to bury, fudge, or possibly even outright lie about the number of infected/dead Americans as well as push for less testing (because he apparently believes testing is what makes cases appear)
continually held in-person campaign rallies and other in-person events at the White House (which became super-spreader events in their own right)
…and all that is what any president after him should do in the midst of a global pandemic?
Because that’s how you end up with a quarter-million dead people — a number that is still rising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your tabulations portray in your opion you to be right. But you're wrong and are being manipulative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Nuh-uh!" said the Trump supporter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So, my objective to accomplish is to get that through your thick skull."
Why?
You are not doing a very good job of it are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you don't think that the example Trump set for his followers regarding wearing masks violated the CDC guidelines? He politicized the matter, complaining that they look ridiculous, etc. He did make a couple half-hearted attempts at modeling mask usage, but afterwards still continued not to wear one and even criticized Biden for wearing one. His supporters followed suit and refused to comply with mask orders, even going so far as to assault retail workers for having the gall to ask them to put a mask.
And regarding the governors being responsible, I'd agree with you, except for the fact that Trump himself put pressure on governors to re-open well before they met the CDC guidelines for doing so. Republican governors tended to cave to that pressure, and democrat governors who didn't were subjected to tweets from Trump saying to "LIBERATE" their state. In what possible way can he be blameless in that situation? Having daily briefings amounts to nothing if the president himself actively undermines the guidelines set forth by the CDC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, they weren't ignored"
Then, why did he n ot only not do anything suggested in the recommendations, but went on to publicly demonise the people giving the advice?
"But you're all about blaming Trump for your interpretations of what he could/should have done"
I'm blaming him for holding superspreader rallies that killed some of his colleagues, while announcing that the pandemic that has greatly disproportionately imfected and killed Americans was no big deal.
"Trump gave every state the help they asked for within his powers"
He really didn't.
Look, I know that supporting this idiot is more important than facts to you, but you still have to account to why you have failed so badly compared to the rest of the world. Surely it's easier to say "yeah, he made the wrong move" rather than invent scenarios where he did the right thing but magically failed. Even though Trump is well documented as setting up events that are so poorly constructed that his own staff were the major vector point at one stage.
"I'm not going to satisfy you, you'll keep dragging on about how Trump is soo bad, when he's not."
I hope the kool aid wears off soon, and after you realise how much you've embarrassed yourselves you join reality. The alternative has too high a body count - 9/11 every 2 days at present, and rising exponentially. I don't want to see your countrymen die and suffer. Why do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll never g
Apart from some grammar mistakes, I agree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll nev
You do realise we can see you're posting from the same IP, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll
I'm letting my boyfriend us my computer and commenting too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you
Cool. So, congrats on your happy life coming out, but you're still idiots for trying to astroturf. Just bear in mind that your blissful gay lifestyle is something that Trump and his party are trying to make illegal.
Or, you're ever weirder than I thought for running that excuse, either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Next up is "It was just a social experiment I am doing for college!" before we get to "I was trollololling you plebs! You fell for the total ownzerz!!!1!!!one"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To be fair, it's possible that this comment was from the later claimed "girlfriend" and I jumped to a conclusion because I'm so used to delusional comments coming from repressed lone male delusionals.
A shame, but hopefully if this couple actually exists they'l be able to deal with their loss when reality becomes too obvious to deny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What you are saying isn't true, clearly you have bias hatred for Trump.
OK, let me be the one to say it - sure, I am biased against trump. He's a piece of shit, along with the rest of his family. For all I care, they can go right to fucking hell, along with the rest of the sheep who continue to harp on every shit nugget that comes out of his mouth like it's the Dalai Lama speaking or something.
Now that's out of the way, you're just going to have to fucking live with it. Who would've thought the 'fuck your feelings' mantra would come back to bite you whiny fucks in the ass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
False
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Argument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is truly all about hating/insulting Trump
"With a starting sentence with "The election is over*when it is not)"
It's more over than it was when Clinton conceded, despite actual evidence of fraud and having won 2.8 million votes, and the right-wing referred to the victory with the same number of EC votes as Biden had confirmed as a "landslide".
It's over to sane people.
"Also, be prepared to be shocked. I am certain that nobody will be laughed out of the courthouse."
Oh, Trump's team has been laughed out of at least 15 courthouses with their weak challenges this week. May that continue.
"Waiting for the Trump-hating Trolls to start mocking what I wrote now."
Why would people not mock comedy gold like your fictions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll never g
Fictions to you. Though I am not who wrote the statement above. But I thought I would chime in. I voted for Trump.
Despite the opposition media portraying Trump to not even come close to winning, the margins were false before the results on Nov 3rd.
As far as the projected election results the media has reported and Trump's unsuccessful attempts in court. I do not think the rationale for the legal teams involved was about getting a win in court, at least, not in every instance, compared to stalling state certification. I'm unsure if that has been the strategy all this time or not.
