Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
from the I-guess-we're-extending-ignorance-of-the-law-privileges-to-judges-now dept
A municipal court judge in New Jersey who apparently doesn't understand either the First Amendment or local ordinances has just ordered a resident to take down some f-bomb-laden signs from her yard. (h/t Peter Bonilla)
A municipal judge on Thursday ruled that a Roselle Park homeowner’s owner’s anti- President Biden flags including the F-bomb on her fence were obscene and must be removed because they violated a borough ordinance.
Roselle Park Municipal Court Judge Gary Bundy ordered the Willow Avenue homeowner to remove the signs with profanity within a week or face a $250-a-day fine. Patricia Dilascio is the property owner but her daughter, Andrea Dick, had the signs, three of which include the F-word, on display.
The signs, which can be seen in this photo, are certainly colorful in terms of language, and very definitely convey their owner's displeasure with the current regime. However, it would appear they do not violate the ordinance cited by the judge, who also claimed to be all for protecting free speech rights while issuing an order that violates those rights. According to Judge Gary Bundy, free speech is not "absolute" and the town's law does not "abridge or violate" the First Amendment rights of the signs' owner.
It is clear from state law and statutes that we cannot simply put up the umbrella of the First Amendment and say everything and anything is protected speech.
Well, that's true, but only if you insist on limiting your analysis to superlatives, as this judge did. The town's law does not abridge the property owner's First Amendment rights. But this application of the law certainly seems to. The phrase "Fuck Biden" -- which appears on three different signs -- doesn't actually violate the ordinance the town of Roselle Park claims was violated. The law forbids the public display of "obscene material." Here's the law's definition of that term:
The word "obscene" shall mean any material, communication or performance which the average person applying contemporary community standards existing within the municipality, would find, when considered as a whole:
a. Appeals to the prurient interest;
b. Depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as hereinafter specifically defined, or depicts or exhibits offensive nakedness as hereinafter specifically defined; and
c. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Given the "and" between b. and c. and the phrase "when considered as a whole," these signs would need to violate all three clauses to be considered obscene. "Fuck Biden" seems pretty clearly "political," even if the value of the sentiment is somewhat debatable. But there's nothing sexual or prurient about this use of the word "fuck," which would be taken by literally nobody to mean the property owner is suggesting someone should engage in a sexual act with the current President.
We certainly don't expect municipal courts to be run by Constitutional scholars or attorneys with years of experience defending civil rights, but we should expect appointed judges to at least keep up with the last 50 years of Supreme Court precedent (including some recent decisions) determining that the word "fuck" -- especially when used in conjunction with political issues -- is definitely protected speech.
But even the town's mayor seems to believe residents' rights end when public officials begin to get offended on behalf of rhetorical minors.
“Today was a win for the borough and decency,” Signorello, the mayor, said in a statement to NJ Advance Media. “While we respect the views of our residents, there’s no place for profanity by a school and school children.”
It was neither, Mayor Signorello. It was a win for people who still think the word "fuck" has the innate power to tear apart the fabric of society. It was a win for people that think the only speech that should be protected is speech they like or agree with.
The judge is no better.
The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child.
"It's a swear word" would be all the explanation most kids need. And most kids won't need an explanation because they're already familiar with the list of words not used in polite society. Judge Bundy seems to believe he's presiding over a Mayberry-esque community that still has milkmen and separate beds for husbands and wives, rather than a 2021 New Jersey town that's located in a state best known for mob violence, corrupt politicians, and residents considered only slightly less terrible than Philadelphians.
This is a dumb decision and it's supported by people saying even dumber things than the judge who blew this Constitutional call. The decision can be appealed and definitely should be. The ordinance doesn't say what the judge says it does, and the First Amendment still says what it has always said. For the moment, the signs remain up, which presumably means the imaginary uncomfortable family discussions of f-bombs will have to continue until this issue is finally resolved.
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: 1st amendment, free speech, new jersey, obscenity, political speech, roselle park
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I really hate to break it to people (again), but reality it rate X. And no amount of hand wringing insanity will actually change that.
Fundamentally: living in terror that children might one day learn about one specific portion of how our reality operates is... very insane( as in "to act in a manor contrary to reality"). Also is possibly makes you a tyrannical monster.
PS: I'm not suggesting children be inundated with specific messages, or to not try and limit the scope of what they have to deal with on any given day... but... reality, it's real, and it's not going away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer.
Well, no. HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are. And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An HOA is not typically a state actor, bound by the first amendment. Some states do provide some speech-like protections for political signs--for instance, here in Texas, HOAs must allow you at least a single political sign around the time of elections: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.259.htm
Likewise, during the Bush admin, Congress passed a federal law that blocks HOAs and condominiums restricting the display of the US flag.
But in general, clauses restricting speech are allowed and are enforceable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"HOA's are not immune from the Constitution..."
The Constitution is almost entirely a list of things the government is not allowed to do. HOA's are not governments, not matter how authoritarian they might act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is hard to get to ``unconstitutional'' in a contract between private parties.
I can agree to do things for money, which things the government cannot compel me to do otherwise. For instance, I may work because people give me money, yet the government cannot directly compel me to work.
I can also refrain from doing things for money. For instance, I could agree with a neighbor that I will not bring trespass or otherwise bar him from use of a certain portion of my property, though government insisting that I do so would be a taking. The term is ``easement'' for those of you keeping score at home.
I can agree not to say certain things, for instance a non-disclosure agreement or a non-disparagement agreement, though the government could not stop me from revealing facts or unfavorable views. Or I can agree to say certain things: famous people often endorse products in return for money.
The government has little to say about these things because the entities involved are not state actors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did we really?
Need to find 1000's of jobs for Uneducated people, that we hire Judges and police and politicians that seem to not even understand our own laws, regs and Common senses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am very supportive of free speech, but where do we draw the line? If they want to keep the signs, fine but cover up the obscene language.
Therefore, F**** the Prez would be fine but cover the UCK up or take them down.
I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.
Otherwise, make the case that the F word is not bad and we can add the following to the first grade reader.
Jack fell down, broke his crown, and said "I've had a F***ing bad day."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't matter what you feel like. That's the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.
The law vs morality. Compromises must be made.
An argument can be made that free speech is not infringed by requiring the Letters UCK be covered up.
Any reasonable adult would understand that F*** is not praise.
It allows the homeowner to have their signs, to get their message across, and to protect the young and innocent.
tldr: We could protect both free speech and the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.
If they don't know what the word means, then exposure to it doesn't make them less innocent.
If they do know what the word means, then exposure to it also doesn't make them less innocent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’d be a terrible argument, sure, but it could be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.
Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.
Are these the same children of people who aren't concerned about them knowing that you can grab them by the pussy?
Or that white supremacists are fine people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.
Was wondering how long before Techdirt commenters would bring up the two subjects they’re most obsessed with: sexual fantasies about D. Trump, and those kkk nazi evil bad guy white soopremaciztssss that are hiding behind every rock.
My answer: about an hour. So you guys showed some restraint. Congrats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct
Its about quadruple the time it takes one of you idiots to misrepresent the First Amendment. So ya know people who live in Klan houses and all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct
"sexual fantasies about D. Trump"
You have a very strange, broken, mind if you think that referring to Trump's boasts about committing sexual assault means that the person criticising them is the one with a problem.
"those kkk nazi evil bad guy white soopremaciztssss that are hiding behind every rock"
That rock being the white supremacist rallies in support of Trump that were being referred to.
Why is reality so hard for you to grasp that you feel the need to attack people who refer to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally cor
"Why is reality so hard for you to grasp that you feel the need to attack people who refer to it?"
Because when reality won't back the assertions of the alt-right they think reality is a liberal lefty and deny it.
It's like trying to talk to an ISIS zealot at this point. Bringing them facts is just asking for them to go all "Jahid! 🤯" on you.
And yea, they'd misspell their own slogans and get them backwards which at least puts even ISIS ahead of them in that regard...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct
So they are the same children, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct
Pointing out something Trump actually said that was necessarily sexual in nature is not a sexual fantasy about Trump.
You think they’re hiding? Or rather, you think that we think they’re hiding? They’re marching proudly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're not in any shape to start throwing stones from your castle of glass, Hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.
Well, grab them by the pussy is only a thing because Media decided to replay it 24/7. So any dem claiming ‘for the children’ can shut up.
And trump denounced the white suprematists. It was the others he was talking about.
It’s very clear in the transcript.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct
Yes, it was very relevant that in the run up to an election the positions of one of the major candidate was known, especially since he was running for party that has previously impeached a president for lying about a consensual sex act. Boasting about sexual assault would appear to be newsworthy, no matter which party the candidate was running for, but it was particularly relevant there.
It makes a lot more sense for the media to not "shut up" about that than it did for the right wing press to be so up in arms about Benghazi or emails, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally cor
Relevant?
But the laptop wasn’t?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally
Why would a fraud spun up by Giuliani's Russian handlers be relevant to anything other than a criminal investigation or Giuliani?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to mor
Oh, you’re still ignoring your tiny bubble. The laptop proves a direct connection. One the FBI is now investigating, among others.
When they can’t ignore it anymore MSNBCNN will fill you in on the most basic of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to
"The laptop proves a direct connection"
To people stupid enough to believe Rudy at face value, sure. The jury's out for the rest of us.
"One the FBI is now investigating, among others."
We will await the results of their investigation, and any court verdict made as a result. They're just a bit busy now dealing the proven criminals in Trump's orbit, but I eagerly await anything that places the claims in the realm of reality, rather than the desperate fairytale to placate the cult that it sounds like it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to
First of all, MSNBC and CNN are very different. The former is significantly more biased (in favor of progressives) than the latter. Not that either are unbiased or anything, but I hate it when people lump them in together. It’d be like lumping the WSJ with Fox News, except MSNBC is more reasonable than Fox.
Second, even assuming any part of the laptop story was true, at best that proves a direct connection Hunter Biden and an indirect connection with Joe Biden. And, indeed, that appears to be the focus of the FBI’s investigation: potential wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, the guy he was allegedly exchanging emails with, and associates of the latter. We already know that the meeting with Joe Biden described within the emails did not actually occur.
Additionally, the evidence of what Trump did was more clearcut and was acknowledged as having actually happened by Trump, even if he dismissed it as “locker-room talk”. More proof = more relevant.
Also, I’m pretty sure that MSNBC did mention it at least once, though not as a plausible allegation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally
We're yet to see proof that the laptop exists, assuming you refer to Hunter Biden. Until proof exists, we can assume it's the desperate fiction that it sounds like it is.
That's way less relevant than Trump confessing to sex crimes on tape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally
"But the laptop wasn’t?"
At least verify a little of what you're talking about. Some shady repairman went to Rudy Giuliani with a laptop they claimed they got from Hunter Biden (unclear how), which contained emails without a certificate they claimed were written by hunter biden, and who no one could answer how they even got it.
Yeah, it's not relevant if I produce a set of "evidence" which amounts to a spreadsheet where I've typed "I Iz Guilti. Sijnd Huntr Biden"
But it's really relevant when a presidential candidate admits to being a sex predator right before the election. Particularly so in view of his unfortunate earlier utterings about Epstein who he described as a terrific guy who, like Trump, loved women and liked them young.
Lostinlodos, are you even aware of scale and context?
Hunter Biden is an unfortunate case of ineptitude coat-tailing on the fame of relatives. Not as blatantly as Trump employing his inept relatives to jobs with extreme qualification requirements, but certainly not good.
Nevertheless there's no indication that Joe had anything to do with either Hunter's employment or whatever Hunter was up to.
What we do have is Trump on record trying to blackmail a foreign government into producing dirt on Hunter and his dad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to mor
“ laptop they claimed they got from Hunter Biden (unclear how), ”
It was dropped off for repair, and abandoned.
“ What we do have is Trump on record trying to blackmail a foreign government into producing dirt on Hunter and his dad.”
Uh, where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to
Did you know that they took the word gullible out of the dictionary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equat
Given how many times that’s happened at shops I worked at… it’s not hard to believe.
Compute, laptops, servers, in later times phones… people forget, people don’t like the price, whatever the reason.
Ask anyone from geek squad how often it happens. I often worked in small shops. It was a regular occurrence.
I know when tiger direct stores went under there was a fair amount of abandoned equipment that was sold in the liquidation.
Tiger was know for their clearance shelves of abandoned equipment long before that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e
"Given how many times that’s happened at shops I worked at… it’s not hard to believe."
It's not hard to believe that such a thing that happened, in a general sense.
It's hard to believe that it happened in such a way where such obviously damning evidence (which has never been revealed) just so happened to occur weeks before an election where such things being true could have helped a specific political candidate and made it into the hands of someone with the track record of Rudy, especially given his conduct since then.
"Ask anyone from geek squad how often it happens. I often worked in small shops. It was a regular occurrence."
In the UK, Gary Glitter was exposed as a paedophile because he took his PC in to a major retailer to repair and they spotted his chid porn collection. The difference between that and Hunter? Evidence. Where is the evidence? The same place as all those fake ballots and Trump's tax returns, I presume... Again, it's an extraordinary story that requires extraordinary evidence. Where is it? What have you seen that the rest of us haven't that makes this believable?
In the absence of evidence, Occam's Razor suggests that it was a Hail Mary pass from a desperate campaign that realised their attempts to suppress mail voting hadn't worked and they remembered they got traction from computer stuff before... only they couldn't get anything as compelling as Hillary's email server to counter Trump's admitted crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n
“Where is the evidence? “
I believe with the FBI at the moment
“The same place as all those fake ballots”
I doubt the exist
“Trump's tax returns”
Private, none of our business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do
Prove it.
Considering nobody wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole, I would guess that the whole laptop story was just a steaming, stinking pile of 💩!!
I mean it's Rudy "I spread covid with my farts" "I book pressers between a porn shop and crematorium" Giuliani, who has about zero credibility now-a-days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do
"I believe with the FBI at the moment"
OK, then we will see what comes out of that particular investigation. Until then all we have is the publicly told story, which is so full of holes I can use it to drain pasta.
"Private, none of our business."
Your desire not to see how much the con artist you voted for was conning you is noted, but I think it's highly relevant to see how much money he owed to foreign powers and how much he defrauded the federal government while in power, and before.
If those returns state that the amount both those things occurred was to the tune of $0, then so be it, but I don't see why the documents aren't relevant. Especially given that after multiple documents were provided proving that Obama was eligible for the presidency, Trump himself kept claiming he wasn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically lega
I’ve never agreed with publicising tax info. Go back to 1996 and you’ll find my bitching about it. Again in 04.
It’s just not any of our business.
And I’ve throughly documented where the brother thing came from.
Obama’s own agent. Prior to his political Career.
Who’s author card stated he was born in Africa.
I’ve linked to the photos of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knowing whether a potential president has any financial issues—including debts to foreign nationals who could use those debts as leverage against the president—is, in fact, the business of the American people. We deserve to know whether our president is free from foreign influence and paying their fair share to the public treasury. We also deserve to know if our president stands to profit from his time in office. I mean, Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm, for fuck’s sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically
It’s all fine and dandy that you’re consistent about it, but
I have no idea who you are, and this site did not exist in '96 or (AFAICT) '04, so… How am I supposed to find these old claims of yours where you complain about publicizing tax info?
Again, I have no idea how you expect me to find these old claims of yours.
But it really doesn’t matter because we already have multiple pieces of definitive proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, not Africa, so regardless of what his brother, his agent, or his “author card” (whatever that is) says, the fact is that he was born on American soil, not in Africa.
With that said, what “agent” are you talking about? Obama was a lawyer (who generally don’t have agents) before he became a politician, and I’m pretty sure that he wrote his first book after starting in politics, so before his political career, he wouldn’t have had an agent or an “author card”. I could be wrong about that, but this seems doubtful. Speaking of, what even is an “author card”, anyways? And how would it even be relevant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technica
“ How am I supposed to find these old claims”
I’ve had the same handle since the dialup days. When I ran the JamPro servers. The @ has changed a few times but the name is (or should be) all me.
“ It’s all fine and dandy that you’re consistent about it”
I am because 2:
“…” tax returns don’t guarantee anything regarding foreign entities, and as far as wealth, it only covers reportable income, not non-reportable holdings.
It’s an extremely invasive request that would do little for the public.
“ Again, I have no idea how you expect me to find these old claims of yours.”
That’s not old, I did it right here a few weeks ago.
Brother should be birther btw.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/promotional-booklet/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech
"That’s not old, I did it right here a few weeks ago."
Not everyone reads every thread. Stop being a dishonest twat, and link to the thing you're referring to if it's so fundamental to your argument, or at least be prepared to defend it in a way other than "durr I already said that"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Scroll up. I did 12 hours before this reply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love the way that your response to me telling you to cite what you're referring to is to make a claim about a rough time that you think you commented, rather than use the tools at your disposal to link to the actual comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210717/15544047194/judge-ignores-first-amendment-misreads-town-l aw-while-ordering-resident-to-remove-fuck-biden-signs.shtml#c3760
Bit think, did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech
I fail to see how “[i]t’s an extremely invasive request.” In many countries, everyone’s tax returns are public records. Furthermore, Trump is literally the only presidential candidate since Nixon who complained about disclosing their tax returns, let alone refused to do it. And even he mostly made excuses about why he hadn’t yet and (falsely) promised to release them.
Plus, while they’re not going to show everything, they still offer a good baseline, so saying they offer little value to the public is incorrect.
I’d also argue that reportable income (which includes pretty much all income derived within the US somehow, taxable or not) is particularly relevant when someone makes public claims about it. For example, if someone claims to have low or middling income, a tax return that reports a high income would show them to be lying, and someone who claims to be a “great businessman” should have to demonstrate that.
Regarding the birther thing, I fail to see how it’s relevant. Why should the “author card” of a book should show that such claims are still reasonable even after being presented with the massive amount of evidence showing that Obama was born in Hawaii? Regardless of how it started, it makes no sense how it continued and still continues today to some extent. People filed lawsuits over it pretty much throughout Obama’s presidency.
Plus, as long as your mom or dad was a US citizen when you were born, it doesn’t really matter where you were born regarding being a natural-born citizen. Both Ted Cruz (born in Canada) and John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone) were born outside of the US but were not considered to be ineligible to be President. So even if Obama was born in Kenya (which he clearly was not), it would make no actual difference. Even according to the author card, the time he supposedly spent in Kenya was brief, spending far more time in Indonesia, Hawaii, or Illinois. So, even if true (which it definitely isn’t), it makes no sense why people should care.
Also, while the agency in question does (or did) include Obama as a current client now, it’s not clear from that article whether that was the case at the time his half-brother’s book was written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Taxes
Feel free to post yours. Once you do you have a moral right to demand someone else’s.
Birther: I didn’t say reasonable. I wasn’t the one who brought it up.
I pointed out it was a dead horse, originally publicised up by Clinton, btw.
My response was twofold, a) it’s not a talking point by any mainstream person anymore, despite the above claim it was, and b) at least it was based on an actual factual situation.
“Makes no sense”
Nope. None. Lol. I didn’t bring it up.
Just pointed out it had some actual basis after it was brought up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I actually knew how to do so and was actually noteworthy, I would. Not that there’s anything of note, really.
The last point is false. Hillary Clinton and her campaign had nothing to do with that. Clinton supporters brought it up, but it wasn’t publicized really until afterwards, mostly by Republicans.
As for reasonable, you mentioned that in response to someone saying it was unreasonable.
Tell that to a sizable number of Republicans. If it’s a fringe belief and not mainstream, there wouldn’t be that many Republicans, especially after the recent mass exodus of moderate Republicans from the party.
Also, the only reason it’s not brought up now by Republicans (at least unless asked) is because Obama isn’t in office and hasn’t been for around five years, so it’s immaterial at this point. It’s not because they are conceding the point.