Regardless, as of now, it doesn't look like Trump is going anywhere. There's probably something other than what's been going on that he knows about and doesn't seem to be planning on giving up the Whitehouse to corrupt Joe Biden. Just because he's projected by the media as the winner(no matter how corrupt he is), doesn't mean that Trump has to concede.
Personally, I think Trump should fight and not concede. Trump has done a lot of good things that many Americans support him for and Biden plans to screw those Americans. The numbers in support of Trump are real and the numbers of supporters for Biden are questionable at present, regardless of the assertions from the media and supporters such as yourself. The million MAGA march is a good example reflecting the support he has across the country, compared to BLM in small numbers assaulting American flag-waving Trump supporters.
Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had low turnouts in their primaries, with Harris pulling out entirely.
In regards to this statement. "Also, be prepared to be shocked. I am certain that nobody will be laughed out of the courthouse."
He meant that in a literal sense. People go to court all the time and it either gets a case or is dismissed etc, then they walk out. It's not a T.V. show where there is canned laughter in the background obviously. I read no fiction with what he said.
It's over to sane people..
Um.. Also, no it's not over. That's fiction to say it is, when it's not. I'm sane and I do not accept Biden as president, and if Trump doesn't either, I support him for it.
No comedy gold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll nev
"Though I am not who wrote the statement above."
The snowflake icon next to your name that indicates you're posting from the same IP suggests otherwise
"Despite the opposition media portraying Trump to not even come close to winning, the margins were false before the results on Nov 3rd."
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about polling? If so, they did not reflect reality, for sure. But, the rest of us are going on the reality of the called results, which have Trump as the loser he is.
"Regardless, as of now, it doesn't look like Trump is going anywhere."
Trump doesn't actually have to go anywhere until January 20th. But, he will have to go.
"Just because he's projected by the media as the winner(no matter how corrupt he is), doesn't mean that Trump has to concede."
It's not a projection, genius. The states reporting (not the media) have him comfortably winning the EC vote, which means that unless the EC deny the will of the people and vote so far against the people that it would utterly destroy your democracy, the result will not change enough for Trump to do anything other than lose.
"Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had low turnouts in their primaries, with Harris pulling out entirely."
So? Many of the people who voted Biden in the main election were either not eligible to vote in the primaries or just didn't care who went against Trump, they just wanted to vote him out.
"People go to court all the time and it either gets a case or is dismissed etc, then they walk out"
Yes, and several of the recent court cases have ended with the judge going "where is your evidence?", then kicking them out immediately when they admitted they had none or presented such weak data that they could not be taken seriously for a moment. It's close as you can get to actual laughter than anyone who believes in the dignity of the court will get, but it was certainly implied.
"No comedy gold."
The disconnection from reality and the desperate attempts to pretend it doesn't exist are indeed hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll
I understand your point of view and argument statements. However, I do not agree that Joe Biden won the election, regardless of the results. I will never agree that he is fit to run this country, given his mental state, history of corruption with Hollywood, while same corrupt entertainment industry owned media pitched anti-Trump propaganda, never giving him credit for anything positive that was going on during the entire four years. Then there is the Russia-gate hoax the media ran with and their sham of an impechment, then blaming him for covid. No, I will never accept a Biden vicotry, I'd rather see Trump stay defiant, find Biden on criminal activity that places him in prison, which places him the winner.
Why? Because of all the said reasons and more. The border wall needs to be finished to prevent drug cartels/human traffickers. You can make fun of trump for not making Mexico pay for it, etc. But the fact is, Trump delivered stopping a lot of crime that was coming across the border.
Do I support Tump in everything he has done? Though I'm sure you would like to portray me as a hardcore Trump supporter, me nor my girlfriend are. We both hate the fact he never made a truce with Venezuela, took over the Venezuela against international law when Code Pink was given permission to take over.
But Biden and the Clintons were worse, they ignored Libya's plaads for help when the CIA caused a coup againts their leader who was establishing a united Africa and trying to maintain good relations with the USA by aiding the U.S. military doing their dirty work.
Under Biden, Venezuela wouldn't still never have a peace treaty. Biden said himself, nothing would fundamentally change under his administration. Meaning, more war, while Trump has been trying to pull out of the 7 wars Obama put the U.S. in after Bush dragged the country into Iraq.
My brother, two uncles, best friend, first girlfriend, all served under the Obama administration and Bush.
With Bidens cabinet, he'll be bringing in warprofiteers, and warmongers. So the way I see it. Biden is the worst candidate anyone could ever want. Peace isn't on his agenda, with Trump at least he was trying to work something out to pull troops out of the 7 wars the U.S were in because of Obama, which blew a whole in the national debt to the sum that even my grandchildrends, children couldn't get out of.
I'm sure you will call me a conspiracy theorist. But, Dominion, I'm sure you have hard of the company recently, is assumed to have flipped votes through their voting software that many Trump opponents are havily invest in. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a fact. At least the bit about who Dominian is and that prominant Trump opponents are heavily invested in that software company. Apparently, some of those votes were assumed "anomalies" and were turned back to Trump.
In my eyes, Trump has done a lot more good than bad, compared to the Obama and Bush administration, which my family blindly served in almost all 7 wars that stemmed from the Iraq war under Bush.
I wish Tusli or Bernie would have won or went independent and campaigned together because they would had my vote.
There's rational for my opposition to Biden and support for Trump. I'm not a mad crazed supporter for Trump. But I know that Biden is more trouble than Trump in office and if he gets in office, he'll screw ALL of America harder than COVID.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you
Aside from your grammar mistakes. It was the Venezuelan embassy that was taken over to falsely establish Juan Guaido(I like to pronounce it as guano), somehow as their elected leader, which never was true, no matter how much the Trump administration tried to spin the idea.
I agree with you :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I agree with you :)"
Yeah, we know you agree with you. That doesn't exucuse the comedy alternate universe you're poorly constructing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you
"I'd rather see Trump stay defiant, find Biden on criminal activity that places him in prison, which places him the winner."
You know that's not how that works, right? If Biden can no longer be the president the job goes to Harris, not Trump. And once Biden is sworn in, despite how ridiculous it is, he cannot be charged or prosecuted for any crime. Trump benefitted handsomely from that loophole himself. If only he had done something about it while he was in power...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you
Note, Trump needs to be re-elected to remain president, and without an election result the job goes to Nancy Pelosi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you
I won't go through most of the comedy value here, except to note that if you think Trump has been a measure of world peace, you really need to put down the crack pipe. He's lost the support of most of the country's allies.
"With Bidens cabinet, he'll be bringing in warprofiteers, and warmongers"
...and with his best he'll be bringing in qualified, experienced, competent people who can do the job they hired to do, unliked Trump with his donors and family members who are not qualified in any way for the job.
I'll take Biden maybe killing some people deliberately over Trump killing hundreds of thousands through sheer incompetence any day.
"I wish Tusli or Bernie would have won or went independent and campaigned together because they would had my vote."
They didn't, do you have your vote for an incompetent wannabe dictator instead.
"But I know that Biden is more trouble than Trump in office and if he gets in office, he'll screw ALL of America harder than COVID."
Hey, at least you admit it exists, which makes you better than Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, I do not agree that Joe Biden won the election, regardless of the results.
Reality doesn't care about you accepting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you
So you’re saying that even if the official results say that Biden won, you won’t believe Biden won? What would change your mind? It’s one thing to say you don’t think he should have won or that he would be a terrible president, but it’s quite another to say that he did not win despite the evidence.
Aside from pulling out of the TPP (which was acknowledged by that same media) and getting tax cuts passed (also acknowledged by the media and only arguably positive), what good things happened under the Trump administration? The economy was growing more slowly during the entire time it grew under Trump than it was while Obama was in office. Pulling out of the Paris agreement, breaking the Iran deal, leaving the WHO, and renegotiating trade deals with Canada, Mexico, and China weren’t positive developments, either. And no one would argue that COVID was a good thing, even if it wasn’t Trump’s fault that it happened.
It wasn’t a hoax. There were the facts that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump and Trump and his people appeared oddly close to Putin, and the question of whether or not and to what extent Trump and/or his associates were complicit in that. It’s unknown how much the interference actually affected the election, but that’s not the point. Furthermore, a number of Trump’s associates have been found/admitted to being guilty of doing exactly what the “Russia-gate pushers” accuser them of. There is some disagreement about Trump’s personal role in the whole thing, but to say that the whole thing was a hoax is a gross oversimplification.
Setting aside that the media didn’t impeach Trump, I’ll agree that it was a sham because almost every Republican Senator had already decided to acquit Trump regardless of the charges or evidence.
No one is blaming Trump for COVID. They’re blaming Trump for the amount of damage it’s done, how quickly it’s spread, stuff like that. COVID was going to happen no matter who was President, but Trump (at the very least arguably) made it worse, and definitely could have done a lot more to mitigate the pandemic’s effects on America, which can be seen by comparing what was done here and the results to what was done elsewhere and the results.
Setting aside for a moment that there is 0 credible evidence that Biden has ever been involved in criminal activity and how atrocious and anti-democratic it would be for a sitting president to charge their opponent with criminal activity to prevent themself from being replaced, nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about being in prison being a disqualification for being President, so that wouldn’t actually work.