No, it was based upon a mistake and perpetuated well beyond what was even within sight of reason. But I will concede that the initial mistake was not inherently reasonable and could reasonably lead to honest confusion initially.
Fine, but in the context of this discussion, the reason the birther thing was brought up was as a counter to your assertion that Hunter or Biden “admitting” to some kind of nepotism being involved would make the whole thing go away. That the birther story kept going in spite of the clear evidence that it was wrong being presented immediately suggests otherwise. Whatever factual basis it may have had immediately, we can all agree it grew far beyond reasonable, and it did so in spite of a quick, clear response based upon evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ The last point is false”
Inaccurate maybe but not false. It gained traction after she responded.
“ Tell that to a sizable number of Republicans”
Where the hell did you find any mainstream republicans believing OR discussing it today.
Today being since 2016?
“ No, it was based upon a mistake and perpetuated well beyond what was even within sight of reason.”
A mistake in an actual printed piece.
“ That the birther story kept going in spite of the clear evidence that it was wrong”…
Where!”? Just where? You discuss it like it was still some sort of normal talking point during the trump campaign or administration. Where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, it gained traction after she said she didn’t believe it was true? Because, again, that was never a claim that she herself actually made. That’s what I meant when I said it’s false: Neither Hillary nor her campaign ever even implied he was born in Kenya. It also didn’t spread much while Hillary was still running; it was mostly ignored until after Republicans took it up. So, again, that’s just plain false.
As I implied, it hasn’t really been discussed much. However, there have been polls on the subject, and a sizable number still believe it.
I can also say that, from personal experience, I occasionally encounter some people who just randomly mention that Kenyan Muslim, but I honestly wasn’t thinking about that when I made that statement. And the crazy thing is that they are generally rational-minded people: they don’t buy into a lot of the Q-stuff about Trump becoming President soon or some broad conspiracy against Trump or stuff like that. They just have this one blind spot with Obama’s heritage. Some of them don’t even have a problem with it; they’re just matter-of-fact about it.
Yeah, I don’t get it either.
Frankly, I find the fact it’s still believed by so many too depressing to look up the actual figure, but it’s been repeated on several news sites multiple times during the Trump administration, and the pollster was reliable enough AFAICT at the time. I genuinely wish it wasn’t so common, either. I wish they had finally accepted the indisputable evidence.
To give credit where it’s due, I don’t think it’s a majority of Republicans, but it’s still alarmingly high.
Yes, which is why I did concede that it was initially reasonable for people to rely upon it. Of course, it wouldn’t take much research to disprove that even before Obama addressed it by releasing proof that he was born in Hawaii, but I still acknowledge the point.
You’re conflating things. It was well beyond reasonable well before 2015. It was already unreasonable the moment we had Obama’s birth certificate (short and long forms) and articles from the time mentioning his birth. That was… 2008. Which, funnily enough, was soon after the allegations were publicized.
So, here, when I said it kept going after clear evidence it was wrong, I’m not really talking about the 2016 Trump campaign or the Trump administration. I’m talking about during the bulk of Obama’s presidency, especially around 2012, when Trump brought it up during his campaign to become Presi— Wait… Huh. I guess I kinda was talking about the Trump campaign. Just not the same one you were.
In fact, Trump’s advocacy of birtherism came up multiple time during his 2016 campaign, and a number of Republicans repeatedly actually defended those claims, so it was a talking point at first. (He also made a similar argument about Ted Cruz, who—as mentioned—was born in Canada.) He did later purport to end it later on, but it did come up then. But again, that’s not what I was referring to, so whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically
"It’s just not any of our business."
The fact that you don't care about whether in coming government officials have previously been defrauding the government financially is your problem, not that of honest people who want to see how much the con artist fleeced.
"And I’ve throughly documented where the brother thing came from.
Obama’s own agent. Prior to his political Career."
I didn't mention a brother? What are you talking about?
Yes, there's been some mistakes over the years relating to misreporting over Obama's birth status, but most of that is easily explained by the fact that he is Barack Hussein Obama JUNIOR. His father having the same name seems to confuse some people.
Yet, that's easily explained by every official document, the Republican governor of Hawaii at the time of the "controversy" and lots of other bits of paperwork that you people demand are a conspiracy that started before the man was even born.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n
"It's hard to believe that it happened in such a way where such obviously damning evidence (which has never been revealed) just so happened to occur weeks before an election where such things being true could have helped a specific political candidate and made it into the hands of someone with the track record of Rudy, especially given his conduct since then."
You keep omitting that your hypothetical son of politican is a crackhead. When you include that detail its not had to beleive.
Crackhead gets high breaks his laptop. Crackhead takes it to a repair shop the next day. Crackhead goes home, gets high, and forgets all about the laptop.
When you include the crackhead part its not a far fetched story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do
And do tell, what verifiable proof do you have that Hunter Biden was high on crack at the time this all "supposedly" took place?
You just keep adding more and more to the story to make you sound less gullible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically lega
lol
You guys are hilarious.
'Yes we have all seen him smoking crack but you have no proof he was high then'
Just shut up. You don't deserve a response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically
LOL, but you responded anyway!
What a fucking idiot!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do
"Crackhead gets high breaks his laptop."
Mike Lindell broke his laptop?
Oh, never mind, you're just making another unfounded claim that doesn't even come close to explaining the most suspicious part. (Really? You think all this happens and Rudy got the laptop and it's not suspicious? Just before the election that trump was projected to lose already?)
The problem with the story is not "guy breaks laptop, flies to the other side of the country and forgets about it", even though that sounds ridiculous already. It's the next part that's laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do
You keep failing to understand that
a) there is no evidence that Hunter was still addicted to—let alone still using—crack in the past decade or so, let alone using enough crack to cause a blackout while still being coherent enough to take the laptop to a repair shop across the country at the time of the alleged incident;
b) nothing in the story suggests that the person delivering the laptop to the repair shop was high at the time, which should have been the case if your idea was true;
c) that still wouldn’t explain a lot of Hunter’s actions, like going to the other side of the country to get the laptop repaired, or not doing anything about the fact that a laptop that he had before the blackout and that contained incriminating evidence is no longer in his possession after said blackout, among many, many other things;
d) that wouldn’t explain any of the actions taken by the computer repairman or Rudy Giuliani, including (but not limited to):
i) the repairman—who at the time had already finished fixing the laptop but still had no idea that the laptop even could have belonged to Hunter or that the guy who dropped it off was Hunter or otherwise connected to Biden in some way—risked being brought to court or jail for unlawful access of someone’s computer by deciding to investigate the contents of this random computer belonging to some random guy just because he failed to come pick it up;
ii) the repairman first contacted Rudy Giuliani—not the press, not law enforcement, not the denizens of the internet—to reveal this damning and important information to him and to him alone;
iii) Rudy and the repairman both sat on this information for quite some time before going to the press with it (it doesn’t even appear that they had immediately contacted law enforcement), which makes absolutely no sense; and
iv) rather than showing the relevant emails in their entirety or letting anyone else have access to the original emails or to the laptop itself, the two only showed captures of the emails that lacked any of the metadata that could be used to authenticate them as having been sent to/by Hunter, and that the contents were unaltered;
e) no one at the New York Post was willing to sign their name to the article, which makes no sense if they had any faith that the story was likely to be true; and
f) even if literally everything else in the story was true, the fact is that the contents of the emails were false (whether it was Hunter, whoever brought the laptop over (who may not have been Hunter—neither Rudy nor the repairman have said that that was necessarily the case), the repairman, or Rudy Giuliani is irrelevant; it’s still false), and they were known to be demonstrably false soon after the story broke, as publicly available documents from the White House show that the meeting described in those emails did not take place, so this says absolutely nothing about Joe Biden at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e
That is understandable.
But believing the incredible story about Hunter's laptop, well, that takes a huge leap of faith, or just plain gullibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n
I'll state again - the guy leaving a laptop to be repaired and not picking it up is not the unbelievable part. It's the part about it just happening to land in Rudy's hands just before the election but totally honestly containing incriminating evidence that we can't publish right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do
The actual chain of evidence for the laptop is Russia>Giuliani>MAGA Stooge computer shop
The only thing the FBI's investigating is Giuliani's dealing with Russian spies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do
It may not be the biggest problem with the story, but the claim that Hunter went to a computer repair shop on the opposite side of the country, dropped off a laptop full of incriminating evidence to be repaired, left, and then never came back for it is still pretty hard to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically lega
It's is a stupid argument, but barring the "it definitely contains incriminating evidence" part, that's understandable. A busy businessman takes his laptop in for repair while travelling, thinking he needs it desperately, then someone on his staff tells him he can just buy a new one and restore it so he does that and doesn't even give the shop a courtesy call to say he doesn't need the repair any longer?
That's perfectly believable, except for the "it definitely had information on it that would kill his dad's political career" part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically
And in this day and age people are security stupid.
People think a login password will protect them.
In business people think encryption is kool. Not realising how easy it is to bypass.
Legitimate not knocking, Biden may well have thought it was safe.
He very may well not have known that the emails were saved to the drive by default.
It’s sad how many times I’ve heard people say I deleted this or that can you get it back. Forget tools.
Go to …\…\…\… and there’s a copy.
Tech ignorance is a major problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technica
I'll note that none of what you said makes the story any more believable, or provides evidence that any of the accusations are true. "It's possible that he did this in the scenario I have in my head" is still not evidence, especially in the face of far more corruption from the guy you voted for.
"Legitimate not knocking, Biden may well have thought it was safe."
He may also not have done it at all. Or, he did leave a laptop but it had none of the things claimed on it. Or, it did, but the tampering from Rudy and his buddies makes it impossible to determine any guilt.
As ever, while a rough outline of a fiction might have some merit, if you're trying to use it in court to convince people to sway their vote, I would hope you have more evidence that can be verified. As with the claims of voter fraud, there's only one question - where is the evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech
“ convince people to sway their vote”
Huh?
All I said, and stand by, and will not change my opinion on, is that the laptop story was just as newsworthy as the Clinton funded fraud portfolio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
But seriously, the Steele dossier isn’t as false as you claim that it is, and the MSM didn’t really cover it until Buzzfeed brought it up and it was known that the FBI was investigating the allegations contained therein. It also was far more plausible than the laptop story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, a never-trump put the first dollars in. But the whole of it was Clinton attached.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/10/25/dnc-clinton-campaign-pay-trump-russia-steele-dossie r/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That wasn’t “the whole of it”. That was, at most, half of it.
It also shows that the allegations weren’t in there solely to benefit the DNC, and that the people actually putting it together weren’t personally Democrats per se. Unlike with the laptop, where everyone involved—from the repairman to Rudy Giuliani to the NYP—were all pro-Trump, conservative, Republican, and anti-Biden. So, unlike the Steele dossier, everyone involved from the start had a clear agenda and no reason to be accurate. (Opposition research generally has to be based on something reasonably or definitively true, even if parts are exaggerated or left out.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equat
And if you don't believe that the right wingers are gullible, then head on over to this article:
I Tried to Make Claims About Election Fraud So Preposterous Trump Fans Wouldn’t Believe Me. It Was Impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to
"It was dropped off for repair, and abandoned."
To a random shop on the other side of the country, then completely forgotten about until the shop owner decided to inform Rudy Giuliani in the final weeks of Trump's campaign.
Nobody's saying it's not possible, only that it's an extraordinary story that requires extraordinary evidence that has so far been lacking. Sort of like Trump's claim that 8 million votes were faked, and all the other con games you apparently fall for so easily with zero supporting evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to
By whom? Neither Rudy nor the repairman claimed it was definitely Hunter Biden, so we still don’t know how it got from Hunter to the repairman (if it actually did).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to mor
Let's even rewrite the story...
The son of a prominent candidate currently leading in polls is claimed to have gone to a random repair centre on the other side of the country with a laptop full of incriminating evidence, but never goes back to pick it up. Close to a year later, very close to the election, the laptop happens to make it into the hands of a close confidant and ally of the opposing candidate, who presents the claim (but not the evidence) that the laptop is credible enough to kill his opponent's chances.
You don't have to mention the party, or even the country, in the above claim before people smell bullshit. Meanwhile, it's supposedly equivalent to a recording of the opposing candidate admitting to sex crimes?
Time will tell if there's anything there, but how anyone no predisposed to a certain position can take it seriously is beyond me.
"Hunter Biden is an unfortunate case of ineptitude coat-tailing on the fame of relatives"
Yet, not as blatant or deadly as the Trump family members inserted into prominent political positions. Even if they had concrete evidence of nepotism, it would pale in comparison to what we know about Ivanka and Jared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to
"The son of a prominent candidate currently leading in polls is claimed to have gone to a random repair centre on the other side of the country with a laptop full of incriminating evidence, but never goes back to pick it up."
Your hypothetical conveniently left out that the son was also a crackhead which makes the scenario far more believable.
High crackhead breaks laptop, takes laptop to computer repairman, crackhead completely forgets entire incident. Not very far fetched once you include that whole crackhead part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don’t trust coincindences.”
I have a few questions for you:
What proof do you have that Hunter Biden was on any kind of drugs when he allegedly dropped off the laptop?
What proof do you have that Hunter Biden was, at the time of this alleged event, addicted to crack cocaine or any other kind of drug? Hell, what proof do you have that Hunter Biden is currently addicted to crack cocaine or any other kind of drug?
What proof do you have, beyond the say-so of the computer repairman and Rudy “Four Seasons Total Landscaping” Giuliani, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden?
Why would Hunter Biden have taken his laptop to a computer repair shop so far from his home? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)
Why would he have left incriminating evidence on the laptop from the time of the dropoff to any time before the story broke? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)
Why did he never pick up his laptop later? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)
Why would the computer repairman—who had expressed support for Trump and right-wing ideology on social media—first go to Rudy Giuliani, a known Trump agent, instead of the press or even law enforcement?
Why were the emails alleged to have been found on the laptop presented in a way that didn’t show off the metadata that could help prove the emails were legit?
Why has no one else ever seen the original emails and confirmed their veracity (or lack thereof) using that metadata?
What could possibly explain the timing of the release of the “Biden laptop” story (less than a month before the election) beyond someone in the Trump campaign saying “we need another October Surprise”?
For me to believe the “Biden laptop” story is anything but bullshit, I need to see some extraordinary evidence. You haven’t provided any. So answer the questions and show me that extraordinary evidence. I want you to make me believe the story without insulting my intelligence or asking me to lower my own. If you can’t do that, don’t bother trying. Your gullibility isn’t my problem to fix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"at the time of this alleged event"
He's deliberately ignoring that part, along with what happened after the laptop was dropped off for some reason. I wonder why that is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's also the projected fiction that Joe acted in a corrupt quid-pro-quo deal with Ukraine like Trump did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Evidence is always welcome, but I dare say that if IMAX could harness the projection in these arguments there would be no fear of cinemas going broke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This for that is called politics.
I’m not against that.
I personally think we should have nothing to do at all with the genocidal Ukrainian government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the flip side you have the son of the then Vice President, already known for a association alone position of management, and emails if potentially dirty dealings.
But you wholeheartedly buy the story that germaphobe Trump went to Russia to play around with sex workers and get peed on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"On the flip side you have the son of the then Vice President, already known for a association alone position of management, and emails if potentially dirty dealings."
Potentially, sure. Where's the evidence? If you have the same access to evidence as the rest of us do right now, what makes your version so much more valid? Why is there no more reliable source than the guy who's been laughed out of so many courts since the election that he thought a garden centre was a great place for a press conference and that, well, Trump would actually pay him for services rendered?
Also, I'd advise against a Trump voter complaining about nepotism and favouritism. It probably won't go your way if we have to start whipping out examples.
"But you wholeheartedly buy the story that germaphobe Trump went to Russia to play around with sex workers and get peed on?"
Strange... he didn't mention that specific story, nor does doubt about that story invalidate other stories for which there is far more evidence. What is it about that story that makes you think that it's a "gotcha" moment to mention it? I mean, the sex worker part is completely believable given that he paid off a porn start to hide infidelity, but the rest of it doesn't matter if it tracks or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
“ Also, I'd advise against a Trump voter complaining about nepotism and favouritism.”
I’m not. I’m complaining that Biden refuses to admit it and move on.
The constant left denial that it is what it is is what makes the story stuck.
If he admitted it up from, like Obama and pot, nobody would be discussing it today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I’m not. I’m complaining that Biden refuses to admit it and move on."
Admit what? The unproven allegations brought against him by his losing opponent that don't even stand up to logical analysis? Let's see what the courts say if it gets that far then demand an apology.
"The constant left denial that it is what it is is what makes the story stuck."
Sorry, but if the "left" going "well that a stupid, obviously false story" and it sticks because of that without evidence, that's your problem.
"If he admitted it up from, like Obama and pot, nobody would be discussing it today."
Admitted what? people still claim that Obama wasn't born in the US, and are trying to pretend that all the COVID deaths before the election were really his fault. Do you think that admitting to something like that would stop the whining?
Let's wait for evidence. Until that happens, the evidence is that Trump was a corrupt nepotistic loser, and that Biden had a nutty ex-NY mayor claim something about his son.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ Admit what? The unproven allegations”
That his son got a job he was completely unqualified for simply for being his son.
“ Sorry, but if the "left" going "well that a stupid, obviously false story"
Mind telling me what Little B’s qualifications are to be on the board of any company!
“ Admitted what?”
He got the job because of daddy
“ people still claim that Obama wasn't born in the US”
Funny sad ignorant idiots. Here’s a cookie.
“ COVID deaths before the election were really his fault”
Who says Anyone in the US is at fault for pre election covid deaths?
“ Do you think that admitting to something like that would stop the whining”
Probably. If he said ‘yep, my son got the job based on my name. Happens all the time. Here’s a short list from both parties’.
Yes. I believe it would be a non factor and over with.
“ Let's wait for evidence.”
On the laptop? Yes.
I didn’t say it was true. Not once. Anywhere. I said is was possible. And more likely than the plan pee-pee-gate.
I said it was just as newsworthy as an obviously fake pile of documents created and paid for directly within the Clinton chain of command. If not more so.
Until that happens, the evidence is that Trump was a corrupt
(Evidence not provided)
nepotistic (most politicians are)
loser, (disagree)
“…and that Biden had a nutty ex-NY mayor claim something about his son.”
He claimed a lot of things. Some true, some false. Some as yet unknown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh please do tell us, what qualifications did Kushner and Ivanka have to become top level white house aids?
Where were you complaining about Trump's daughter getting a white house job she was completely unqualified for simply for being Trump's daughter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That his son got a job he was completely unqualified for simply for being his so"
Define "unqualified". Define why this is so much worse than what Trump's family got treated to that it should have been a deal breaker for people who would vote otherwise.
"Mind telling me what Little B’s qualifications are to be on the board of any company!"
I was referring to the laptop there, but I'd also defer to Trump's hiring record there as contrast.
"Funny sad ignorant idiots. Here’s a cookie."
Yet, their vote for Trump was indistinguishable from yours at the end of the day.
"Who says Anyone in the US is at fault for pre election covid deaths?"
Basic reality. There's a lot of missteps, ranging from Trump's firing of the pandemic team to Jared's alleged intervention that convinced him to withhold aid because it would benefit blue states, to the simple fact that the US was vastly disproportionately affected compared to the rest of the world. It's a complex subject, but there's plenty of documentation out there, much of it from places you can't just wave away as Democrat propaganda.
"Probably. If he said ‘yep, my son got the job based on my name. Happens all the time. Here’s a short list from both parties’."
Biden could say oxygen was beneficial to lungs and there would be news networks claiming otherwise. Until it got to a point where they needed to backtrack as they have done recently with vaccine advice of course.