Ah, the border wall. You know that that hasn’t actually stopped or even reduced any crimes, right? People can pretty easily bypass the wall entirely by using airports, the coastline, or the US-Canada border. Furthermore, the wall hasn’t even affected drug trafficking on the US-Mexico border. People can just use a ladder or rope to climb the darn thing, or just throw drugs over the wall. It’s also worth noting the Trump barely extended the existing barrier, and there is no plan to extend it all the way across the US-Mexico border. But, again, most drug trafficking, human trafficking, and illegal immigration involving the US occurs through paths other than ones crossing the US-Mexico border by land.
While the bit about who Dominion is is true and I don’t necessarily dispute that Trump opponents have invested in the software (I wouldn’t be surprised either way or if Trump proponents also invested in the software), the rest has been refuted by an official website run by the Trump administration.
I’d just like to ask what 7 wars you’re talking about for clarification. I’m not necessarily disputing this fact (I’m not guaranteeing I won’t do that, either); I just want clarification.
I’m genuinely confused here. There is a lot more intersection between Biden and Bernie than between Trump and Bernie. This includes the border wall you care so much about (both Biden and Bernie opposed Trump’s border wall), and I haven’t heard about Bernie wanting to negotiate a peace treaty with Venezuela any more than Biden or Trump, either. Call me ignorant, but I don’t understand the logic of preferring Bernie over Trump but Trump over Biden, especially given their respective positions on the issues you seem to care most about. And I say this as someone who voted for Bernie in the primaries.
I’ll accept that you have a rationale even if I don’t understand it, and I’ll accept that your support for Trump is more nuanced. However, I still don’t see why you think Biden is a warmonger. Not having specific plans for a peace treaty with Venezuela isn’t evidence of that given the politics of Venezuela at the moment. As for Libya, I don’t know enough to comment on that. I just don’t see how Trump is any better given his stances on Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. Furthermore, I personally see COVID as the more immediate problem right now, followed by climate change, police accountability, and healthcare in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll
Me and my girlfirned are in the discussion. I'm making the arguments and she obviously agrees.
There's your comedy gold. Happy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wasn’t aware that butt plugs could become sentient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you trying to make the funniest, insightful comment of the week? Because it was funny.
I admit, I'm her butt plug, not the other way around though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, so long as you admit you’re eating shit somehow…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
yup, that is funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you
"Me and my girlfirned"
Does she live in Canada and we won't know her? Is her name Morgan Fairchild? I've heard this argument before...
"There's your comedy gold. Happy"
Yeah, incels are comedy gold when they're not shooting people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you’ll nev
You blind idiots keep saying Trump has done great things, but I've yet to see a single great thing he's done actually given as an example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is truly all about hating/insulting Trump
"...asserting as if he failed his entire presidency, asserting he himself is a failure..."
The facts pretty much speak for themselves. For the US to hold the current covid death toll the man in charge had to do everything wrong. If Trump had sat on his ass and done nothing about covid statistics still say well over a 100k americans plus change would still be alive.
Trump's pandemic "response" alone makes him the sitting presidency to lose most american lives needlessly than any other president in US history.
Those are the facts, and we didn't even have to go beyond that one example. That does indeed make him as resounding failure along with his presidency.
We could, I suppose, fish for more examples. Being in the records for most lies told during his term bar none isn't a good look either. A trade war with China he "won" by bringing home a worse deal than you had before is another. The list goes on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bring back impartial reporting, this article is BIAS.
This article is written obviously by someone who doesn't know how to report. We get you like trashing TRUMP, that's not what I care to get from any articles from Techdirt, fix your writing, or don't write for Techdirt. Techdirt usually has good source material, regardless of the political candidate, this is borderline trash. The only bit that's worth a damn is the fact the Trump campaign screwed up by using a copywritten song without the expressed permission of the artist, which isn't the first time, for any candidate, BIG DEAL. Is it newsworthy for Techdirt to make an article about what happened, sure, why not. Is it newsworthy of the bias throughout the article, no. So in my opinion, they aren't good enough to write articles here for techdirt, maybe for some far-left wing website that dishes Trump trashing articles like dailymail or opinion pieces, because you're not fit to write articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bring back impartial reporting, this article is BIAS.
I agree, the article is biased and doesn't reflect good reporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bring back impartial reporting, this article is BIAS.
I agree, the article is BIAS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Bias” is not an adjective; you’re looking for “biased”. Go back to school, kid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, yes, she meant BIASED, bla bla blah.
Of course, she agrees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, why are you two so desperate for a life that you'll troll this site in defence of a guy who would happily assault her sexually? I had a nice sunday lunch and a few beers on the beach before I came back to this idiocy - why are you both so bored with each others company that you have to do this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, he's sneaking into the dressing rooms of underage beauty pageants, openly fantasising about sleeping with his own daughter and bragging about sexual assault while facing lawsuits from some of his victims, including actual rape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bring back impartial reporting, this article is BIAS.
Two replies now? Does that mean two girlfriends? Hope they don't find out about each other!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bring back impartial reporting, this article is BIAS.
This is an opinion blog, not a news site. That inevitably means there will be some bias, and there should be less of an expectation for impartial reporting. That said, this article isn’t even that biased, as I cover below.
And this site has commented on those occasions when other candidates make the same mistake. They aren’t solely commenting on this because it’s Trump.
That’s also pretty much what most of the article is about; everything else was an intro and not important to the main subject. So yeah, you’re basically saying the article was right.
Really, at worst, this article frames the person who is central to the topic of the article (Trump) in an arguably biased manner, but there’s no bias in the main thrust of the article or in the site decision to report on Trump’s mistake in this area to begin with.
Even granting you everything you say about Trump, Biden, and the election as true (which I firmly disagree with), the fact is that there is nothing biased or unusual about the main thrust of the article. And that’s on top of the fact that this site doesn’t pretend to be all that impartial to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly why copyright is needed
This is a textbook example of why copyright is needed. Few artists would wish their work be used to promote politics they are against. This is exactly what copyright was designed for, to give control to the copyright holder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exactly why copyright is needed
I disagree that "copyright is needed". The artists are doing just fine.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141229/10521029540/how-copyright-makes-culture-disappear.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exactly why copyright is needed
That article has literally no relevance to the point, it doesn't even attempt to talk about instances where copyright may be valuable. No artist is going to want their voice used to promote politics they disagree with. That is exactly why we have copyright. Besides, they could have easily found another artist and paid them to use their music with their consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, not really
... we have copyright, and had the campaign simply not been idiots and paid the gorram licensing fee the artists wouldn't have had any grounds for legal action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, not really
Hmm, it would be fairly unusual for a major artist to have it setup in such a way that they do not have the option to decline requests. Artists are usually concerned about their brand, and they will not want their voice to be used for political propaganda that they are against. As noted that is the whole point of copyright, to give control on how their work is used. Even if you dislike the concept of copyright, I struggle to see how anyone can really argue against the need for it in these sort of cases. Even if you don't like the morality aspect, there is a likely a financial impact on the artist if their voice is associated with politics which differs to their fans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, not really
For the life of me I cannot seem to remember what the term for it is(mechanical licensing? Compulsory licensing? Something like that...), but essentially you pay one of the agencies in charge of licensing songs and you can use it, there's no need to 'request' anything from the artist(assuming they're even the copyright owner rather than the label), so unless a 'major artist' isn't signed up with on of those, which would make it rather difficult for them to get played on other other platforms, then it really wouldn't be up to them.
Now, assuming that they either aren't signed with one of those agencies or a license wasn't acquired(as is the case here) there's still an opportunity to use a work without agreement from the artist or in spite of opposition from them thanks to fair use, which is what's being argued here, and which includes parody and satire, categories that can easily result in an artist being vehemently against the use should it be parodying them or the song to make a point, however as both are considered pretty important to public discourse they tend to carry a good bit of weight when it comes to fair use.
As to whether this case falls under fair use it seems rather questionable, as it's not parodying or satirizing the song or the artist but an unrelated third party, which is likely to lead to some pointed questions of 'Why did you need to use this song specifically?' from the judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, not really
Those sort of arrangements rarely if ever cover videos or political advertisements. It would be a stretch to call it parody/satire - it was a political propaganda campaign video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, not really
There are no "moral rights" in US copyright. Maybe is some weirder systems e.g., in Europe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, not really
Unless he's made his work open, or detailed how his work can be used. The copyright holder has the right to refuse permission to anyone, he does not need to give a reason why. Whether or not "moral rights" are explicitly stated, isn't really relevant. It is universally accepted that the point of copyright is for the owner to have control of how it is used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really
"It is universally accepted that the point of copyright is for the owner to have control of how it is used."
Yes, and herein lies the problem -who is the owner?
It's very unlikely that the copyright is owned by Eddy Grant, it's probably owned b y one of the major labels he released the record through. So, like in many of these cases, the artist can say he doesn't want the song to be used in a particular way, but unless he has the agreement of his label it's meaningless.
On top of that, the problem with most of these kind of issues is that the campaign likely bought a blanket ASCAP or similar copyright licence, which gives them automatic rights to use anything in the licence catalogue.
For Grant to have direct ability to control the use of the song here, he either has to own the copyright himself and not be part fo the ASCAP licence scheme or have so other arrangement that would be very unusual for an artist releasing through major record labels in the 80s. Especially as he's a British artist and while he may have retained some control when releasing domestically, he probably didn't get enough power during international negotiations to retain the same control in the US (where it was released by CBS - now part of Sony).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really
Sure it's a given you are allowed to sign away your copyright or make it open you personally lose your rights to decline permission. That's not really the issue at hand. It's up to you to decide if you want to sign away your rights, and even if you do you can negotiate terms. I saw nothing in the article to suggest that was the case though.