"I didn’t say it was true. Not once. Anywhere. I said is was possible."
It's more likely to be possible that the claimed data doesn't exist.
"And more likely than the plan pee-pee-gate."
You bring that up again, but unless I missed something nobody else has in this thread?
"Until that happens, the evidence is that Trump was a corrupt
(Evidence not provided)"
It has been over and over again for several years. You just rejected it or ignored it.
"nepotistic (most politicians are)"
Yet it's only a black mark against Biden if true, you were fine with it under Trump..
"loser, (disagree)"
Sorry, no matter what Murdoch tells you, the multiple times bankrupt con artist did lose the last election.
"He claimed a lot of things. Some true, some false. Some as yet unknown."
So... let's reserve judgement until the facts prove which way this insanely unlikely laptop story goes. I'm betting based on his track record before and after the claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
unqualified
Lacking the qualifications required for
“ Yet, their vote for Trump was indistinguishable from yours at the end of the day.”
As the Nation of Islam was from Democrats.
I don’t run around calling every democrat racists for a tiny tiny fraction of a fraction.
You can say what you want. Retrospect is not at the time.
You won’t convene any person is more responsible than anyone else.
Except maybe dr flip flop who spent the first two months say no need for masks then failing to inform people of which mask true to use for the most safety.
I don’t consider conjecture and coincidence to be evidence.
“ Yet it's only a black mark against Biden if true, you were fine with it under Trump..”
I’m fine with it anywhere.
My problem isn’t the deed. It’s the constant denial.
“ no matter what Murdoch”
Oh, you talking about the election. Yes evidence says he lost the election. I didn’t say he didn’t.
Laptop-
I have no judgement. Other than it was just as newsworthy as everything anti-trump was. Much of that was also ultimately shown to be false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But what qualifications was he lacking?
The no-mask thing wasn’t that there was no need for masks but that it was more important to ensure that those who worked in hospitals got first dibs, and it was unknown at the time if cloth masks would be effective or how effective masks would be.
Any idiot could figure out that the medical masks used by doctors would be more effective than cloth masks, or that two masks would be more effective than one. Once it was stated publicly that everyone should wear masks, the rest didn’t exactly take rocket science to figure out. Many anti-mask people were (inadvertently) pointing these things out early on, so to claim that the CDC needed to say such things explicitly is a bit odd.
Plus, which mask is the most effective isn’t as important (in a non-medical context) as ensuring that everyone who can wear masks does. A medical mask may be more effective than a cloth mask, and two masks may be more effective than one, but a single cloth mask is far more effective than no mask at all. Just getting people to wear masks in public or in indoor/crowded areas and to social distance was difficult enough.
Also, you underestimate how hamstrung Fauci was by the Trump Administration during 2020. Perhaps he would have been clearer and more upfront earlier on about these things, but we don’t know. Plus, the WHO made some mistakes early on—particularly regarding whether or not masks should be worn—which meant Fauci was working from bad information. Doctors can be like computers in this way: garbage in, garbage out.
If ”it” is about whether or not the claim that Hunter got the job because the employers knew he was Biden’s son, I’m not aware of that being affirmed or denied by Biden or anything. It’s entirely plausible that Biden would be unaware of whether or not that was true. Either way, even if that claim is true, I fail to see how that would even be a black mark for Biden himself.
If it’s a claim that Biden himself personally acted to make Hunter get the job, that has not at all been demonstrated (there is no evidence to make that remotely likely), and if it was, that would be unethical and unusual (though admittedly far from unheard of among politicians, it’s not as common as you imply). I’m also not aware that Biden has denied it, but I would not be surprised if he did.
If it’s about the laptop, that has been denied, but you have explicitly said that you aren’t claiming that that is necessarily true, so you have no reason to be upset with Biden denying/failing to admit it’s true. It’s also extremely implausible, lacks supporting evidence, and—insofar as it relates to anything Biden himself has said or done—is demonstrably false and was shown to be definitely false almost immediately.
No, no it wasn’t.
The Ukraine call, for example, was far more newsworthy, and it wasn’t ultimately shown to be false. Same goes for the claims about his handling of COVID and social distancing; anything he has publicly said on Twitter, in press conferences, at rallies, on camera, on TV, in executive orders, in legal filings, on the Access: Hollywood tape, etc.; and his many, many attempts to discredit and/or overturn the results of the 2020 US Presidential General Election.
The Steele Dossier was used (along with other things) by federal agents to investigate Russian operatives and the Trump campaign, which ultimately led to multiple indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people part of or associated with the Trump campaign, so I wouldn’t say it was either ultimately shown to be false (at least not in general) or ultimately not newsworthy at some point. (There is some question as to the newsworthiness/trustworthiness of the dossier when Buzzfeed first publicized it, but it has since been shown to be newsworthy.)
The alleged pee-pee rape, while not something I personally think is terribly likely (though not entirely implausible, either) or have ever taken all that seriously, was newsworthy because it would suggest that Trump would be relatively susceptible to foreign influence through blackmail/extortion, and it’s also hilarious whether it’s true or not; it wasn’t sourced entirely from someone known (then or now) to be biased and untrustworthy, neither the story nor the claims of how the info was acquired are or were definitively and demonstrably false (especially at the time) or completely implausible (maybe not that likely, but not completely implausible, either), so it wasn’t something that needed more evidence to become newsworthy.
The claim that he has interfered with investigations involving himself or his associates has been shown to be true (he didn’t exactly hide it), and that is definitely more newsworthy than the laptop story.
The claim that Trump bypassed or overturned the normal routes to ensure his daughter and son-in-law not only got jobs in the White House but also got high-level security clearance despite many red flags during the background checks is demonstrably true, was entirely plausible at the time, and is and was quite newsworthy.
Each of these are or were more plausible and/or newsworthy than the laptop story. Also, unlike the laptop story, none of them had any significant portion of them or inferences from them being definitively disproven soon after they became publicly known. (Specifically, it was quickly and definitively shown that the meeting described in the alleged emails allegedly taken from the laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter never happened. As this is the only part of the entire story that could plausibly be used to make Biden himself look bad, this pretty drastically reduces any newsworthiness that the laptop story ever could have had.)
On top of that, the only original sources for the laptop story—known, anonymous, and pseudonymous alike—as well as the outlet who first published it are all known to be heavily biased against Biden and/or for Trump and to be untrustworthy; the story itself is inherently, heavily flawed and implausible even ignoring the sources (crackhead or not, it’s an incredibly long stretch to believe that Hunter would travel all the way across the country just to drop off his laptop at a computer repair shop run by a known pro-Trump guy and then never pick it up; at the very least, he would have realized the laptop was missing at some point and would have been able to gather evidence of where it ended up during that time; the way the emails are presented makes them impossible to verify that they were, indeed, what they were claimed to be; and the fact that the computer repairman chose to call Rudy Giuliani—Trump’s personal lawyer—to present this evidence to him first rather than presenting it to law enforcement or federal agents, and then neither sent it to law enforcement or any federal agency (at least not before Giuliani presented it to the media in a suspicious manner) is also implausible if the story was true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Lacking the qualifications required for"
Such as...?
Vague assertions might work in Trump land, but we need specifics that can be verified or falsified here.
"I don’t consider conjecture and coincidence to be evidence."
Unless Trump says it then you're falling over yourself to defend it.
"I have no judgement. Other than it was just as newsworthy as everything anti-trump was. Much of that was also ultimately shown to be false."
No, completely made up fictions about what might have happened with a potentially fictional laptop was not as newsworthy as Trump's record of governance over the years where he helped contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone who trusts factual and balanced sources would have known facts like this:
Imstead of parroting the hyperpartisan "unqualified nepotism" disinformation he wants to hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You failed to source it. Btw.
I knew about Amtrak (an appointment) but can find little he was actually involved in.
So the only thing he has going for him is his time at MBNA which is an entirely different field. Mind you that was a major donor company to Biden Sr and the largest supporter of Biden’s bankruptcy reform package.
The company was a magnet for controversy in semi-legal credit practice. So it’s not exactly a glowing endorsement for Hunter.
The company eventually was bought out, stripped of management, and reformed as a brand not much later. Before ultimately becoming a low level trade name for entry level products.
And did he ever practice law? I can find nothing. So be cautious how you phrase that. Trained is key.
I reiterate he doesn’t have the qualifications for such a seat.
That’s not a bad thing, per say, but remains factually correct.
Maybe step outside your bubble and investigate your own sources.
His record is hardly one of real success.
Family positioning happens in business, including political business, as a matter of course.
Again I don’t see anything inherently wrong with it!l.
My issue is attempting to pretend it happened for some other reason!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're free to stop being the only one here pretending at any time. Nobody else can fix your issues for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He got the job because of his father. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How did Ivanka and J\ared get their jobs at the white house?
Because of their father. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You only say that when you're lying and have nothing with which to keep defending your disinformation against constantly being debunked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes bubble man. Because my quick overview of his work history was inaccurate?
You want to call the facts inaccurate when even your bubble agrees?
I say period when there’s nothing factual to discuss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“He got the job because of his father,” is not the same thing as, “His father acted to get him the job.”
The former says nothing about Biden himself; only Burisma and, to a lesser extent, Hunter. It also hasn’t really been explicitly denied by Biden, nor would he necessarily be expected to know whether or not it’s true. (It’s entirely plausible that—even if this claim is actually true—Biden himself could have no knowledge or insight about whether or not it’s true; it’s also plausible that Hunter would have no idea, either, but that’s a side note.) I don’t see any reason that Biden should have to “admit” that that particular claim is true.
The latter does say something about Biden if true, but there is zero evidence supporting that particular claim, and—while not implausible—is not exactly likely, nor is it as common as you seem to suggest. So, again, I fail to see why Biden should have to “admit” that that claim is true. It is not obviously true, it is not an entirely mundane claim, it could have legal and political repercussions, and there is no evidence supporting it over the former claim.
I don’t have enough information to know whether or not the former claim is true, but I don’t see why it should matter with respect to Biden. I do know that people receive jobs they aren’t qualified for all the time without having such or similar connections to an important/powerful figure, that others receive jobs they are not qualified for primarily or solely because of such or similar connections to an important/powerful figure, and that the second one can happen without either the [future] employee or major figure actually saying or doing anything to push that or anything. I don’t know the relative likelihood of each of these things, nor how they—as a whole or individually—compare with the likelihood of someone who does have such a connection receiving a job they aren’t qualified for for reasons that have nothing to do with that connection. I can say it’s sufficiently likely that I wouldn’t readily dismiss the claim as even remotely unlikely, and that I don’t really think it matters whether or not Biden “admits” to it.
The latter claim, though, is completely unsupported and doesn’t appear to be terribly likely (failing Hitchen’s Razor), and it fails Occam’s Razor when compared to the former claim. It certainly isn’t obvious or indisputable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He had no qualifications to be on the board of an energy company.
Especially an international multiplayer.
An appointed executive position whit minimum interaction,
A company that was proven corrupt during his time in management, and no (verified that I can find) legal practice.
All he had to say was daddy’s name got me the job. Even say maybe, I don’t know. Anything besides nah-ah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"He had no qualifications to be on the board of an energy company."
What are the qualifications to be on the board of an energy company?
When sourcing your citations, bear in mind that many companies have board members with zero direct experience in the field the company operates in.
I will guarantee that it's more experience than Jared had in pandemic control.
"All he had to say was daddy’s name got me the job."
Ok, so - at worst -the only problem you had is that he did the same that Trump did only to a far lower degree (Biden only got one family member a position, whereas Trump did the same for all his family and sycophants).
Yet, you use this as a reason to vote against Biden and not Trump?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ Yet, you use this as a reason to vote against Biden and not Trump”
No. I voted against Biden because he has dementia.
And I knew he wouldn’t be the acting president.
I don’t vote for empty ballot spots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is zero evidence that Biden has dementia, nor has there ever been. His public-speaking skills and cognitive abilities don’t appear to be substantially less than they were over a decade or so ago. He also doesn’t appear to be worse cognitively than Trump, so I fail to see how that would be a factor that favors Trump over Biden.
There is also no evidence to suggest that anyone else besides Biden himself is or has been acting as President since he was inaugurated. As I’ve said, he’s taken numerous actions as President since taking office, all of which are fully consistent with what he ran on and his previous positions.
It also wouldn’t be empty even if true, since Kamala Harris would be the acting President should Biden be unable to serve (which is—again—not in evidence).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Evidence… is clear to anyone who has ever lived with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’ve already said that I’ve lived with it, and I am not convinced. Also, “it’s obvious if you have experience X” is not an argument or evidence.
Additionally, I’ve explained that the phenomena you claim is indicative of dementia were there since he was young, which effectively precludes dementia as the explanation. So, what evidence you have provided is insufficient.
Either put up or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My reply was equally simple. He has not shown such a total loss of momentum in his bought before.
This is not speech, stuttering, or any other related issue that is a continuation of a previous affliction: that I can tell.
This is a situation of completely forgetting what your were answering half way through the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it really isn’t any different from what he was like in the past. He was always like that. It just wasn’t as apparent because he was less likely to speak in front of a large crowd without a script. Also, that has happened to a lot of people who are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. No need to bring a cognitive defect that makes him incapable of leading the country himself into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if you disregard anyone who got their position because of nepotism, most people on the board of directors of a company are not knowledgeable or experienced with the main focus of the company. Plus, Hunter did have experience regarding energy and stuff given his lobbying regarding energy-efficiency and running Amtrak—which requires work with energy companies. So nepotism is not necessary.
My aforementioned statement about the knowledge held by members of boards of directors tends to be—if anything—more true for multinational/international corporations.
Again, this is true for most executive positions.
And well before and since his time in management. I fail to see how that is reflective of Hunter Biden.
If you mean to say that Burisma was corrupt and, therefore, likely had Hunter’s father in mind when hiring him, that’s likely true. I don’t know how significant or decisive that factor was in the decision, but it’s probable that it at least played some role. I would say it likely wasn’t the only reason, but it could have been a reason, perhaps even the main reason.
That doesn’t mean that Hunter was unqualified for the position, at least compared to most other people who serve on boards of directors.
I find it had to believe that an international company of this size would have zero in-house legal reps or legal counsel or anything like that.
Plus, people with law degrees end up in high positions in large businesses all the time. One previous president of Nintendo of America had previously acted as legal counsel and legal representative for NoA before attaining that position. There was no corruption or nepotism involved there at all. And—in this case—you’ve previously noted that there’s no evidence that Hunter had any experience as legal counsel to begin with, so I fail to see how that’s in any way suspicious. Really, the law degree is useful in that it shows a better-than-average familiarity with the law (good for anyone in any career that involves decision-making, not just law firms), a strong educational background, and the willingness to work hard over long periods of time to achieve a goal (getting a law degree is up there with medical degrees in terms of the level of commitment needed).
What Hunter did have experience in was in speaking on behalf of business interests, running and starting businesses, being in executive positions for a business, and dealing with politicians. All of these would be useful for a member of a board of directors for any business. So, again, the lack of a dedicated law practice is irrelevant.
I’m not sure that he has ever explicitly denied that, but regardless, especially since he no longer has that job, I fail to see why I should care. It’s also not 100%—or even 98%—certain that that was the case, so I don’t see the point in addressing it. As I said, he did have plenty of qualifications for the position relative to most people on a board of directors (including non-corrupt ones), so he certainly has plausible deniability.
I also don’t care because 1) Burisma has no real effect on my life at all, 2) I don’t care about Hunter personally all that much (I only learned as much as I did to address specific questions you asked), 3) it doesn’t really make the laptop story any more or less plausible, and 4) I fail to see how that reflects on Joe Biden at all or any American company.
But—again—you haven’t made a strong case to begin with. Of the points you brought up, all but one were false and/or not indicative of nepotism or corruption of any sort, and the only one that differs is one that Burisma is corrupt, which is not exactly proof, or does it reflect on Hunter at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ If you mean to say that Burisma was corrupt”
I was talking about the failed bank, given I went into detail how it’s nothing more now than a commodity branding.
“ and no (verified that I can find) legal practice.”
… question… did Hunter Biden practice law? What is his case history?
That was my sole point on the issue.
I was never arguing for reliance on the laptop for any reason.
I was pointing out it was just as newsworthy as the Clinton funded pile of crap.
And, that it shouldn’t be tossed away without investigation just because big Biden won.
I didn’t say it was true or false or that I believed it was true or false.
What I’m doing is pointing out to less skilled non-techs is that the entire process was quite possible, even if still implausible.
As others pointed out it’s not some random shop in some random place.
It’s very possible, even likely, emails were saved to his drive. With or without his knowledge.
Fetch and display are still the most common aspect. I Ben not saving to disk they still wind up on the disk. If you have a big enough drive and small enough data turnover, you can have files over a decade past use.
Windows is Terrible at cleaning up.
And yes, ultimately if everything is true it’s quite possible he abandoned it. Under the premise, so often thought, that an “encrypted” drive and password would make the data safe. Especially if he didn’t supply a password, but even if he did.
That is far more realistic than germaphobic trump went to Russia to have a golden orgy with hookers.
All I said is it was newsworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, no you did not. Maybe you did in some other conversation I was not a part of, but not here.
At any rate, that only strengthens my point: none of this suggests that he was unqualified for his position on Burisma’s board of directors.
I don’t recall reading anything about him even taking the bar exam, so probably not. I still don’t see the relevance, though.
And I was arguing that reliability is inextricably linked to newsworthiness. If the laptop is unreliable, it isn’t newsworthy. Period. Well, unless it’s funny or there’s a legal proceeding regarding it, but neither were the case for the laptop story.
I also pointed out reasons showing that the Steele Dossier wasn’t simply a “pile of crap” (which you still haven’t actually addressed) and that saying it was Clinton-funded is oversimplifying things greatly. Again, it was also funded by Republicans. This is absolutely material when it comes to determining plausibility and newsworthiness. Speaking of, aside from repeating that it was funded (in part) by Clinton’s campaign, you still haven’t explained what was actually wrong with it.
Saying the laptop story was equally newsworthy is not supported by your factual claims.
No one is saying otherwise.
I never claimed otherwise.
No one argued it was impossible. The center of the discussion was plausibility. Good journalism should not cover implausible claims without good evidence, a court case, or law enforcement action or investigation. (Or if it’s funny.)
Apparently not. Why you chose not to mention this earlier rather than bringing crack into it, I have no idea.
Being a software engineer, I can confirm several aspects of that. And, frankly, between that and the previous point, the chain of events is a lot more plausible without crack than it was with crack but without those facts. So I have to ask: Why did you bring crack into it in the first place? As far as I can tell, it doesn’t explain any of the parts that needed explanation to begin with, and it only adds additional assumptions for the story to be plausible.
If you had led with the tech stuff and that the shop was in his hometown, you would’ve had a much better argument, and you wouldn’t have needed to bring drugs into this at all. I’m honestly perplexed about your strategy here.
Oh, for the love of—!
Look, would you just drop that one already! I’ve already pointed out that much of the newsworthiness of that story came from its humor. It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not; the fact that the allegation exists is inherently funny. If it wasn’t, it likely wouldn’t have gotten as much coverage as it did.
The fact that Trump hasn’t actually denied it (mostly just ignored it) doesn’t help. Again, while there isn’t a denial (or affirmation) that laptop was Hunter’s, the allegations implied by the story (Biden allegedly having a meeting with this one guy) have been denied and refuted.
And as for the germaphobic thing, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Trump appears to be only selectively germaphobic at best. I again point to his tendencies regarding handshakes since he became President and the hug he gave in the Access: Hollywood tape, among others. It is entirely plausible that he treated sexual contact, contact with people he wanted to impress, contact with people he thought were sufficiently important/famous, and/or contact in private differently than he did with others in a public setting, specifically with regards to handshakes. It is also plausible that he stopped being a germaphobe at some point.