As for ASCAP - as far as I'm aware that wouldn't be relevant in this case. ASCAP is for the likes of public performances, think supermarkets, conference centres, radio stations playing music etc. It is not for adverts, where you would need specific permission. This makes sense as labels or artists want to control their brand. They'll likely lose revenue if their artist is associated with politics or say a brand of toilet roll that may be unappealing to their target audience. Indeed even with live events, copyright holders can exclude themselves from certain politics. But again this wasn't a live political rally, it was an advert - different rules.
I was merely noting that although many people (including myself) may not like the concept of copyright. This article shows exactly why it is a necessary evil. I wouldn't want my voice used to promote politics I was against both morally and because of the negative damage it may do to my brand. Political campaigns can licence music or even commission it, which is actually a major reason for copyright in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really
"It's up to you to decide if you want to sign away your rights, and even if you do you can negotiate terms."
Indeed. But Eddy Grant would not have been considering the ramifications of the song being used a political campaign nearly 40 years in the future when he was negotiating those terms, and the industry was so different back then he might not have had that negotiation power even if he had.
"As for ASCAP - as far as I'm aware that wouldn't be relevant in this case."
https://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/advocacy-legislation/political_campaign.pdf
&quo t;But again this wasn't a live political rally, it was an advert - different rules."
From the above, it does seem that some specific negotiation above the blanket licence would be required, but again the negotiation was likely with Sony, not Grant, and I imagine that's a rubber stamp process if Grant hasn't pre-determined some objection he might have.
I could be wrong on any of the above, but my general understanding of this stuff is that so long as music is the property of a corporation rather than an artist (which almost all popular music has been until very recently, by default of how the industry worked for decades), the individual doesn't matter so much. I hope that Grant has some power in this case, but that's the way the game has been played.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really
The fact is they are suing for copyright enfringement, whether that is Eddy Grant or whether the label is doing it I wouldn't know. Only the copyright holder can do this, so I can only assume the copyright holder is not happy. It doesn't seem to be a case where the label has granted permission, and the singer disagrees. As I've already noted ASCAP is not relevant. The link you cite shows this, it states:
"IF A CAMPAIGN WANTS TO USE A SONG IN A CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL, WHAT PERMISSIONS DOES IT NEED?
This kind of use may involve rights such as synchronization of music with video and the possible use of the master sound recording. The campaign will need to contact the song’s publisher and possibly the artist’s record label to negotiate the appropriate licenses with them. And remember, campaign videos containing music that are posted on the internet also require these licenses. Once the commercial has been produced, the TV and radio stations, and any websites that transmit the commercial, must have a public performance license"
I think you are confusing public events with advertisements. They are different beasts. If ASCAP was used as widely as that, copyright would be meaningless. They could possibly make that claim if they were playing the song at a campaign rally, but they can't if they make a video advert. They would need to get permission.
But yes you are right, there are these annoying stories that crop up when a singer complains about their song they signed away rights for. In reality these are usually (although not always) communication difficulties between the label and the singer. Labels will often do what the singer wants, and it is often in their interest to protect their brand, and as noted if the politics do not fit the brand, then the label will say no. That's why you don't see adverts on TV for laxatives using Madonnas music. Most artists and their labels have a similar idea about what is in their interest.
Basically there is no basis for ASCAP in this case, they needed to get permission and they didn't. The copyright holder is taking action. So if that is not Grant himself, then there doesn't seem to be disagreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really
In the US, the point of copyright is supposed to be to promote the progress of "science and useful arts" (knowledge, culture). Giving control to the author is the means, not the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really
Well yes if you pay for the copyright to use material then you are helping progress "science and useful arts". I guess the idea is you are helping the artist earn a living. Obviously the artist may not want to give you permission as he may believe that your use of the material may damage his brand - maybe even put you out of business if his market dislikes the association. What the Trump campaign should have done is asked permission from an artist willing to give it, or simply paid a musician to create a unique piece of music for his campaign. So yes this case is exactly aligned to your "progress of science and useful arts" quote. As noted this is a textbook example of why copyright is needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really
I disagree. There's no indication that the artist would have been fine with usage if only it had been paid for, which I think is how you're arguing that progress is secured - by enriching artists (so they can produce more art?). The point is to ensure 1) creation of the materials and 2) that they benefit the public. 1 is accomplished by incentivizing authors to create works by giving them a temporary monopoly on them, which they can use to make money. 2 is accomplished by ensuring those works pass into the public domain. Neither of those aims have anything to do with making sure the author is not associated with anything they disagree with.
Now in Europe they see things differently, and moral rights are if I understand correctly core to copyright protection. But this is a US case. Also, I'm speaking theoretically as the stated constitutional purpose of copyright is increasingly divorced from its actual implementation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really
I'm not saying the artist would have been happy and given permission. I felt covered this point. An artist is concerned with their brand. If an advert uses their music and if it is used for an advert that is in opposition to their fanbase, then they likely lose their audience, thus money and maybe even their career. Meaning they are less likely to create more material, as they will probably have to get a regular 9 to 5 job, giving no time to be creative. Particulary if the advert is big. Then others won't want to pay to use their music, increasing the issue. That's exactly you don't see adverts for diarrhea using a mainstream band. And yes many people despise Trump and his politics. So that is totally in line with the "progress of science and useful arts". A negative use of material can decrease the "progress of science of uesful arts".
Secondly he could have paid a willing artist or also commissioned a new piece of music from a right wing artist.
This is just a textbook case of why copyright is needed, you may not specifically have "moral rights" in US copyright stated. But it's a given, as the artist has control of their work to ensure they can profit from it, create more, and just as important not have someone use their work in a way which negatively affects their career and ability to create and profit from future work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exactly why copyright is needed
That is not how copyright works. The Trump Campaign just needed to pay a mechanical license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is our new troll a split personality or a dual personality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Accepting them at their word, they’re two people (a boyfriend and girlfriend) who share a computer and can’t be bothered to use two different pseudonyms to make it clear which won is writing what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Address
Just curious. How does one see the IP address of a poster?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Address
TD staff probably could access that data(not sure why they'd bother, but hey), but for everyone else while you can't see the address itself the 'snowflake' next to the name allows you to differentiate between people without an account in a given comment section as it will remain the same for all comments from that address in that comment section, changing only when they post under a different address thanks to a VPN or something similar or comment on a different article and get a new snowflake icon for that comment section.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Address
You can't see the IP address itself. However, you see the "snowflake" icon that appears next to your name on your post here? That's a randomly generated icon that is unique to each IP posting in a particular thread. So, while you can't see the IP, you can see which posts came from the same IP. This is to avoid the kind of astroturfing that can be common, where a lone troll posts as if he's different people, in order to generate fake support for his own posts.
This isn't needed in cases where people are logged in, and the login itself is the differentiator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP Address
To say nothing of the snowflake behind their keyboard...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News Headline..
Today the Trump administration announced a policy to limit copyright terms to 37 years...
"Here, the Song is a creative work, but it was published in 1983 (Compl. ¶ 25), and it remains, more than 37 years later, available to the public. This weighs in favor of fair use. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: News Headline..
Deep Disney will put holes in them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Get over it. Biden won legitly. Even Republican governors said so. There was no electoral rigging unless you count what Trump tried to do by having mail-sorting equipment removed.
And by the way, the only case of voter fraud was by a Trump voter trying to vote twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'We can't find proof because the dems are smarter than us!'
Get over it. Biden won legitly. Even Republican governors said so. There was no electoral rigging unless you count what Trump tried to do by having mail-sorting equipment removed.
Or as the saying that was gleefully throw out by Trump cultists after the last election goes, modified for the current one: 'He lost, get over it.'
And by the way, the only case of voter fraud was by a Trump voter trying to vote twice.
Oh nonsense, I'm sure there was massive amounts of fraud amounting to literally millions of bogus votes(because as Trump has been boasting if you only count the 'legal' ones he definitely won the popular vote), and any day now the Trump's legal teams will find even the tiniest shred of it and bust the whole thing open and stop having to use hearsay and/or lies as their only arguments in court.
Any day now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please seek help for your mental illness. Hallucinations and believing in a false reality could be signs of something serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cool story bro, always nice of Trump cultists to remind people just how petulant, childish and willfully delusional they are, and how much they hate the country and the foundations that it was built upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Joe Biden is not President-elect until the votes are certified by the actual States."
Most have been certified already, no matter what the right-wing derposphere, who have suddenly decided that Fox are too left-wing for them now that even they have been reporting the truth, are pretending.
All that's left is for the actual EC votes to be cast, and if they override the will of the people, the public ballots cast are the least of your problems.
"The election was rigged."
If true, then why has no proof been offered, other than "I don't like the result"?
"There will be no peace"
That's the choice of you and the rest of Trump's cult. Democrats didn't like the results of 2000 or 2016, where there was far more credible evidence of fraud, but they still conceded and attempted to work for the nation. If you can't accept reality, that's on you guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why are you so biased? Are you a democrat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All that's left is for the actual EC votes to be cast, and if they override the will of the people, the public ballots cast are the least of your problems.