Also [gross fact alert], I’ll note that some people have considered urine to be sanitary, even cleansing. This isn’t quite as absurd as it appears at first blush: stale urine can act as a cleaner or disinfectant as it forms ammonia, and there are theories that seamen would use stale urine to wash clothes and such. I express no opinion on whether or not Trump would be one of those people who hold this belief. I’m just saying it’s not entirely out of the question for a germaphobe to not have a problem with urine.
Oh, and as I recall the allegation, I don’t recall it being an orgy. I recall a prostitute. But I could be wrong.
I never said you said anything else about the laptop story. I have pointed out why it is not. I’ve also addressed claims you made pursuant to that argument as well as regarding other things.
Now, you have gone further with the claim that Hunter was only hired by Burisma because of his dad, that he was unqualified to be on the board of directors for an energy company, and that either he or his dad should “admit” to it to “make it all go away”. You have been quite definitive on that, not just saying it was newsworthy. That was what I was addressing in this comment, not the laptop story. So really, everything after the big about Hunter practicing law wasn’t actually addressing this comment but my comments in a different discussion, if that. (Honestly, they seem more addressed for other people.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ rather than bringing crack into it”
Wrong person, I’m not the one who said he got high and dropped off a laptop.
“ Why did you bring crack into it in the first place?”
Wrong person
I may have called him a useless crack head at some point somewhere. But I never suggested he was on crack when he dropped it off.
I did, tongue n cheek it would make it more likely if he was, but I’m not the one who brought it up.
“ have considered urine to be sanitary, even cleansing”
It’s use in sexual connotations is also very common. Especially in European and Asian cultures. Far less the “omg” fetish it is in the US.
Somewhere a because s, orgy is just me Bing a dick about it.
I’m not sure why there is big hoopla about some energy company. I never intended it o come across that I thought it was anything more than normal politics if 100% true.
But I fail to see any evidence from the Clinton crap pile that Trump himself did anything illegal either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which you then follow up with:
So yeah, you did say what I thought you did. There was nothing about how you said it that suggested you weren’t serious, either.
True. FTR, I don’t kinkshame. Consenting adults and all that.
Fair enough. At least, assuming I’m interpreting that correctly and you’re saying that you didn’t literally mean “orgy”.
Well, you were pretty explicit in saying that you did—in fact—think it was true, and that Hunter or is father should admit to it. Yes, you also made it clear that you—personally—had little to no problem with that idea, but you were still making factual claims, not assuming without deciding they were true for the sake of argument.
Look, can we please leave the loaded language out of this? It’s the Steele Dossier. I don’t call the emails allegedly found on Hunter’s laptop the Rudy emails or anything like that. I’ve been fairly civil for the most part, so please stop with the loaded language so I can just address the substance?
At any rate, whether or not Trump himself did anything illegal isn’t explicitly made clear in the Steele Dossier, but there were claims that suggested Trump was likely compromised by Russian interests for a number of reasons, and that a surprisingly large number of his associates and campaign had ties to Russian interests.
In the case of Hunter and the laptop, we only had allegations of a single case of nepotism and a single meeting from that. In the case of the Steele Dossier, the claims involved a lot more people and was far more widespread that it tends to lead to questions about the guy whose in charge. It also involved a concerted effort by Russians to get involved in our election. Again, the laptop thing was basically just the one guy in a private company.
And it’s worth noting that many of those claims were proven accurate. Others less so, but there’s enough true that it isn’t just a bunch of crap or anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ohkay a joke at the expense of the person who said he dropped it off high somehow you take to be me agreeing with it?
This thread is now deeply split up with replies so finding the exact quote is a bit difficu, but it was along the lines of, ‘oh sure,
At least that would make sense’,
I never figure he dropped it off himself. People with that kind of lifestyle (politics) don’t hop in their car and go for groceries. Or laptop drops.
I don’t deny calling him a ceackhead at some point in the last 7 months. I’m sure I did more than once.
But never in relation to the laptop.
You’re confusing me with anothe user that directly said he got high and dropped it off.
I joked about the stupidity of the statement.
Literally, no. First it was hooker. Then prostitutes, the all those, then…. Wow, ohkay. We’re getting carried away here.
“ Well, you were pretty explicit in saying that you did—in fact—think it was true, and that Hunter or is father should admit to it. ”
That it’s his laptop? I find it likely given the circumstances. That it’s full of garbage crap and ‘evidence’ and dick pics? Less likely. But not by any stretch impossible.
That Hunter went out of his way to dodge and not deny discussion about it. …
This probably wouldn’t have survived lead story position if he said “sure it could be mine” so much earlier.
It’s been out of their news feed for some time, btw.
But I’m more interested in the sure my name helped admission than anything.
It’s not the acts it’s the bull coverage of them.
Russian bank lends Trump money, evil. Russian First Lady hands Biden’s millions, nothing to look at here.
Etc etc.
“ the Rudy emails”
You should, no?
“ and that a surprisingly large number of his associates and campaign had ties to Russian interests.”
And we can turn right around and play that 10 degrees or 3 degrees of with every politician in my life time. Connections to one or more government outside of the US.
“ single case of nepotism”
Or, a potential direct tie to corruption.
Vs indirect related relationships.
“ Russians to get involved in our election”
You mean advertising and propaganda? Like always. It it wasn’t so much pro trump as anti Clinton.
Then again, big countries attempting to influence foreign elections is neither anything new or anything we haven’t done ourselves.
The fact is none of it directly tied Trump to Russian collusion. Or illegalities. Or anything outside of general international business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That wasn’t what I was talking about. I was talking about Hunter being hired by Burisma supposedly because of who his father is. All you said was that the hoopla was about “the energy company”, not the laptop, so I had no way of knowing for sure what you meant by that.
That it’s his laptop isn’t exactly likely, though. Plausible? Yes. Likely? No. “Likely” would mean “better than even”. We simply don’t have enough information to make that determination. For one thing, the only people who saw the laptop in question that claimed it was were the repairman and Giuliani, neither of which are reliable sources. Hunter said it may or may not be his, which doesn’t give much weight either way. “Plausible” just means that it’s reasonable to believe it might have happened without too many assumptions. I would say that it’s certainly plausible given the circumstances, but given the lack of anything verifiable that connects the two and the untrustworthiness and bias of the only ones who said that it was, I don’t think we can go further than that.
Sure. I’m okay with that.
Except that his father immediately denied (and presented evidence supporting his denial) that the alleged meeting ever took place. Let’s be clear: if the emails didn’t allege that Hunter had successfully arranged a meeting between his father and this other guy, this wouldn’t have blown up like it did. No one is up in arms about this because Hunter allegedly had shady dealings with this other guy but the exact nature of those alleged shady dealings.
I can conceive of a scenario where Rudy and the repairman are being completely honest and upfront with their alleged evidence, and that they aren’t being tricked by a third party, but in that case, Hunter was lying in those emails. Of course, even that is unlikely, but it’s more likely than that the meeting took place.
“Their” news feed? I thought you don’t pay any attention to those sources?
This was what I was talking about.
But why should he? Has anyone else ever admitted such a thing even when it was clearly the case? Would it help anything even if he did? And given that you don’t seem to have any problem with it at all, why do you care?
Additionally, it’s not entirely a given that that actually was the case. Is it likely the case? Yes. But it’s not so undeniable that a lack of an admission is necessarily indicative of dishonesty or lack of candor.
WTF? When did that ever happen?
Also, weren’t we talking about the laptop story? Because that is completely unrelated.
Also, there’s a difference between “evil” and “corrupt” or “compromised”. Russian banks lending Trump money—money which he still hasn’t repaid—gives Russia leverage over Trump, which could be used to cause Trump to act in Russia’s interests and against America’s interests.
FWIW, a gift or monetary transaction other than a loan doesn’t give quite the same leverage as an unpaid loan does, but again, I have no idea what you’re talking about. This is the first I’ve heard of that particular allegation.
No, I should not. There is no good reason for me to do so.
There are only two degrees of separation here, though. People directly associated with Trump had direct associations with Russian operatives. And again, it’s the sheer quantity that’s concerning. No other campaign has ever had so many ties with a single foreign power. Combined with the aforementioned direct ties to Russian banks…
Nope. Remember those loans? That’s a direct tie. And as I said, the allegation that the alleged meeting with Biden ever happened was quickly disproved, so that potential no longer exists. Furthermore, the Steele Dossier also implied direct ties. It just didn’t state them outright.
Not to mention that the allegations of the Steele Dossier and the story behind it are more plausible (and wound up more accurate) than the allegation regarding and story behind the laptop. Again, plausibility is a significant factor regarding newsworthiness.
Except that’s false. It was a lot more complex and insidious than that. It went much further than advertising and propaganda and included things like hacking into the DNC and RNC databases.
It’s also immaterial. We already have direct evidence—as admitted by Don Jr.—that Russia also aided the Trump campaign more directly. Whether they did so to support Trump, undermine Hillary, or sow discord is irrelevant.
That’s a whataboutism. I don’t condone it when we do it either. That doesn’t mean it’s okay for others.
Also, have we done it since the end of the Cold War? Because we have changed since then, you know?
Actually, it did. You’re confusing the standards we apply in a trial with the standards applied for media coverage. Try reading the Mueller Report. While it does say that they couldn’t definitively link Trump directly to Russia illegally with sufficient evidence to convict him, it also explicitly says it most certainly does not exonerate him of illegal ties to Russia, either. And the only reason it didn’t indict Trump on other crimes was because either it was outside the purview of his investigation or because Trump might not be able to be indicted while President. It’s worth noting that there are a number of ongoing criminal investigations into Trump, his family, and his businesses among many states, so again, saying there were no illegalities connected to Trump is an oversimplification at best.
It is also not the case that most international businesses take out massive loans from a Russian bank (or any other bank in an oppressive foreign country) and fails to repay them. But even if they did, the only one of those people who ran for President of the United States was Trump, and that presents a number of ethical issues and national security issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ was talking about Hunter being hired by Burisma supposedly because of who his father is.”
Ag, not sold on that either given his job history.
But moving on.
“ that the alleged meeting ever took place. ”
The whole thing is a yes/no me/you nut farm.
President Biden says no. The SS says puts out “evidence “ it didn’t happen which places SS members at the right places at the right time.
Ultimately, for me, it isn’t even about “corrupt” dealings. Which is still politics as usual.
It’s if there is a link between the president and the evil government of Ukraine.
Their, I don’t exactly hide that I get the US Fox News feed. Considering how much I argue it’s not the same talk show crap as Fox News Channel.
Btw, the National service covered it well. He said this, claims that. Nobody knows. Blah.
If tucker didn’t pick it up and MSNBC not make a big show of fighting it… I truelynbelieve, it would have died out sooner.
“Wtf”
Actually looks like the story changed since it first broke.
https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-received-35-million-payment-ex-moscow-mayors-wife-republican- report-says-1533834
I was inaccurate and apologise. Still shady though.
But that’s not the complaint from me. It’s look at him, but don’t look over there. Nope, nothing over there. Move along nothing t o see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah Fox News is well known for letting bygones be bygones when it comes to Democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, nobody is talking about Obama and pot.
Again I don’t actually watch the station, I only get their news feed which is only indirectly related to their talk shows.
Keep in mind your choices aren’t really all that good at moving on either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's one reason why Fox News is no longer obsessing over every little thing Obama does and never, ever letting anything go. And that is because he's out of office. If Clinton had been elected, they would probably still be talking about Benghazi every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I’d ignore that just like I ignored them during trump and Obama admins.
I go out of my to not watch any cable news: they’re all generally talk show crap from 5est-midnight.
So I never really got anything on the Benghazi story either way. Simply don’t know.
I do know, on partly voted on, the situation in Ukraine.
As for out of office, is trump not still a nightly headline? Out of office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good for you (not sarcastic).
I don't hear much about him other than from the late night shows now and then. And then mostly because of the possibility of him running again. I don't know if cable news is still talking about him; I don't watch them either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To my knowledge, he’s only discussed by MSM on cable when something new pops up (like him using the DOJ to spy on journalists or he holds a rally or personally appears on Fox), when responding to someone else bringing up something Trump related (like discussing something another public figure said), etc.
Aside from the fact that, compared to most other ex-Presidents, Trump is significantly more active/vocal on political issues even after leaving office and actively seeks public attention far more (which necessarily leads to more coverage) and the fact that Trump—unlike most ex-Presidents—was a major public figure outside of politics long before he ever sought public office of any kind (which also generally means more coverage) and could plausibly seek the presidency again, the coverage of Trump since he left office has been comparable to that of other ex-Presidents within most cable news stations within this amount of time after the new President was sworn in.
Basically, to the extent he is still being covered by cable news (except Fox News) in a way that is different from other former Presidents, it’s because Trump does his best to stay in the news and in politics despite being out-of-office, far more than any other ex-President. Any other coverage appears comparable to that of other out-of-office ex-Presidents within the first year of them having left office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ Aside from the fact that, compared to most other ex-Presidents, Trump is significantly more active/vocal”
I don’t know about that. Obama never left the public forum.
Neither did H Clinton since leaving as first
Lady.
I’m not sure how much he’s shown up anywhere it was general musing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
H C is irrelevant (we’re talking ex-Presidents, not people related to ex-Presidents or anyone who used to be in the White House but left when next President was sworn in), and Obama didn’t comment on Trump while Trump was President until fairly late into Trump’s presidency.
But yeah, I figured that it was probably just a general musing. I was just giving my take as someone who does (on occasion) watch cable news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Obama never left the public forum"
Lol... really? The man barely made comment unless he had to, probably because "fuck this guy" doesn't play well on the type of Fox show that attacked him mercilessly for mustard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TBH, I don’t know if Hunter got that job because he is Joe Biden’s son. That is not implausible or even unlikely, but it’s not as obviously and/or necessarily true as you suggest based solely on publicly available evidence.
Plus, regardless of what the motives of Hunter’s employers were when he was hired, that doesn’t mean that Joe Biden himself had anything to do with that decision or knew/knows what their motives were. It also doesn’t mean that Hunter himself knew/knows what their motives were.
In order to admit something, you have to have—at the very least—known or at least believed that that thing is true or incredibly likely to be true. It should also be the case that the evidence is essentially undeniable before you demand someone else admits something, and either that person had previously denied that claim or the claim is personally damaging to that person. Neither is the case here.
I don’t know, but then I have no idea what qualifications someone should have in order to be on the board of any company.
I also don’t really care. Whether or not Hunter was hired because he was Joe Biden’s son isn’t really of any real concern to many people who don’t put down Biden over it. There may be denial that Biden himself applied pressure or something to get Hunter that job, but aside from that, this isn’t something that liberals tend to talk about. Even if it’s true, so what? Does that say anything about Joe Biden? No, it doesn’t.
Lots of people on both sides about lots of people in the US. Have you not been paying attention? People have been blaming Biden, Trump, various congresspersons, the Republican Party/leadership, various media outlets (esp. Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax), governors, local and state legislators, anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, certain religious leaders, the CDC, Facebook, Twitter, etc. for pre-election COVID deaths. Not for all COVID deaths, but for a fair amount of them.
I love your optimism. I believe that people would use that to say, “See?! Why do you support Biden when he admits this?”
Personally, I don’t see why it’s a factor to begin with. It’s not even like Biden has denied this claim, anyways, and, as you point out, it happens all the time and says nothing about Biden himself.
Until then, we will act as though it was false. It is also incredibly unlikely.
You didn’t explicitly say it was true, but it was a reasonable inference based on what you said, and it was implied by what you did say.
Most people don’t seriously believe that the pee-pee tape actually exists, so I have no idea how that’s relevant. “It’s more likely than this other thing that few people believe to be true but like to make jokes about all the time,” is an incredibly low bar.
Assuming you’re talking about the Steele Dossier:
That wasn’t “created […] within the Clinton chain of command,” nor did they initially fund it at all. It was created and initially funded by Republicans. The Clinton campaign later acquired that information and continued to fund it until it was completed.
The allegations within the Steele Dossier were/are far more plausible than the allegation re:the laptop that was allegedly Hunter’s. It’s not “obviously false” like you claim.
It’s also debated—even among liberals and other anti-Trump people—whether or not Buzzfeed should have published it when it did. Thus, the Steele Dossier isn’t assumed by even a majority of anti-Trump people to have been newsworthy at the time it was first publicized, so that’s not a great argument. Also, to be fair to Buzzfeed, …
…the FBI were actually relying (in part) on the dossier in its investigations, which necessarily makes it more newsworthy. The same cannot be said of the laptop, which the DOJ explicitly said they were not investigating at that time.
I repeat: have you not been paying attention? One example is below, but he’s also used his position for personal profit (to make the Trump Organization money), abused his position to investigate enemies and interfere with investigations into allies, chose people to fill positions they were in no way qualified for, and oh so much more.
No, they aren’t. At least not like Trump was. I have never heard of a single case where a US President has hired his children and/or children-in-law to work in the White House as part of his administration, nor of any politician granting family members clearance that had previously been revoked or denied by the people responsible for vetting those who have clearance. And even among non-Presidents, in the US, it is still pretty rare and noteworthy when a politician gives a family member a job as part of the government.
But even if you were right, that doesn’t make what Trump did okay.
You’re free to do so. Though, evidence does suggest that. His accomplishments as President that could be considered anything close to successes are tax cuts (which actually increased taxes for a lot of Americans and made the federal deficit much worse); getting out of the TPP (which I actually agree with, though not his reasons for doing so), the Paris Climate Agreement (which was a terrible idea), and the Iran nuclear deal (which was also bad); and one (arguably two) stimulus package(s) during the pandemic. He tried and failed to repeal, replace, or modify the ACA; he didn’t finish building the wall, and he was only able to build as much as he did through dubious means that did not receive approval from Congress; he tried and failed to stop the investigation into the Russia scandal; he didn’t “lock her up”; he tried and failed to stop or reduce illegal/undocumented immigration; he was impeached twice; he failed to get the popular vote in both the election he won and the one he lost; he lost an election for President in which he was the incumbent; he failed to repeal DACA; he consistently had the lowest approval rating of any President since such polls were done; the economy did better under his predecessor and wound up worse than it was when he started; our foreign relations went downhill under him; he tried and failed to overturn the election results repeatedly—both legally and not; and so on. If it was just a couple of those or he had more successes that major failures, that’d be one thing, but all-in-all, he was a loser.
Mostly false. The fact is that Rudy Giuliani says false things more often than true things. He is not remotely credible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Although you later say that you’re referring to Hunter getting the job because his dad is Joe Biden, this is what the person you’re responding to was referring to:
Now, I don’t know what you meant by “association alone position of management”, the “emails [o]f potentially dirty dealings” is clearly referencing the laptop story, not how Hunter got his job. And that was shown to be completely false (at least insofar as it relates to Joe Biden himself).
As far as Hunter getting the job because of who his dad was at the time, that’s certainly plausible (though I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is definitely the case), but that doesn’t mean Joe Biden or even Hunter Biden knew that or used Biden’s position to convince Burisma to give Hunter his position; it’s just as if not even more plausible that Burisma chose to hire Hunter of their own volition believing that it would give them an “in” with the then-VPOTUS without Hunter or Joe so much as implying anything of the sort. It’s also just as plausible that Hunter would have implied such a thing without Joe having anything to do with it.
In either of the latter two cases, there’d still be nothing for Biden to admit to. What would he even say? “Burisma thought that by hiring my son as a director, I would treat them differently in my position as Vice President—something that could be said about many companies hiring many children of people in power”? That’s not exactly groundbreaking, nor has any other politician in history ever said such a thing. It also tells us absolutely nothing about Biden or those politicians. It tells us about the companies, but that’s about it.
Regardless, and as I alluded to before, the idea that Hunter was only (or even primarily) hired on as a director because of his father is far from a foregone conclusion. It likely played a role, perhaps even a significant one, but despite his troubled past with drug addiction, Hunter actually did have plenty of qualifications.
He has a law degree from Yale, worked at a bank holding for two years (during which he rose to executive vice president), served at the Department of Commerce under Clinton and GWB with a focus on e-commerce, was a lobbyist for quite some time, was the vice-chairman of the board of directors for Amtrak, and has also been heavily involved with investment firms and venture capitalism, even becoming an interim CEO at one point as well as serving on boards of directors on several occasions.
All of this and other details can be found on the Wikipedia page for Hunter Biden, with the claims I’m referencing being sourced among several sources, including The New Yorker, USA Today, Politico, Vox, govinfo [dot] gov, CNN, Politifact, The New York Times, AP, CNBC, Wall Street Journal, NPR, BBC News, and Financial Times. I won’t put any links because a) it’s incredibly easy to find and b) I don’t want this to be caught in the spam filter because it contains a bunch of hyperlinks.
So, again, it’s far from a foregone conclusion that Hunter being Biden’s son was the only or even primary reason he was hired onto the board of directors for Burisma. He already had lots of experience serving on the board of directors for multiple organizations, after all. As such, and given that Biden would likely be unaware of the idea even if true, why should Biden “admit” to anything?
Nepotism of varying kinds and degrees is and has been a real problem among politicians of both parties. However, that Biden won’t “admit” that “Hunter only got the job with Burisma because of who his dad is” is not exactly surprising or aggravating, nor does it make much sense for him to do so. It likely isn’t strictly true, but even if it was, no other politician has ever done it and yet been treated like Biden has, and it’s likely that Biden would have no idea that that was the case, regardless. Plus, it says absolutely nothing about Joe Biden himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I covered his previous jobs in a previous reply.
Amtrak being a political appointment, the troubles of the bank he worked for, some during his charge, and lack of law practice.
“ Nepotism of varying kinds and degrees is and has been a real problem ”
We disagree, I don’t consider it a problem at all. Admit it for what it is and move along.
Some of The most successful companies in the world are based on this very method, entire countries, some quite prosperous, are based on it. No reason to thumb our nose over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aside from a brief mention of Amtrak in passing, no you did not, at least not in this thread.
Irrelevant. Biden wasn’t responsible for the appointment, Hunter did well enough to be promoted, and he was considered decent at it under Presidents from both sides. He only left once Biden became VP in order to avoid nepotism. Plus, every government position that is not an elected position is a political appointment. That has no bearing on his qualifications or experience—then, when hired by Burisma, or now.
I don’t know what troubles you’re referring to, but as I recall, he was given that position on a temporary basis while the then-CEO was being replaced, so I don’t see how that’s reflective of Hunter himself. Plus, given how corrupt Burisma is, even ignoring his father, that wouldn’t necessarily be disqualifying.
Irrelevant. Many competent people who obtain a law degree don’t end up practicing law or even taking the bar exam. Many go into some other career, like running a business, lobbying, consultancies, journalism, writing, or politics. That doesn’t make him any less qualified or experienced insofar as being on the board of directors for a large company.
Plus, a law degree is useful for other reasons, as outlined in another reply.
Well, okay, but we agree it is a thing that happens to some extent.
Also, if you don’t have a problem with it, why does it matter to you so much? If a fact is irrelevant, why push it so hard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering the fact that a) most of the people who have been complaining about Hunter recently who were adults or teens at the time Biden was VP and Hunter was hired didn’t have anything to say about it until Trump and Rudy brought it up in an attempt to discredit Biden, and b) people did keep discussing Obama smoking pot throughout his Presidency (the frequency didn’t appear to decrease after he admitted it but rather after he left office), I have strong doubts about that, though I wish I had your optimism.
Then, of course, there’s the fact that there really isn’t anything to “admit” to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If pot carried on it wasn’t in mainstream news.
I’m a bit annoyed how many times users her throw about FNC crap expecting me to understand when I don’t watch the station.
Fox’s print news service Fox News Feed, is totally separate from the tv “Fox News Channel”. It will occasionally post a “host said” or “host interviewed” but I nearly always skip past that.
The laptop is out of the FNF cycle, election fraud lasted a while but it’s been a long time since there was any claim about fraud in voting.
Like I keep saying, my two primary reads are NYT (despite a short break do to ‘an error’ that shut down their feed behind a paywall) and FNF, the fox ‘print’ service. Which is a collation of local fox stations. Not FNC. And which as zero editorial link to the RMP services.
Feel free to turn on a local fox station and look for anything positive about trump in the current cycle. You won’t find much from most of the stations.
Video news comes from BBC and NHK. Occasionally I’ll watch CNN-I or AlJ.
Personally, I’ve seen most stories like the Biden employment disappear when people say ‘sure, and…’
Personally on the whole pussy thing I which trump was more ‘so what’ than ‘it’s not what I meant’
10 years ago we would have ignored it as what it is: bullshite banter.
And if he hit it hard day one, it’s unlikely people would be pretending it was anything but. That some people think he, again, a germaphobe, was actually doing that?
He goes out of his way to not shake hands.
The reality is Biden, H, has had jobs handed to him. Maybe he did well, maybe not. I don’t know.
I wouldn’t be holding his bank position as a gold star though.
There’s nothing wrong with being handed in my view. But when someone asked, say yes, and walk away.
Story dies out quickly.
I don’t know what you’d get out of fox l, what, 4-midnight, or MSNBC, most of the day… neither are news. They’re purely political commentary.
I’ve given up on FNC by 2019 when it became Fox Trump Network. All Trump, all day.
I’m no loyalist. I made my choices. I stand by there not being a better choice than what I made. You can disagree on things. I tend to agree with much of what you “disagree”’on. But I’m sure Clinton would have been worse for me, as an American.
And right now I have no idea who the ‘real’ president is. The one behind the cardboard prop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Depends on your definition of “mainstream”, but fine. It’s irrelevant because neither birtherism nor how Hunter got the job with Burisma were pushed much harder in mainstream news, either, so that fails to explain any differences between how they were treated.
I, personally, only did so to explain what mainstream news has covered in general or where Fox News was specifically brought up. I’ve never accused you of getting your news from there.
I won’t argue the point too much because it’s ultimately irrelevant to anything I’ve said, but while they are technically distinct entities, many would consider it to be a distinction without a difference given who runs and founded them.
Again, I won’t argue about FNF really. I’ll take your word for it that both the laptop and election fraud claims have not been covered on there for some time. I fail to see how that’s relevant to anything I’ve said.
Fair enough. Again, though, I fail to see how this relates to what I’m talking about. I haven’t accused you of bias or of getting your news from anywhere in particular or some biased source(s) in general.
True in my experience as well. Which is why I’m so perplexed why you keep bringing it up.
Also true.
I would argue that that is—in itself—a problem. I don’t think that’s okay for someone to say, especially if their defense is “so what?” At least regarding the Trump thing.
As I said, the truth of his claims isn’t the only problem here.
“He goes out of his way to not shake hands”? Ah, yes. That’s why people have ridiculed/criticized him for how he shakes the hands of other people—dragging them in and sort of wrestling or something to achieve dominance or whatever. /s
Seriously though, I’ve never noticed him going out of his way to avoid shaking hands. Kinda the opposite, actually. In fact, later in that same Access: Hollywood tape, he was hugging a woman. Not exactly germaphobic behavior. Besides, some people are germaphobes outdoors or in public places but not so much in private.
Also, I find the fact he felt comfortable saying that—whether he was telling the truth or not—to be a problem in and of itself. And I believe that—given what other comparable to him have done—it’s not that implausible.
I don’t know for sure whether that’s actually true or not. One job likely was, at least in part, but it’s an open question whether or not that was always the case.
I have no comment on that.
You clearly know nothing about progressives, then. I also fail to see why you care whether he admits it or not. If we shouldn’t judge him for it, why should you care?
I find political commentary interesting. If I didn’t, why would I be visiting blogs like this?
Good for you! I agree with that sentiment. I used to actually watch it—not just a few noteworthy clips—on occasion just to see the other side, no matter how ridiculous it may be. However, whatever merit it may once have had bad essentially died thanks to their coverage of Trump.
Fair enough.
…I’m not going to really address this given how it has nothing to do with what I’ve said, but I honestly have no idea why you think that.
You have presented no evidence that “the ‘real’ President” is not Biden. None whatsoever. You haven’t even alleged facts that—if true—would prove you correct. We have presented evidence that he is. You have failed to counter that evidence. Frankly, identifying another person who is “the ‘real’ President” would be the best and simplest way of presenting a remotely plausible claim, but if you claim to not know at all, that only makes your claim less plausible on its face, but you should still provide some evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What is it about that story that makes you think that it's a "gotcha" moment to mention it? I mean, the sex worker part is
Trump supporters weren’t racist he only ones to jump on stories.
The whole Russia Russia Russia folder was obviously bull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Trump supporters weren’t racist he only ones to jump on stories."
OK, despite the evidence over decades to the contrary, he only hired white supremacists rather than agreeing openly with their positions. That's not really better.
"The whole Russia Russia Russia folder was obviously bull."
Then why all the warrants and convictions? Mueller stopped short of directly accusing Trump of "collusion" because he didn't feel comfortable that there was a distinct charge to bring, but that doesn't invalidate that evidence. You're literally attacking Biden on less evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re the one who brought it up in the first place. No one was treating it like a “gotcha” moment.
I won’t speak with regards to all Trump supporters, but many of them were, in fact, racist. A lot of them were pretty vocally so, like David Duke.
Tell that to Robert Mueller, the people who worked with Mueller in investigating such things, various prosecutors, the judges, and all the people who were convicted of or pled guilty to charges stemming from the Mueller report and relating to “[t]he whole Russia Russia Russia folder” and similar evidence/claims.
Seriously, even if parts of the Steele Dossier were completely wrong, a lot of it has been shown to be true, and people have been imprisoned in part because of those parts that were true or at least close to true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) it’s not many, it’s a handful.
Both parties have fringe freaks. Both parties have also been moving to pull them into the fold lately.
I don’t agree with it on either side and would person like to see both fringes cut out completely.
There’s loud resistance to the likes of the “squad” by Dems.
And there’s growing, but not growing enough, resistance to Q by Reps.
Should they be more active in denouncing them? Yes, both parties!
But neither fringe makes up any level of voting.
The problem isn’t Republican La being Q, it’s not dismissing them enough in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The “squad” huh? Again, what makes them comparable to the likes of MTG, who spouts conspiracy theories with no evidence and repeatedly makes antisemitic claims? Or Matt Gaetz, or Trump, etc.
I’m not saying that there aren’t “fringe freaks” on both sides, but there is a difference between the most extreme elements of each side among those that actually hold office (as opposed to people merely running for office or have not been elected or appointed to some public office), and how extremist or bigoted statements or people in office are treated by other elected officials from their respective parties.
Now, feel free to give explicit examples of fringe Democrats who hold office not being held accountable in the same vein as MTG or Gaetz or Jim Jordan, but as it is, this is a false equivalence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ and repeatedly makes antisemitic claims”
Have you listened to the anti Israel shite from the squad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Have you listened to the anti Israel shite from the squad?"
Oh, you're one of those people who are so stupid that they think that criticising the actions of the government of Israel is the same as an anti-semetic attack on the Jewish people. Quelle surprise...
try getting your news from. places that deal with facts and evidence at least occasionally, it will help you when you talk to better informed people with arguments based in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe I’m better informed than most on this.
Let’s see: terrorist government in the north. Terrorist government in the south.
Innocent people dead.
That’s very different than supporting Iran who demands the destruction of Israel completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no factual basis for such a belief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering most support one side or the other?
When they’re both terrorist governments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Immaterial. That doesn’t make criticisms of Israel antisemitic.
The whole Israel-Palestine situation is sufficiently complicated that, even if it is false, people can reasonably come to completely different conclusions about all sides of the conflict—including ones that are clearly wrong to someone “better informed on” the issue—without being antisemitic or islamophobic. So, really, even if I grant everything else you’ve said, you haven’t actually demonstrated that the criticisms of Israel from the squad are motivated by antisemitism.
Plus, although you say it’s the squad doing this, I only recall Ilhan Omar doing so, so that’s just one person to the other side’s… What was it? 4 examples? And I recall Omar being called out on occasion by other elected Democrats, so that wasn’t exactly ignored or defended by the Democratic Party.
Still, for the sake of this discussion, I’ll take one Democratic example. That’s still not enough, though. Considering, for example, MTG’s space laser comment and comparison between a mask mandate and Nazis’ treatment of Jews leading up to the Holocaust, even if the squads’ statements about Israel are antisemitic, they are rather tame by comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“sufficiently complicated“
Not really. It can generally be broken down to two issues.
First is the long standing battle between to opposing mythologies that are deeply intertwined.
Both of which consider the area sacred.
The second is the undeniable fact that a croup if non-party nations decide to steal a swath of land from locals and create a new state out of it.
Think that about sums it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re talking about the origins of the conflict, and even that is a bit more complicated, but I won’t really argue on that.
I’m talking about the conflict as it currently stands as well as other current issues adjacent to but not intrinsically part of the conflict.
I should also point out that by “complicated”, I don’t mean factually per se, but morally or opinion-wise, not to mention difficult to resolve. If it was that simple, it would’ve been resolved much sooner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Let’s see: terrorist government in the north. Terrorist government in the south."
I'm not seeing the anti-semetism here. Please elaborate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The issue is supporting either government; both of which have the worst intentions for the other populace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t help your case at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, I don’t even get what your point is. Are you saying that supporting either side is antisemitic? Or that supporting one side is antisemitic, while supporting the other is islamophobic? Neither are accurate.
Both sides being bad doesn’t mean favoring one over the other is necessarily bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, we’ve got people calling the pro-Israel camp islamophobs and people calling the pro Palestine camp antisemits.
Neither side is good. I didn’t say it resulted from bigotry. That’s what some politicians resort to.
Probably because no one can come up with any logical reason for our involvement there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re the one who said the squad made antisemitic remarks. That’s the only reason this even came up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You deny that they did?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know either way. I’m asking for specifics so that I can address them. As far as I can tell, pretty much all of the allegedly antisemitic remarks were just criticisms of Israel. If there were others, please share them with the class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, so what does that have to do with the anti-semetism you claimed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equat
"Your hypothetical conveniently left out that the son was also a crackhead which makes the scenario far more believable"
No, it means that political activists working for the twice-impeached corrupt, incompetent former president flailing wildly to retain his position after causing the deaths of hundred of thousands of Americans happening to get the laptop just before said election but failing to give any details is still suspicious.
You're literally ignoring the part of the story that's fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equat
Not at all. By which I mean that it doesn’t make the scenario significantly more believable.
So many problems.
Yes, Hunter was—at least at one point—addicted to crack cocaine. However, by all accounts, he appears to have been staying clean for quite some time. Drug addicts can overcome their addiction, and it’s been long enough since the last known instance of him having used the stuff that his past addiction is no longer all that convincing.
Even if that is plausible, that in no way explains how or why he and his laptop would end up all the way across the country from his home and workplace to where the computer repair shop is.
It also doesn’t explain how he not only did that but also got back home, all while still sufficiently high that he’d no longer remember any of it later.
Even if true, how didn’t he notice the fact that he is now missing one laptop. Even assuming—without conceding—that everything else you said about how someone high on crack would behave and would later forget what happened while high once the effects wear off, once he’s not high, I’m pretty sure that he’d notice that his laptop is gone. Even if he no longer remembered the details of how his laptop broke and so he went to drop it off at a computer repair shop across the country from his residence and then came all the way back, he’d still notice that he had a laptop before that time period and that it was no longer in his possession after that time period. He’d also probably remember that he did get high at some point before (even if it is just immediately before) this period of blackout. He would also the fact that some money went missing to cover the costs of travel to and from that area. At that point, he could reasonably track those expenses to learn about the plane ride and what the destination was, infer that the laptop went missing in that area, and either report it as missing to law enforcement or ask around at places he likely would have been at some point. He may not recall the entire incident, but he’d recall enough to infer that he lost his laptop across the country from his residence during a time period.
This in no way explains why the laptop would still have such evidence on it in the way the repairman claimed it was so that he could access it. The way the emails were allegedly stored on the laptop would have required active steps on Hunter’s part that make no sense to perform, crackhead or not, and he would have had to have done so years before the laptop ended up in that repair shop.
This is related to 4 and 5: Hunter would surely notice that a laptop that he knew contained incriminating evidence was missing and would have tried his best to find or retrieve said laptop. He would also have had means at his disposal to do a decent job of doing so.
And that is just a non-exhaustive list of the problems with that part of the story you were referring to and the parts about Hunter’s actions. There are still a number of other problems with the whole deal, none of which would be remotely helped by saying, “Hunter was on crack.” Here are just a few:
Why did the computer repairman decide to investigate the laptop in the first place? Keep in mind that—according to the story—he had no idea it was Hunter’s laptop until after he started investigating its contents beyond what was necessary to repair it, and the laptop had already been repaired by then. Additionally, doing so is unethical and potentially illegal (or unlawful), so why would he risk doing so with a random laptop some guy he didn’t recognize had dropped off just because the guy didn’t show up to pick it up?
According to the story, once the repairman found the incriminating emails, the first person he chose to contact regarding this information was… Rudy Giuliani. Why not take it to the press or law enforcement first? Ensuring that only Trump’s personal attorney—already known for being biased and untrustworthy—and himself—also a known Trump supporter—would be the first people to know about this makes no sense.
Why weren’t the emails that allegedly came from the laptop presented as they originally were? Without the metadata from the emails, there is no way of verifying their authenticity. And this had to have been an active step.
Why did the two wait to go public with the emails for so long?
Why was no one from the New York Post willing to sign their names to the article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e
“laptop would end up all the way across the country from his home and workplace to where the computer repair shop is”actually that’s quite common. Either your not a tech or you did have enough throughput form companies.
I could be off a bit one way or another but multiple shops and locations,
About half what came n was under a company name. And/or a company bill.
So a random person handed a laptop drops it off before a meeting and forgets about it 5 days later before returning home? He himself drops it off and forgot about it before moving on?
Someone’s laptop being abandoned half way across the country? Common enough. And for anyone in that income range,
It’s more an oh well than an oh no.
Keep in mind the vast majority of computer users think their log in password is enough to keep their data safe.
“ he’d no longer remember any of it later.”
“ Even if true, how didn’t he notice the fact that he is now missing one laptop.”
He himself has said it may have been his. That he didn’t remember. That… I fully buy.
Many businesses people carry more than one at the same time. Others swap out various laptops.
When you a flipping through dozens on a regular basis, misplacing one isn’t that likely to be an issue.
“The way the emails were allegedly stored“
I actually missed this part. But if saved on the drive… that doesn’t require extra steps.
If you have offline access enabled almost every major email application saves email as unencrypted html files.
I’ve actually used that to recover a customer’s emails for them when they got Locke out of a disposable account online but still had access via the app. I simply loaded up namechange and set it to swap .em to .mht and done.
Every email in a Microsoft compatible format.
A quick run through mht2pdf and done.
Mht is Microsoft’s web archive format. But all email apps us one of a half dozen semi-open formats.
“ Why did the computer repairman decide to investigate the laptop in the first place? ”
Abandoned property law.
From the up-n-up side, he could be looking for transferable software licenses.
From the not so well mannered side, maybe he’s just a voyeur. It’s legal regardless. unethical, but I’m most places legal.
“ first person he chose to contact regarding this information was… Rudy Giuliani. Why not take it to the press or law enforcement first?”
He likely believed the press would bury it… or disappear it.