At this point that is definitely my greatest concern, because that sort of blatant theft of an election in direct violation of the public's will is how you ensure a second american civil war, and it's bad enough already that there are likely going to be tens of millions of people who have been duped by Trump's 'election fraud!' lies to such an extent that they refuse to accept any outcome that doesn't have Trump winning given how deranged and violent they've shown themselves to be.
If true, then why has no proof been offered, other than "I don't like the result"?
Oh that's simple, every single democrat involved, all of them, was and is smarter than everyone on the republican side, capable of hiding all evidence of a nationwide fraud involving hundreds of thousands if not millions of illegal votes such that all Trump's cult can come up with is speculation, lies and hearsay.
I mean, it's either that or it didn't happen, and since the Dear Leader and his cultists are absolutely convinced that it did happen...
That's the choice of you and the rest of Trump's cult. Democrats didn't like the results of 2000 or 2016, where there was far more credible evidence of fraud, but they still conceded and attempted to work for the nation. If you can't accept reality, that's on you guys.
You have to wonder if they realize just what they are showing about their character and respect for the country and the systems that comprise the bedrock of it with these tantrums and refusals to accept reality. 'I will only accept elections that go my way!' is really not a good look and says a lot about the ones saying such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"At this point that is definitely my greatest concern, because that sort of blatant theft of an election in direct violation of the public's will is how you ensure a second american civil war"
Indeed. Depending on the result of the Georgia recount, either Biden has received 36 more EC votes than the required 270, or 20. There's no route left where Biden has lost the election based on the projected EC votes, or the 5 million vote victory he has already recorded in the popular vote.
Now, back in June the supreme court decided that EC votes essentially have to go with the will of the popular vote in the state, or at least that the state can force "faithless electors" to follow the will of the popular vote. In other elections there's been a few votes that have been flipped, where some of the EC voters have chosen differently to their states' popular decision. But, it's never been more than a handful, and never to my knowledge been enough to put the overall EC projection in doubt.
So, in order to lose the election at this point, at least 20, and perhaps as many as 36, EC votes have to completely throw out the vote of the population of multiple states and install the will of the sitting president over and above the will of the voters, in violation of the checks and balances supposedly granted by the separation of powers enforced by the judicial branch.
There is absolutely no way that this could ever end well, and would at minimum result in the destruction of American democracy, and have a global effect that is extraordinarily frightening. After all, if even the USA can throw out democratic elections like that, why would any leader with fascist leanings even bother with the pretence of elections in the first place?
Scarily, a second American civil war driven by a tyrant who has destroyed the very values he swore to uphold is possibly the least of the overall problems caused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There will be no unity. There will be no peace.
I really don't care, do u?
We will never accept Joe Biden as a legitimate President. He isn't. And he will never be.
That's OK. We still don't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"There will be no unity. There will be no peace.
I really don't care, do u?"
Well, I do. The world is going to need a lot of fixing already, and we really don't need millions of violent assholes raging against a fantasy while trying to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How does society "deprogram" these cult members and what does one do with the cult leaders.
Some of them seem a bit suicidal and could be a threat to themselves and others, doesn't take much to set them off.
I think if religion would take some responsibility here, specifically evangelicals ... but that will not happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and we really don't need millions of violent assholes raging against a fantasy while trying to do so.
Paul, I'd like to be an optimist, but the last 4 years have suggested not wasting my time on it. These people aren't going to change. And trying to reason or extend an olive branch to a "reality is optional" crowd comes with its own set of risks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Paul, I'd like to be an optimist, but the last 4 years have suggested not wasting my time on it."
It's not about wasting time on trying to get these people to see reality and work out how to deal with the way they've been lied to.
Right-wing violence is already the biggest form of domestic terrorism in the US by quite some margin. You already have people being caught trying to kidnap or assassinate state governors over their coronavirus responses. You have 73 million people who believed Trump enough to vote for him even after everything he's done over the last few years, who are being told that their vote was stolen and that legal remedies are failing. How long before groups of these idiots start snapping and killing, because they honestly believe the lies about the election?
The concern isn't about "wasting time" on these people, it's about how high the body count stands to be if they continue to be told they have no other choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not about wasting time on trying to get these people to see reality and work out how to deal with the way they've been lied to.
How's that worked out so far? Trump got more votes this time than last time. And that's with seeing exactly what he would do over the last 4 years.
They're gone. They're not coming back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, that's my point - they may be too far gone to be worth bargaining with day to day. But, they still have to be dealt with when they decided to start killing the people they've been brainwashed into thinking are attempting a coup rather than participating in the democratic process, as they have been in reality.
I'm not saying people need to try and negotiate with these people to try and win votes back. I'm saying you have to prepare for what they're going to do when they believe they have no other choice than to act outside of the democratic process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, yes. Remember when you fine people were mocking those who were disappointed that a washed-up reality TV star became President four years ago?
How about them apples, mate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which they have.
Still waiting on actual evidence of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]