Given the whole mess with Clinton on the tarmac not long ago, maybe he didn’t trust federal law.
Maybe he’s a boxer and didn’t initially want to get caught up explaining. Embarrassment and all.
“ Without the metadata from the emails, there is no way of verifying their authenticity. And this had to have been an active step.”
Active yes. Not necessarily intentional.
Again, I missed the whole (where the were found) file aspect of the story. I do know from various conversion transfers that striping metadata isn’t hard to do. On purpose or by accident.
“ Why did the two wait”
Don’t know. Maybe they thought they had a silver bullet?
“ Why was no one from the New York Post willing to sign their names to the article?”
Ask them? Fear of reprisals if Biden was elected? Sounds like a logical fear to me.
“Biden released proof of the fact that the meeting described in those emails did not actually happen“
Contradicted as far as I’m aware, by Sec Src logs and travel records. But I don’t know for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n
First off, it’s all the way across the country, not half.
And while you are correct about people’s lax attitudes regarding security (I know from experience; I’m actually well aware of the tech aspect and work in tech), you overestimate Hunter’s income at that time, at least compared to his expenses.
That’s what I mean. That is something you have to explicitly enable. If you are involved in shady practices, why would you ever do this?
Still not something I would say is advisable or something I think that a guy who I would be willing to trust not to have intentionally altered the data to suit his purposes would do. As you said, it is unethical to do so even if it is legal, so if you’re willing to do that, I have no reason to trust you on what you found.
You’d be better off wiping the hard drive.
[Citation needed]
No idea what you mean about “the whole mess with Clinton on the tarmac not long ago” or how it would give anyone a dim view of federal law enforcement, nor what being a boxer has to do with anything, but
1) He still could have sent it to a pro-Trump outlet first, or at least sent copies of the data to the press (it’s not hard to copy the entire contents of a hard drive without messing with the data), and
2) this doesn’t make it any less suspicious. If anything, that’s actually kinda worse.
Hard to do? No. That said, someone who is able to open a laptop that isn’t his and that has even a modicum of security (no matter how bad it was) should know how to avoid doing so and how important it is to preserve it when presenting it as irrefutable evidence.
Additionally, you’re also missing a key point in all this: even if it is Hunter’s laptop, and that Hunter himself dropped it off, without that metadata, we have no reason to believe that the emails ever were on the actual laptop to begin with or that they weren’t altered in the process. Given that the known chain of custody is 1) a computer repairman who is well known to be a firm Trump supporter and 2) Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Trump who is well known to distort the truth to serve his interests, I have zero reason to believe that the emails were actually found on the laptop and said what we’re told they said.
That’s not a good reason. It’s a terrible reason. It shows that they weren’t actually concerned with the contents because they thought they were bad for the country but because they only cared about taking out Biden. This does not inspire confidence in people that they did not tamper with the emails to make Biden look bad.
Not at all. The executive branch of the federal government has no power to do anything like that, so Biden would not have additional options for reprisal against the NYP if he was elected vs if he was not.
Furthermore, there is no logical reason for them to fear reprisal at all a) if they didn’t harbor serious doubts about whether the story was true b) that would be mitigated by the author not signing their name to it (the NYP as a whole would be just as culpable/vulnerable, and through subpoenas or discovery, the identity of the author could be uncovered anyways).
So no, that is not a logical fear. That may actually be the reason, but there is nothing logical about it.
Au contraire, that was part of the proof that the meeting didn’t take place, not something that contradicted the offered proof. But feel free to actually provide a source that proves otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do
“ it’s all the way across the country, not half.”
And still a fraction of the difference I’ve seen paid for and picked up, and abandoned.
What’s the expense of sending someone to pick up a forgotten ‘secured’ laptop vs the cost of the laptop.
I’d say it’s fairly damn close.
I’ve also a long history in tech. And this laptop’s alleged trip is far from the longest I’ve see.
Working in Triangle park I regularly had laptops from every continent. Except one. But nobody lives there.
And working in small shops in Georgia and Illinois prior to that stuff from California, Nevada, Washington… wasn’t uncommon.
The distance of travel is well within norms. For a random low level employee who simply fucked up. Twice.
“ That’s what I mean. That is something you have to explicitly enable”
Again I am not aware of the source situation of the files.
However, no, it’s not something wou need enable.
Microsoft outlook, and Mail, both save to disk unless you turn it off.
So does exchange.
Off windows Apple Mail, Thunderbird, FireMail… all do so as well.
“ Still not something I would say is advisable”
Nor I. But I’ve worked with people who went fishing.
Below me,l, under me, I don’t take it. Nuke the drive. Start over.
But I’ve worked under companies that license fish. I never stayed long when I became aware of it.
It’s one of the many places where my idea of private property works out better for general society.
Not my data. BC wipe.
Every tech has looked once, even I. Without permission.
It’s literally something everyone will try ~once~.
But for some… it’s a thrill. They’re sick and need help. But it’s still legal in most cases of a situation such as in discussion.
Citation
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hunter-biden-admits-laptop-certainly-could-be-his/ar-BB1ffd 3R
Tarmac:
https://www.the-sun.com/news/3079610/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-tarmac-meeting/
“ because they only cared about taking out Biden.”
Not supporting it. But makes sense. Politicians suck.
The rest I haven’t read personally. It’s he said she said and could be wrong. I’ll look for it.
My point over all is unlikely? Yes. Improbable? No
And given how fast anti-Trump gets covered with no actual personal fact checking, this story being completely buried… shows partnership considerations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically lega
That wasn’t the case with my emails on my laptop on the Mail app. If it was, I could’ve accessed my emails even while offline, but I could not.
Also, on a somewhat related note, while I can’t remember off the top of my head exactly when the emails were allegedly sent, keep in mind the emails in question were—at a minimum—4 years old by the time this laptop would have ended up at the repair shop, likely even older (assuming they’re authentic). Most companies will have everyone clean out their inboxes on a regular basis (usually 1-4 years), not just for security reasons but also for legal reasons, unless they are explicitly told to retain that information for a pending or current lawsuit, criminal charge, or investigation. And these were particularly incriminating emails, too, and they were time-sensitive on top of that, so there was all the more reason to delete them.
And it’s not like Hunter wouldn’t have known that they would have been problematic. Even before Biden ran for VP, while Hunter was a lobbyist, lots of people alleged that Hunter was using his father as a way to increase his influence or that Biden made biased decisions in favor of whatever or whomever Hunter was lobbying on behalf of. They even took active steps to try to address those concerns, and they took some of those steps before any allegations of impropriety ever came up. Even if those allegations were indeed true, or became true later on, Hunter would have known very well that he should do his best to avoid making it appear as those there was anything shady going on in that regard, and certainly wouldn’t be so careless as to retain that kind of evidence for so long.
So why were those emails still on the laptop more than four years later?
First, re: license-fishing, which is the least bad reason you’ve given thus far—why would that require checking emails? And why wouldn’t you use search terms to narrow down the search to ones likely to yield licenses. Plus, again, this email was over four years old at the time (allegedly). If someone has an inbox containing emails that old (especially ones that are incriminating or have no good reason to be retained for so long, both of which are true for these emails), that’s a lot of emails to go through, so, again, one would expect some sort of filter to be used.
Second, and more importantly, I again wouldn’t trust that information disseminated by such a person—particularly one who has a motive for wanting to make the victim look bad—was authentic and unmodified.
If we were discussing someone whose job (official or not) is to test security measures, that would be one thing, but that’s not the case here.
I don’t think you know what “improbable” means… If something is unlikely, it is also—pretty much by definition—improbable. Perhaps you meant “implausible”?
Regarding the citations, thank you for providing links to support your claims. I really appreciate it. There are some problems, though.
Re: the citation on Hunter saying the laptop could be his, you missed an important detail:
So, not exactly great support for your claim that he actually dropped it off and simply forgot about it. Kind of the opposite, actually. He also never said, “I don’t recall,” or anything like that in that story.
Now, he may not be being entirely truthful, but this certainly isn’t the sort of admission that bolsters your claim.
Additionally, as I’ve already pointed out, neither the repairman nor Giuliani definitively identified the person who dropped off the laptop at the repair shop as Hunter. They have claimed that both the laptop and the emails were his, but they never claimed that the guy who dropped it off to begin with was him. They didn’t say it wasn’t Hunter, but they didn’t say it was either. So, really, the story doesn’t even require that Hunter was ever in that area to begin with.
Now, I understand why you would be trying to justify that it was him, as it adds another potentially problematic link in the chain of custody, but given how problematic the existing links are, it doesn’t matter that much whether it was Hunter>repairman>Rudy or Hunter>?>repairman>Rudy.
Re: the tarmac, Loretta Lynch wasn’t AG or even in the DOJ in any capacity when the laptop story allegedly took place. It was William Barr, who was definitely a Trump supporter, who was AG at the time. So, even if one could have reasonably doubted federal law enforcement under the Obama administration, that is irrelevant here, where the events were far more recent.
Speaking of, not only did the Tarmac story take place four years before the laptop story, it also was reported on soon after the story took place, so saying it was “not that long ago” isn’t quite accurate. While the particular article you cite was written in 2020, that wasn’t because they just found out about it or had just uncovered any new information about the event or anything. It was because the guy who first broke the story—a Christopher Sign who worked for the people publishing this article—had just died. And it also makes it clear that the story became public years ago, as it says not only did the events occur in 2016, but also that it hurt Hillary’s election chances. When the laptop story took place, Biden was the one running for President.
While I suppose it’s technically possible that the guy had gained some distrust of federal law enforcement from that story, it doesn’t explain his actions in the laptop story, particularly given that that story wasn’t new at the time and happened under very different leadership.
I won’t deny that, but the problem is that—with such clear improper motivations behind it and such, and given the lack of any supporting evidence or any way we could possibly verify the authenticity of either the laptop or the emails—it becomes entirely plausible—even likely—that the emails were tampered with or falsified or that the laptop was never Hunter’s to begin with.
Also, Rudy was once a politician, sure (though, to my knowledge, he isn’t one any longer and hasn’t been for a while), but the repairman was not, so I don’t see the relevance of the “Politicians suck,” comment. If anything, it only bolsters my point.
Aside from the Steele dossier being covered by Buzzfeed and then other covering their coverage and the alleged pee-pee tape—which was basically mentioned at most once each by any serious news sources and mostly mentioned in humor rather than seriously since then—I am unaware of that being the case. Plus, those were presented as claims, not evidence of claims. Major news sources had already covered the underlying allegations of the laptop story—that Hunter was helping people get access to Biden—long before the laptop story came out.
I also already mentioned several other distinctions between the anti-Trump coverage and the laptop story. For example, the laptop story could easily be discredited with just a modicum of research, while the anti-Trump stories could not and—in the case of the pee-pee tapes—were likely unfalsifiable. They weren’t immediately proven wrong with evidence after they came out, either.
“Partnership considerations”? Are you suggesting that the media colluded to bury the story? When has that ever happened?
I’m not saying MSM aren’t biased or are trustworthy or anything like that—that’s a whole 'nother issue—or that any mass media—including MSM—hasn’t previously buried stories for selfish reasons or because they were paid off or something—something that definitely has happened—or that the government has never exercised its influence to silence the media—which is both a separate issue and would make no sense for the Trump administration to be doing—because those aren’t what you’re alleging here (or at least not the major thing you’re claiming). You’re alleging that every MSM source—along with other news media—colluded together to bury this story.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that. That is unsupported by your other claims or any other known information (so it goes against Hitchen’s Razor), it goes against Hanlon’s Razor as it alleges malicious intent behind not covering the story despite the existence of other equally plausible explanations that would still go along with your other claims that don’t require malicious intent (like unconscious bias, being incompetent or lax with regards to fact-checking outside of an election year, or—rightly or wrongly—personally finding the anti-Trump stuff more plausible or more serious than the laptop story), it goes against Occam’s Razor as it adds multiple unneeded assumptions that have not been shown to be demonstrated, not to mention the other problems it shares with any conspiracy theory—too many people involved but no leaks from anyone involved, among others.
Look, even if I grant that MSM buried the story for invalid or improper reasons and that they were handling it unfairly compared to anti-Trump stories, it is entirely plausible—and far more likely—that they did so completely independently from each other. Assuming there were any partnership considerations involved is entirely unwarranted here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically
"That wasn’t the case with my emails on my laptop on the Mail app. If it was, I could’ve accessed my emails even while offline, but I could not."
There's a number of configuration options. You can disable storing mails locally, there's different options for IMAP vs POP3, etc. You can even have a simple problem with a corrupted local file. Also, of course, you can manually delete things if you have the thought to do so.
"Plus, those were presented as claims, not evidence of claims"
This is the most relevant thing here, I think. The laptop story was presented as a smoking gun in the middle of the election, but we still don't know if the laptop in question ever really belongs to Hunter, let alone the actual data. As scummy as the whole Hillary email scandal was, at least there was something concrete being presented. Here, we seem to be asked to take the word of documented liars with direct personal ties to one of the parties at face value.
“Partnership considerations”? Are you suggesting that the media colluded to bury the story?"
Once again, bear in mind that you're talking to someone who has expressly claimed that any news source in the US outside of the Murdoch/Breitbart sphere is directly controlled by Democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technica
“ Once again, bear in mind that you're talking to someone who has expressly claimed that any news source in the US outside of the Murdoch/Breitbart sphere is directly controlled by Democrats.”
1) partnership was a typo for partisanship
2) I’ve made it very clear over the last few months that a. my three principal sources are NYT, FNF, and BB and b. the editorial board for most papers ARE democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech
"1) partnership was a typo for partisanship"
You seem to make a lot of typos in words that completely change the meaning of what you type. I'd suggest previewing more.
"my three principal sources are NYT, FNF, and BB"
I'm not sure what FNF is?
But, you're moving goalposts again. When we started this conversation, you claimed to get news from 3 Murdoch sources, the hilarious liars at Breitbart, and that while you read NYT it was a hate read that you don't take seriously.
You seem to have evolved from that slightly after I pointed out that your supposed wide range of reading was just Murdoch propaganda, but your constant parroting of their worst takes exposes you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fox new feed. Which combines local and National coverage across the Fox branding. It includes Fox News Channel coverage, but is independent of it.
I never said the NYT was a hate read. It’s left, Fox is right. Truth is in the middle.
BB is entertaining. Like ARS, which I also read, when you step out of the politics there’s some good coverage on other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's most telling is whwn he atracks hafact-based skurces, he does so with the deliberate lies from Fox and Breitbart.
Like attacking WaPo with the lie that Russiagate was a hoax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically
“That wasn’t the case with my emails on my laptop on the Mail app.”
Granted different manufacturers use different setting for installation.
There is a switch in the PIE for changing email access.
But most, not, installs of 10 I’ve seen have it turned on.
However, even if it’s not mail still caches emails.
Following that with you related note, if you’re not using a 3rd party cleaner or manually cleaning your system, windows purges very little as long as there’s drive space.
“Hunter was using his father as a way to increase his influence or that Biden made biased decisions in favor”
Not sure that would motivate anyone to do anything differently, given how commonplace such activity is.
“So why were those emails still on the laptop more than four years later?”
Again, it’s not normal but not unlikely.
Improbable ~ impossible
Let me give a bit of first hand understanding to this.
I’ve worked on recovery for as part of general tech for a long time. Well over a decade with secure recovery.
Microsoft is one of the worst when it comes to old data sticking around.
Be it legitimate or voyeurism: tools are regularly used to sort and find data.
A search program with a tag and hex scanner will find format type. Most even sort search results.
Drag and drop a dozen m, hundred such files into a renamer and add/change extensions in bulk .
So c8371640572940572 with an id for type compressed html
Can become .eml or .mht, or .htmlz.
Etc.
Competent techs can even write batch scripts to do it hands free.
Licence fishing is legal in all 50 states. It’s a dying practice in the modern world of SaaS.
but for install software, where the only activation is a license number, not a name or email… such licences are transferable by lack of restriction: based on multiple court rulings.
In the process you find other stuff.
Here’s the other side. Assuming this is 100% true… my thought is you have a pro trump tech holding mr H Biden’s laptop. He runs a meta and hex search. Sorts out all the good stuff, appends file extensions, and hands it offer the big G.
“Loretta Lynch wasn’t …”
Faith in the system is lacking.
That’s all the more I was implying.
Fucking autocorrect
Partnership ~partisan
Which generally allows to ignore the rest of your post. ;)
Which I would agree with if that was what I had intended to type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technica
As I’ve said, mine doesn’t. Still, whatever. It’s not really a big deal at this point.
Again, my point was that the loss of faith was not a rational one as you explicitly claimed.
You should really pay more attention to that. This seems to be a recurring event with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech
I think your replying to multiple people’s posts.
I suggested email fetching is default on unless turned off.
caching is always on unless you create and set a registry switch to purge them after x days. (Haven’t used 10 in a while, so they may have finally added it).
Outlook and exchange use the same default on.
Some manufacturers turn it off using a PE setup. Most don’t though from the volume of different laptops and computers I’ve dealt with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, I’m not going to argue the mail thing being stored on the laptop without Hunter’s knowledge further. If it’s often on by default, it’s entirely plausible that that was the case for Hunter even if it wasn’t the case for me. The other parts are still sufficiently implausible that I don’t consider this line of argument worth pushing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I agree with you. All I was claiming is that it was newsworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I disagree that it’s newsworthy, for reasons I’ve gone into before, but at this point I think we just have a fundamental disagreement on what is or isn’t newsworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s most likely the only disconnect here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On this issue, yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"at this point I think we just have a fundamental disagreement on what is or isn’t newsworthy"
I think so. You seem happy with wild rumours and unsubstantiated claims being newsworthy, other are asking for some actual proof rather than pretending that innuendo should have the same weight as verified factual data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech
A meeting with the head of an investigation during the investigation by a related party is definitely a rational reason for concern.
“ You should really pay more attention to that”
Yep. Phone has developed touch disease. Luckily mild but annoying. Once the new iPhones come out in a few months I TS time for an upgrade.
I’m still on the xs Max. I can’t upgrade every year like some people do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You missed why I said it wasn’t rational: by the time of these events, Trump was in office, and the DOJ was run by people appointed by Trump. The meeting you refer to may have provided a basis for a rational concern over federal law enforcement at that time, but not by 2019 when Bill Barr was in charge, at least not when providing evidence of wrongdoing by an adversary of Trump. Just because a belief may have been rational in the past doesn’t make it rational to maintain that belief in perpetuity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e
"Even if that is plausible, that in no way explains how or why he and his laptop would end up all the way across the country from his home and workplace to where the computer repair shop is."
Again you are intentionally omitting information because you are fundamentally dishonest. This wasn't some random town across the country. Its his home town of Wilmington Delaware. He left his laptop in his hometown obviously when he was there. He also knocked up a stripper in DC. Your whole distance argument is nonsensical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what? Even if we take that fact into account, it doesn’t explain away all the inconsistencies, improbabilities, and all-around bullshit surrounding the story. And it doesn’t back up any blatantly bullshit assertions such as “Hunter Biden was high on crack when he dropped off his laptop”.
You need to come up with a better (read: plausible) explanation as to why Hunter Biden allegedly dropped off a laptop in his hometown, allegedly left it there for a year, and allegedly kept emails on it that were full of easily debunked information. If you can’t? That’s a problem only you can solve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plausible
Plausible? I known crackhead being high on crack isn't an plausible explanation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Plausible
At least publicly he’s been clean for some time.
But that’s here not there.
There’s no record of him dropping off the laptop himself unless he managed to go all teenage rich bytch and lost the SS escort/tail.
Hands down likelihood would be another person dropping it off.
Not he himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Plausible
Even if true, it’s insufficient to support the claim. As noted, it’s uncertain whether or not the laptop is actually his, whether or not the emails were actually found on that laptop, and whether or not the emails—if they did come from the laptop—were actually what was presented, in an unaltered form, to us. Currently, the only reason we have to believe any of those things is the testimony of two biased individuals with a vested interest in uncovering dirt on at least one of the Biden’s, and several parts of the story are suspect, not just the parts about it being Hunter’s laptop but also things like why they waited so long to release this information or why the repairman first contacted Giuliani if the information was genuine.
Also, no, being high on crack—standing alone—is not sufficient to make a plausible explanation of why Hunter Biden himself would drop off a laptop at a repair shop for a year given that it (allegedly) contains such incriminating information. Not that it matters, since no one alleged it was Hunter who dropped it off in the first place, so this isn’t really a good hill to choose to die on.
But let’s say, for kicks and giggles, that the emails are actually what Giuliani says. If so, that means that Hunter was lying in those emails, as publicly available information directly contradicts the claim that any meeting with Joe Biden took place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Plausible
Not as plausible as a desperate, corrupt, potentially nutty lawyer who is soon to be disbarred for his insane behaviour making up a story as a Hail Mary pass to try and swing an election for his friend who is about to lose because he caused the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Even if you accept the laptop being Biden's and being placed there by him, you still have to account for al the other factors in the story, which are way less likely to be true..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n
I’m sorry? Even if I grant that I was “intentionally omitting information” (which I wasn’t; I didn’t know that, but even if I had, I don’t think it makes a significant difference), what other instance are you implying?
That does make the distance part of the story more plausible, but that was one of many points I brought up that make the story implausible. It was also the least important of the points I made regarding plausibility.
Plus, as I said, this was not an intentional omission. I pay no real attention to people’s hometowns in general. No one else brought it up, including the guy I was addressing, and you waited a while to bring it up yourself despite the fact that both I and others made this same claim repeatedly and that you have been part of this discussion since early on, so why would you assume that this was intentional?
If it’s because of the other information about Hunter’s background I brought up, I only looked at the stuff that had to do with his employment history, which did not include his hometown. It had never occurred to me that his hometown would even be relevant since what I did find made it clear that is not where he or his family lived at that time, so I had no reason to believe that where he grew up made any difference at all.
[citation needed]
Irrelevant. How would that change anything?
I was addressing it as presented, and I was specifically addressing the claim that solely by including the fact that he is/was a crackhead makes it plausible. Whether or not other facts exist that make the story more plausible is irrelevant to the particular argument I was making. You were the first to mention that this was his hometown, and that is not implied by or connected to the claim that he is a crackhead. As such, it doesn’t make what I said wrong or dishonest.
And, again, the distance argument was one of many arguments I made, and it was always one of the weaker ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e
"Yes, Hunter was—at least at one point—addicted to crack cocaine. However, by all accounts, he appears to have been staying clean for quite some time. Drug addicts can overcome their addiction, and it’s been long enough since the last known instance of him having used the stuff that his past addiction is no longer all that convincing."
By who's accounts? His own book? You statement is a lie. By the account of the manager of at a DC strip-club he was smoking crack in lat 2018. That is just a few months before he dropped is laptop off.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign
Sto p lying!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n
I have never seen that article. Additionally, that’s just one person’s account. I have no reason to believe the owner of a strip-club any more than the computer repair guy. Unless there is an investigation into the matter or a video or something, I don’t see why I should necessarily believe the account.
And no, I didn’t read Hunter’s book. I don’t generally read books of lobbyists or government agents or politicians or celebrities. That’s not something I’m particularly interested in.
All I did was look at a few sites that discuss his drug habits over the years. Based on what I read, it didn’t appear that there were any confirmed instances of Hunter smoking crack for some time, and that he has been reportedly clean for some time. I wasn’t digging thoroughly because it’s not my job to find evidence to support your claims.
Do I recall which sites I viewed? Of course not. It’s been too long, and memories fade.
Now, learn what lying means. It doesn’t mean “saying something that can be proven false”. I did not say anything I did not believe to be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do
"I have never seen that article. Additionally, that’s just one person’s account"
That does appear to be the M.O. among certain types. No need to consider the mountain of contrary evidence if there's an anecdote that agrees with you...
"Based on what I read, it didn’t appear that there were any confirmed instances of Hunter smoking crack for some time, and that he has been reportedly clean for some time."
Even if there was, so what? That doesn't make the rest of the story believable. The computer store guy could have video of him racking up a line on the laptop in front of him, that doesn't make anything else in the story likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.
Whose morals? Yours? Morals are not absolute, regardless of what you've been taught.
Law vs. morality: a false dichotomy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.
Laws started with morality.
Then the LAWS had to cover everything we created, supposedly to protect the consumer. then they Leaned Back the other way, NOT in favor of the consumer.
The one with the biggest pockets Wins?
Morality= BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, Dammit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technically legal is the best kind of legal
"The law vs morality. Compromises must be made."
Do you want to know, how I know you don't understand how the First Amendment works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.
"tldr: We could protect both free speech and the children."
Technically...not really. If you are allowed to swear in public then it's hard to make the case that you aren't allowed to write it in your front yard either.
And if you aren't allowed to swear in public...you have a precedent where offensive speech is under government censorship.
In practice, of course, it's usually the landlord (private property owner) which tells you to take the fucking sign down (from their property) with the law staying right out of it.
In the OP judge Bundy has made an interesting judgment which appears to have no backing in law, unless Ms. Dick completes the signs with printouts from lemonparty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.
“Legal does not [equal] morally correct,” is a completely accurate statement, but everything else you said suggests you don’t understand what that means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.
Censoring things is the diametrical opposite of "free speech".
Her yard, her choice. It's not a consenting adult's responsibility to give up their rights to protect YOUR kids. (As if that were even possible).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At the place where legal speech turns into illegal speech.
I sympathize with the parents who don’t want their kids to see swear words. But that shouldn’t let them infringe the rights of others. The speech is legal; someone else’s feelings about that don’t get to say otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's four letters, not a literally magic word
I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.
Ooh, I've got some bad news for you if your kids are going to be interacting with society at all...
Either you'll explain it or someone else will because 'little TImmy/Suzy never hearing the word 'fuck''' is not a viable option for anyone who isn't insanely sheltered from birth to death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's four letters, not a literally magic word
Lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.
Our village idiot Koby will be by shortly to explain how much he disagrees with you because freeze peach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Though in this case, Koby would be right because it's actual government censorship and not private website moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The irony of a gal who flippantly refers to one of the most important founding principles of the USA as “freeze peach” calling Koby an idiot… hoo boy.
“Freeze peach” is one of those Leftist newspeak terms you hear and you know with utter certainty you’re dealing with a sniveling anti-American degenerate oxygen thief coward. (Very often a White kid with dreadlocks.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the pants on head fits. Or in your case the pillowcase...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
“Freeze peach” is one of those Leftist newspeak terms you hear and you know with utter certainty you’re dealing with a sniveling anti-American degenerate oxygen thief coward.
You seem triggered, snowflake...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every accusation a confession with these people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The irony of a gal"
Interesting... The user didn't provide any personally identifying information, and as far as I can tell their writing style isn't as obnoxiously and uniquely ignorant as to identify them unlike OOTB/whoever their current attempt to get around the spam filter is. So, it's interesting that you know who this AC is down to their gender and comment history.
"“Freeze peach” is one of those Leftist newspeak terms you hear"
No, it's something that's used to mock the type of idiot who claims to be for free speech while demanding that their political opponents don't have it.
"(Very often a White kid with dreadlocks.)"
The real world is easier to deal with if you adjust to reality and not invent strawmen to attack at every opportunity. You might learn something occasionally, let alone actually be able to communicate with other people without being so depressingly angry all the time about people correctly noting that you have no real argument.
Go on, try it. Address the actual ideas someone states, and don't immediately default to the cartoon you've been sold to you by people who profit from your impotent and unfounded outrage. You might become a better person for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.
It's really not that hard. First of all, most kids won't care, won't notice, and it won't matter. For the few that do, you can easily say "that's a curse word that means something not nice," and the kids will forget about it and move on. At least that's been my experience.
Hiding it doesn't help. Teaching kids that it's impolite does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Masnick's comment
I would suggest not saying "...a curse word that means something not nice". Instead, for a youngster, "It's a word describing something boring that sleepy adults do" and look bored while explaining that. Don't lie really, and don't make a big deal of it or risk sparking the child's unwanted attention at this time. If the child knows the parent is generally honest -- because it's true! -- later on (say, 8 years later) the subject can be approached in more detail w/o calling a perfectly, natural activity "not nice" (or nasty, forbidden, warped, god hates it, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or tell them the truth of what it means, the history, and why it’s considered such a powerful negative word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not obscene language.
For obscenity you must test for whether 1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards would find the sign to appeal to the prurient interest, 2) whether it depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined in law; and 3) whether the sign, taken as a whole, lacks serious political value (there are other things too, but here it's clearly political).
Here it fails on 1, fails on 2 ("fuck" has a lot of meanings, not all sexual), and fails on 3. Conclusion: it's no more obscene than this comment, a booklet providing you with instructions on setting up and programming a VCR, or the US Constitution. It is arguably less obscene than the Bible (due to the inclusion of the Song of Solomon).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem
Ahem
Fuck your feelings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ahh this old chestnut. Here's your answer: old enough to ask, old enough to know (age appropriate). If the little six year olds are asking what that word is, I'd be surprised they're looking at the signs, but there you go. When mine were 6, they were more interested in reading books or playing with toys in the car.
There's lots of caselaw on this, but let's ignore all that because reasons. I ask you, who is to determine which language is obscene?
Let's try an experiment. Which of the following words do you think are obscene:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You forgot “moist”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Moist? Wet? Seriously how can that be used offensively, Even in reference to a specific body part.
Should that not be a compliment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's a reference to this phenomenon:
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/why-do-people-hate-the-word-moist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ok,
So that’s actually a thing lol. Locker room never crossed my mind. To each their own.
So that’s two that totally stumped me.
Think I did well with the rest.
I love linguistics. Word etymology.
Language in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Seriously how can that be used offensively, Even in reference to a specific body part. "
Context.
There's an old story on how a bunch of game developers at some point tried to make their online children's game perfectly proof against trolls and "offensive" language while still allowing communication. They had dozens of expert consultants replacing every type of offensive word or grammar considered possible as a euphemism. Then they sat a bunch of teens down to test it.
They knew they'd lost when a fourteen year old, within minutes, pounded out the sentence "I want to shove my giraffe up your kitten".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And every time that is brought up I laugh at the Ingenuity of youth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Stuffed tends to imply forced anal sex
Wichser is Dutch, British equivalent is wanker. Though the slang refers to jacking off the intent is more “stop wasting time {by jacking off}.”
Git, from get, means idiot
Screwed, again is generally accepted as a sexual term, get fucked, fucked, but actually has roots in the act of literally being screwed, a term from early assembly lines. As in, having a screw or rivet fastened to you.
Groom comes from the act of grooming in one sense and is generally used as a solo verb for acclimating someone else o something. Such as with child grooming.
But, as a directed insult it cooks from old Goth based languages such as old Norse and Icelandic. Ghrom, and gromar, Where it means to be a a manservant.
Smush I’m not familiar with and am having trouble finding.
Merde crap? Another I’m not familiar with.
Prick from pricken from prich. Use as a word for penis dates back centuries. As a term for people it comes from the male sex drive. Single minded, begot simple minded.
Somewhere that got twisted into the modern rude, bad, etc.
Piss locally offensive. From Pissin, from pissen, from pis’on to wet, make wet, or to water.
Crippled, physically injured. Not sure the entomology.
Damn: from damnin. As a verb to damnate. More generally to be in a point of damnation
Bastard: out of wedlock. From bastred, without.
Or from baster (broken), as bastarde, illegitimate,
Fecker is a localised version of fuck.
But on its own means size or force. Comes from Fech.
Jesu s a mythological figure. A convergence of various half human gods or heroes of the time. All who sacrificed their life for the survival of humans.
Though some of the aspects of it, birth-death-rebirth, come from Isis which itself comes from many earlier west Asian and North African believes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Stuffed tends to imply forced anal sex"
Erm, not really, unless you're doing something very strange with a chicken or implying that when someone says they're stuffed about a dinner then they were doing something else very wrong.
"Wichser is Dutch, British equivalent is wanker"
So, a word that's used in multiple contexts and can even be a joking term of endearment?
Half the other words you list have many similar non-sexual meanings and if you focus on the sexual one over and above the others, that says more about you than it does someone questioning whether they count as obscene.
"Merde crap? Another I’m not familiar with."
Merde is French for shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stuffed, as in get stuffed, is a well know slang for forced anal sex.
Verify your target:
I didn’t make the list. I pointed out the stupidity of being offended by any of it.
Let’s go to the root of the article: and not the less than accurate movie docu version.
Fuck, is directly descendent from Fuche. First attributed in print to 1404. A shortened version of fluchend. Which is early Dutch English for be Filleted.
Based on a punishment method of spearing a person on vertical triangle and allowing the body to split.
That itself probably, by majority opinion, comes from the Aramaic term, in Latin letters, phuc, divide. Which comes from the Arc-sumi word phu-ch-n. Or phc’n. To spread, or divide. As found in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
.
When it comes to short WoT reply’s I don’t care about typos and autocorrect. (I don't give a fuck)
But when it comes to linguistic history, I take rod in my secondary master’s. Mythology has long been a personal passion..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking of fuck
Fuck you autocorrect
*rod pride.
How the hell that’s mistyped… but wherever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Stuffed, as in get stuffed, is a well know slang for forced anal sex."
So, if you add a word that wasn't in the original description and make an assumption based on that extra word, it's offensive? Context is still a thing. you're clutching pearls every time you see a copy of Stuff magazine or link to the website of that name, you're being disingenuous again.
"When it comes to short WoT reply’s I don’t care about typos and autocorrect. (I don't give a fuck)"
Whereas, the word "fuck" on its own is considered offensive to many people without context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn’t say it was offensive. None of those words should be offensive, including fuck. People need to move on from such thin skin reactions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone agreeing that those words weren't offensive by themselves would go with the original implication saying exactly that and move on. You chose to individually nit pick every definition, and even admit you were too lazy to search for the ones you didn't immediately recognise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
‘I pointed out the stupidity of being offended by it’.
Words are only powerful if you allow them to be.
There are words I won’t say like c**r, n k*, etc. Racial abuse terms.
But the list posted is quite dry and stupid.
I have fairly quick reply to most of that list. I did look up one I didn’t know: couldn’t find the other one quickly so ignored it.
Don’t be so uptight. I was having fun with a generic ‘omg look’ list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're actually not supportive of free speech at all and in the future you should refrain from making that false claim.
If you don't want kids to ask you tough questions don't have kids. I'd imagine most kids have heard the word fuck by age 6 anyways. Maybe talk with them about it before they go to school and start using it not understanding what it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lots of lawyers do not feel like explaining to ignorant Jersey judges what Cohen v. State of California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) means, either, but the file is going to land on some lawyer's desk and he is going to have to do it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From my experience, when a kid finds a new word, swear word or not, they have one of four reactions:
They ignore it entirely.
They ask someone what it means.
They look it up (online, in a dictionary, or in an encyclopedia).
1 is pretty straightforward: since they don’t ask about, learn the definition of, or use it, there is nothing to handle. It’s basically as if they never learned the word. If they ignore it, you don’t need to worry about it.
Those in 2 are generally satisfied with anything along the lines of, “It’s a bad word,” “Never use that word,” or “I’ll tell you when your older.” Those that aren’t will generally stop asking eventually and possibly go into 3. Either way, no need for you to explain what the word means at all. You should probably not say, “I don’t know,” or ignore them, as that will lead them to persist or ask someone else, or transition to 4. Other than that, though, it’s fairly straightforward.
Similarly, those in 4 will generally stop if told to by an authority figure. They may then ask what it means (transitioning to 2) but they generally don’t keep asking once told it’s a bad word or something. Again, no need to explain its definition.
As for 3, there is naturally no need for you to tell them what it means if they are successful in their search. If they give up before that, they’ll go into 1 or 2, maybe 4, but those can be addressed accordingly. Now, you may reasonably not like the idea of them succeeding, but the specific problem of you having to explain what it means would be nonexistent. Plus, kids aren’t going to be traumatized by learning the definition of the ‘F’ word; they might be grossed out, bored, or curious about the act it describes (which you should be able to handle the same way you would when a child asks where babies come from), but generally they can handle it. This category is relatively rare, anyways.
So, really, it’s not difficult to handle a kid who learns the ‘F’ word. And, frankly, no matter how hard you try, it’s fairly likely that they’ll see or hear it somewhere by middle school or junior high (likely earlier), so you should learn how to handle it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, do you have or know anyone that has kids? That’s not far off from what they really do say. Lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've heard lots of kids using the word, even kids that looked to be under 10. I think most children already know what it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...most children already know what it mean
Most children, if they "know" the word, know it is one that upsets adults and so is fair game to use. Adults can easily be smarter than children and should practice that, in a gentle manner, at every opportunity. There's a reason kids want adults to be upset. Figure it out, neutralize it (with love and respect) and win the round.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How else are we going to clutch our pearls and cry, "Won't something think of the children?" as we faint on the couch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't wait to see this one going up the ladder of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Fuck Biden" Eew!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only one thing to say really:
Fuck Judge Gary Bundy and Mayor Signorello.
Hopefully the homeowner has the funds to appeal this and a higher court who actually knows the relevant laws gives this ruling and judge the hearty benchslap they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck cheer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it illegal to shout F#%k in a crowded theater?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is 100% legal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, as long as you believe there's a fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, you won't be faced with a criminal charge of illegal speech. But believing there really was a fire won't get you out of facing the consequences for what happens after said speech.
Knowing there was a fire and alerting others to it will only likely earn you a "Get out of jail free" card, not a guarantee.
Old proverb: For every speech, there is an equal and opposite consequence. Sometimes it's only criticism, sometimes it's much less palatable. And no, salt will not be provided, you must bring your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What could you possibly be convicted of for yelling fire in a building that is actually on fire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Probably 30 years ago, maybe longer, I gave up on predicting what a smart lawyer could come up with vis-a-vis a civil cause of action (a tort, if you will). Please don't press me further, my sense of reality is already fragile as it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A judge with a bone to grind, a prosecutor with a quota to fill. Give them enough time and resources, plus a team of lawyers that pound the table in just the right way, I'm sure they'll think of something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well obviously YOU set the fire and burned those extra 97 million votes for Trump instead of watching the latest Rob Schneider movie.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"watching the latest Rob Schneider movie"
Why would anyone do that sort of thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wouldn’t that be self torture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would those be the choices I have available?
And honestly, that’s a tough call there:
Go against my morals, principles, and ethics—not to mention my fears and common sense—and take a massive risk that could lead me to be locked up, all for a small chance to get relatively little personal gain, or
That’s a tough one…
P.S. For those who can’t take a joke, I’m obviously kidding and being hyperbolic here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, even if there is no fire, it would still be protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I take strong issue with this assertion. New Jersey, where a FU followed by forcing your car into a guardrail is considered a polite hello (looking at you Brunswick), is a far more terrible place than Philly could ever hope be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such fine citizens and neighbour
You have such fine citizens and a good neighbours that they have to plaster their property with profanity to advertize their political views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their speech is legal. How you feel about their speech—and about them—is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Such fine citizens and neighbour
So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Such fine citizens and neighbour
"You have such fine citizens and a good neighbours..."
Well, no. From what we've seen so far the Trump cult consists of outright deplorable people if anything.
"...that they have to plaster their property with profanity to advertize their personal worth as human beings."
Fixed That For You.
If you have issues with a political figure then you can certainly plaster your property with whatever you like to show where you stand. How you make your views known is how others discover whether they want to hear what you have to say or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim, you probably shouldn't be using the word regime with the current president. TFG, yes, but considering the dictionary definition:
I wouldn't call the Biden admin "authoritarian", but that would be a perfect definition of the Trump admin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see this as unreasonable
First off, I'm an independent.
I don't see a problem with taking these down. The ordinance may have been written poorly, but that is another issue. The signage at issue, certainly lacks political value. You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that. That will convince no one. You need the "why". Use a few brain cells and actually make an argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What makes “fuck Biden” any less political than “fuck Biden because he isn’t Trump”? Be specific in your reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To convince anyone to change their political affiliation (aka. "the goal"), you need to provide specific reasoning why a politician is a poor choice. Niether of your examples is compelling. Having said that, it makes much less of a difference now then it used to, seeing that most of the sheeple are of the, "party is all, screw the country" variety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neither example has to be “compelling”. “Fuck Biden” is a political statement. So is “fuck Trump”. Whether they come with reasons attached is irrelevant. I see no reason to censor such speech—regardless of why people say it.
And for disclosure purposes: I voted for Biden. Dissenting speech is legal, and I encourage dissent—even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. Dissent against the government is political speech, and it can be expressed as simply as “fuck Biden”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apparently it does have to be compelling, judging by the outcome. We'll see how the appeal goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what the law in question says:
At no point does the law say the political message must be “compelling” to avoid being obscene. It says that the message must lack “political … value”. I would say that “fuck Biden”, offensive as it may be to some, absolutely has political value.
This ruling will be overturned on appeal. Of that, I have little doubt—especially in the wake of the “fuck cheer” case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suppose in the land of "believe whatever the hell you want", I have had to adjust my standards for credibility of one's conviction.
Most only have a political opinion because some politician gave it to them. Said politician only has that particular opinion to cater to their party's lunatic fringe, in the pursuit of the ever so precious 51st percentile of vote. Actual knowledge, or common sense isn't even a consideration anymore, for the professional political view. They're just being a lemming.
You're confusing the letter of the law regarding political speech, with the intent of actual political speech. This isn't about free speech. This is about a free audience for drivel. Audiences aren't free, or a right. Trump found that out really quick. "This Trump internet portal costs money to run? Shut that shit down." This is another example. An appeal costs money. They will have to spend some to continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I’m not. A political message can be as short as two words—“fuck Biden”—or the length of an essay. All that message needs to do is express a political opinion or stance. Is “fuck Biden” more or less political than “fuck the draft”?
Except it is.
No one is obligated to look at the signs or do anything that would expose themselves to those signs. Whether the signs garner an audience is irrelevant; the speech remains protected no matter how many people see it.
So what? Some people believe their principles—and the law—are more important than money. In this case, an appeal would be the right thing to do regardless of the costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You missed the point... They're going to have to spend money for the appeal, before I give their argument any merit beyond post election sour grapes. And I don't think free speech is as free as it used to be. A whole segment of the population has been indoctrinated. Both sides to a certain extent, but the worst stormed the Capital. Their speech may not be as free [anymore], as you believe it to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just so we’re clear: You don’t believe their argument has any merit because you don’t agree with their speech, despite all the actual caselaw and precedent going their way outside of this one wayward ruling, and you’re not willing to even consider their argument unless they pay for an appeal?
Dude, I voted for Biden, and even I think they should’ve won this case. What the fuck does that say about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same here. I voted for Biden, and I do think Judge Bundy should not have ruled as he should in this case. There's a difference between disliking the speech and thinking it should be penalized by the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Legally speaking, you’re just plain wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Their legal argument or their political one? The value of a political message is not measured by its merit as an argument, and that has no relevance to whether it is actually legal. As for the legal argument, that doesn’t usually change on appeal much, and more importantly, the issue here is the judge’s legal argument, which lacks merit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Irrelevant. How they got that political view makes no difference when determining whether or not they are expressing a political view from a 1st Amendment standpoint or when interpreting the statute at issue here.
The only one confusing the two here is you. The intent of the political speech in question is irrelevant according to the law, and you’re the only one arguing about intent.
Yes, it is.
No, it is not.
True, but that makes no difference here.
Look, the audience thing refers to public property (like a street) or property owned by someone other than the speaker. It is not relevant, from a legal perspective, when you post a sign on your own property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Given that this person chose a two-word sign as their message medium, what makes you think it was intended to convince anyone? I suspect it to be purely expressive, in which case it does an admirable job of showing me who I don't want to talk to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
… or just what the person believes.
Be it literal (yuck) or figuratively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that.
This has nothing to do with disliking a politician. They do it to show off their degree of stupidity in a futile attempt to do something they call 'owning the libs.'
'Owning the libs' just a contest between themselves to see who can be the biggest asshole.
The word Fuck is incidental.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
Would you have a problem, legally speaking, if the homeowner was standing in their yard and shouted the words at every passer-by?
If so, why? If not, then why would it be a problem to put it on a sign if it's not a problem to say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
A person shouting in their front yard is going to tire. They won't be there for long. (Less then a day.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
So if they remove the sign every night, and replace it every morning, it would be fine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
If a person has that much conviction to do that, so be it. The patriot takes down their flag every day at sunset, don't they? Go big, or go home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
The Supreme Court doesn’t recognize such a distinction regarding free-speech analysis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
Someone standing on their own property and screaming political insults, or playing loud acid rock music, or testing new mega speakers for their car, or slaughtering a fearful cow or... at any time of day, is potentially disturbing the peace and neighbors have the right to summon the police. If the screamer/player/tester/butcher drives a loud car or motorcycle at midnight down "their" street, call the police on that, too (not that they'll come; police need more sleep than neighborhoods sometimes). The s/p/t/b may decide to sue the busybodies and may get a "goodman" lawyer with big promises... but some video and a local TV report about the noise will trump the claims against the busybodies. So, Noisy, choose with care your hill to die on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
Where I live, the noise ordinance is "if it can be heard 150 feet away, it's too loud." And even then, that noise level is only unlawful when sustained, and during certain hours of the night. I'm fairly certain it would be quite easy to not be that loud.
In any case though, it's not about volume. It's "do you consider it appropriate for the government to tell someone that they can't speak certain words within earshot of another person?" and if you do, why? Which words, and why those words? And if you don't, and the words can be spoken without issue, then why can't they be on a sign?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
Yeah, this isn't about disliking a politician.
It's about a group of people who are competing to be the biggest asshole so they can 'trigger' liberals. Nothing more, nothing less.
Using the word fuck is just incidental.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And their speech is still legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see 2 problems with the "their speech is still legal" argument for signage, in cases like this.
1) A HOA is not a state actor. 1st Amendment restrictions don't apply.
2) You agreed to their rules when you bought the house.
Moral of the story... Don't buy where there is a HOA, if you don't want to deal with their bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That would be relevant if an HOA was involved in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is the ONLY thing in their favor here. If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer.
Well, no. HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are. And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And to which part of government do HOAs belong, because constitution defines whet the government can do, and does not apply to private entities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are."
I hope you were just getting confused there; A Home Owners Association is most definitely not covered by any article of the constitution which contains the words "Congress shall make no law...".
As a private entity they're very free to set up a standard Code Of Conduct and as long as that code doesn't touch on race, religion sexual orientation or purely illegal requirements it can contain just about any demand a signee must adhere to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
IIRC that depends. If they do enough governmenty things, like provide roads and security and stuff, they can legally be considered government for some purposes. (And keep in mind also that some cities require HOAs for any new developments - a government mandate that a group exists probably impacts the determination on whether what the group does can be considered government action.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If they do enough governmenty things, like provide roads and security and stuff, they can legally be considered government for some purposes."
That's not how it works. For a private entity to be considered "government" it must in many aspects be considered a direct extension of government. That's not exactly easy to swing.
Barring a direct formalized chain of command putting the body politic in ultimate charge of said private entity that entity can not under any law be considered part of government.
Even military contractors under almost permanent indenture still aren't "government".
"...some cities require HOAs for any new developments..."
A state can demand that homeowners form an association, yes. That doesn't make that HOA a government entity.
This...isn't really rocket science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Roselle Park Municipal Court is not an HOA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
Exactly my point. It's like those a-holes you used to see on the internet chat boards that used a swastika as their icon, claiming "it meant other things before WWII", when it fact their true purpose for using it was for self-notoriety via "shock value".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
"It's like those a-holes you used to see on the internet chat boards that used a swastika as their icon, claiming "it meant other things before WWII"..."
Has to be noted though that their use of the Swastika, winged odal, confederate flag, or other symbol of hate is still fully legal - as in the use of them can not be banned by a government entity.
Chat boards being private property the argument of those deplorable fuckwits are most often still countered by a hearty "Enjoy the tender caress of our banhammer. See you never!" from the moderators and owners who aren't beholden to 1A.
Now, a person's front yard? That is the property of that person. They're the ones setting the rules for what constitutes acceptable behavior. They're free to set up a sign containing whatever they like which doesn't directly conflict law. And the law is very much on the side of saying or writing the word "Fuck".
The alternative, by extension, is...not good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
Uhhhh, you know that only proves the point that it is legal, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You should
That it might not involve a compelling argument does not make it no longer a political statement, sometimes all you feel like is making clear that you really don't like a particular politician and the fact that that may not be terribly convincing really shouldn't matter in a case like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You should
But the lack of that makes it pointless. Which is what I see is the judges main point of reasoning here. I'm only saying that I can see where the judge is coming from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what? It’s still political speech and it’s still protected speech. The judge was wrong to rule that it wasn’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You should
'Pointless' to you but again the fact that it may not be a particularly compelling piece of political commentary does not mean that it isn't political commentary.
By the argument of 'non-nuanced political statements don't count and therefore aren't protected speech' a town could issue a flat out ban of signs that comprise nothing more than a politician's name and the year they are running for election since all such signs do is show support for said politician but includes no argument in favor of them, and really those signs are just eyesores so they're better off prohibited anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You should
Oh I can see where the judge is coming from. He’s still fundamentally wrong though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
Violating someone's Constitutional rights is certainly unreasonable.
You should read the various links within the article and educate yourself on why this is protected speech, and the precedents handed down by SCOTUS over the years.
I'd suggest you start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California
It doesn't matter whether the sign lacks political 'value' in your eyes. It's expressive speech and 110% protected by the 1A. Speech doesn't need to be a compelling argument to be protected.
Just like "Fuck the Draft."
As a fellow independent, your position and ignorance on this subject is embarrassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It’s number one for a reason.
Allow me to rebut your entire post in three words.
The First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
Why do some people see the need to loudly proclaim they're disavowing being a republican (cough) I mean stating they're independent?
I'm about as far left as you can get and I don't go around starting off all my arguments with "First, I'm as left as you can get without swimming to Hawaii"
Maybe it's just me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
"I don't see a problem with taking these down."
There is a free speech issue at hand. Consider the precedent of, say, swearing in public? Combined with the fact that the law as such does not allow for it what we have is a judge who issues a blatantly unconstitutional directive from his pulpit - and setting the precedent that bad language merits government interference.
"The signage at issue, certainly lacks political value."
Well, the only value I can see is that it serves to inform the neighborhood of the general demeanor of the resident. But that's not exactly worthless in itself.
"You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that."
You most certainly can. It certainly won't serve to convince others of anything, but you certainly can do it that way. And lamentably, for some 30% of the US citizenry that's enough.
The people kissing the ring of Dear Leader are the same people who cheered GWB and Cheney when they tried to advocate for torture and start a war of aggression. Beyond "owning the libs", fear of the other, and holding daily Two Minutes Hate sessions visavi the current icon of adversity they don't have an agenda.
These people have been in it for decades purely in order to feed their grievance addiction. Nothing more. That's the start and end of their "politics". Someone to hate, eventually replaced by someone to hate even more.
"Fuck Biden" is the summary of their political platform, the same way it used to be "Fuck Obama" and "Fuck Clinton".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. In City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) they said that expression in yard signs is unique because of the way it identifies the speaker. Id. at 55. The identity of the speaker is important, they said, _id. at 56fn14, citing Aristotle, 2 Rhetoric Bk 1 Ch 2. A yard sign ``may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media'', Gilleo at 55, but its mere presence is part of the message.
You might consider an anti-war sign in a veteran's yard, id. at 56, or a sign saying no more than ``Vote for [Challenger]'' in the yard of one of the mayor's children. Closer to home, you might consider a sign promoting socialism in the yard of a wealthy person, Gilleo at 57, or a sign saying ``socialism sucks - biden blows'' in the yard of a person benefitting from federal mortgage assistance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
less terrible than Philadelphians.
I resent your statement about Philadelphians. Therefore, you have the opportunity to fuck yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not even an elderphile would take it that way? He's old enough that he should be appealing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a stupid hill to die on for all involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an idea...
Think of it as practice toward how the Dems will us the Repubs' own actions (in reaction to Jan 6 and defending the destructive perps) to destroy that political. Jill Biden and some of her good friends gather and make some very artistic yard signs using the same verbiage as in the original "illegal" signs. They might add the ability to cover up parts of some words, but leave that up to the homeowner. Along with reporters (and Secret Service, of course), the ladies approach the homeowner and give her replacement signs, affirming her correct use of the First Amendment.
Ms. Biden will go on to say something like "Of course, I'm the most recent one for many years to have f'd Joe Biden, and it's always been great fun. I guess it's sad that you will never get that chance, but, hey, you can exercise... your First Amendment rights, you should have no fear to do that and Americans should support you like we Bidens do." Maybe add something about #45 probably turning up to use the occasion to promote himself, but I'm sure Ms. Biden will be very careful in her choice of words... and Repubs will rush to insult her but yet again look like spoiled children. But that's just my idea! I voted Green, so whatever happens I know will be interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's an idea...
Um...do you smell toast burning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…fucking what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Remember that that's the "Veterans Today" liar from a couple days ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's an idea...
…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"there’s no place for profanity by a school and school children"
Please to install monitoring devices in all homes with children so you can make sure no parent exposes their child to worse. Make sure you monitor them online to make sure they children are not exposed to profanity online.
"The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child."
Nope. There is no balance, there is just rampant morality run amuck form the bench.
I once again bring up my when a Judge blows a 1st Amendment ruling in this way, they need to be off the bench until someone figures out if they had a stroke because they've forgotten the bedrock of the nation.
Something something Jersey Shore... your arguments are moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Under His EYE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We do have some problems here
First, what if the whole community agrees that "X" is immoral, obscene and offensive in the extreme, and should be made illegal?
Second, where is it written that all communities must have the same standards? Come to that...
Third, when the Supremes use the word "community", do they really mean the whole country, where they hold final say? Or are they using the common term, thus speaking to myriad small enclaves of society, and hoping that no one objects too loudly? (The Amish and Mennonites might have a few words on the topic, for example.)
In that light, I went out and researched what the Constitution had to say about obscenity, morals, offensiveness in public, and other such tidbits. It turns out that.. well fuck it, I'll just give you the link, and you can have as much fun as I did:
https://time.com/4700835/sex-and-the-constitution/
Don't let that link's title put you off, it's really all about "muh feelz", from 245 years ago up until today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a horrendous legal interpretation?
"when considered as a whole"
"these signs would need to violate all three clauses to be considered obscene"
Asinine simply asinine! So something purely prurient that does have a political or artistic value wouldn't be obscene? This is just another example of this pathetic blog writers making up their own rules.
"when considered as a whole" means to take all factors into account that doesn't mean that one single factor cant sway the entire decision on its own.
It's like sports judging. Take boxing for example considered as a whole rounds a scored based on "clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship, and defense."
That doesn't mean the the fighter that wins the most of the 4 wins the round. A fighter can be so dominate in clean punching that the other criteria don't matter.
"Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked. Jesus Christ how does this tripe get through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dude, you don't even know the difference between a public house and public housing.
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dude, you dont even know the difference between a 21st century pub and a 16th century public house. It was common that a public house by law had to offer a certain amount of rooms and/or beds for rent to be granted a license.
Children children children. Mike has made you into a bunch of children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in the evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And how is this even relevant to conflating public house with public housing? No matter the amount of rooms a pub has to rent, it will never be a public housing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And how is this even relevant to conflating public house with public housing?"
No you are conflating centuries. Using the wrong term for the wrong century. You confused a 21st century pub with 16th century public houses which were the public housing of their time and usually had to offer some set number of rooms/beds to be licensed.
Now you are too ignorant to recognize you mistake.
The original poster who may be you had the mistake pointed out immediately.
"Although, I would ask whether the AC you responded to means accommodation or if he meant "public house" as in "pub"."
You used the ancient word "public house" with the 21st century meaning for "pub" which are two differnt things.
A modern pub evolved from the medieval-renaissance "public house" but they are not the same. If you use the older term you imply the older definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this is relevant here and now because…?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, you defence for being an idiot before is that you were using some legal definition of the term rather than the clearly intended colloquial term?
That might not be the defence you think it is, especially as you used that "mistake" to launch into nonsense about how people aren't allowed to ask party guests to leave their own homes without a contract and police backup.
Even if you were right, you were still hilariously wrong immediately afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Even if you were right, you were still hilariously wrong immediately afterwards."
Well, at least Baghdad Bob stays true to form;
1) Starts off by claiming expertise in area X.
2) Proves he hasn't a clue about area X.
3) Gets put on the spot and immediately lies about what he said or otherwise deflects blame while breaking out the ad homs.
Most village idiots would be getting a clue by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Dude, you dont even know the difference between a 21st century pub and a 16th century public house. "
So...after failing to present Munn as the be-all, end-all argument as to why Facebook ought to be considered public property you now want to present an even older failing argument which also doesn't show anything you want it to show?
A Pub still isn't required to perform the same process of eviction a landlord needs to, no matter how many irrelevant examples to the contrary you try to showcase.
"Children children children."
Every accusation, a confession with you, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Public House
Public Housing
There should still be no confusion between the two. Just because a "pub" could also have rooms to rent, it can no way be construed as property owned by the government.
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh look he is using Wikipedia again. You are again using 21st century definitions. A 21st century Pub evolved from a public house but they are not the same thing anymore.
"After the Restoration in Great Britain there was a trend toward more extensive, better controlled drinking premises, and magistrates, who supervised licensing matters, started to insist that licensed premises should be equipped with stabling (previously confined to inns) and lodgings."
https://beerandbrewing.com/dictionary/9qVj08mAiJ/
I don't see too many Pubs these days that offer stabling and lodging. But in the days of true public houses lodging had to be offered to be licensed. Now zip it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You are again using 21st century definitions. A 21st century Pub evolved from a public house but they are not the same thing anymore."
And will you look at that, we actually live in the 21st century, not the 16th.
"I don't see too many Pubs these days that offer stabling and lodging. But in the days of true public houses lodging had to be offered to be licensed. Now zip it."
So your assertion is that you win as 16th century british law gives you the argument as to why a social platform moderating a post should be held to the same standards as a landlord evicting a tenant?
I think we've all seen you shooting your own argument in the crotch a few times now, but that one takes it just a few steps further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So your assertion is that you win as 16th century british law gives you the argument as to why a social platform moderating a post should be held to the same standards as a landlord evicting a tenant?"
I'm not the one who used the bull$^$^ example!
The truth is an individual is allowed to use force on another when force is not being used against them or another. So the examples are moot. That entire thread was bad example after bad example because fundamentally it cant be justified legally.
It doesn't matter if they are a customer, tenant, guest etc. etc. if they entered your property legally you cannot use physical force to kick them out. You can be like a bouncer at a dive bar and take the risk but that doesn't make it legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be frank, I’m honestly lost on this.
Absolutely true, at least with regards to removing someone from your private property when they refuse to leave despite having no legal right to be there without your permission. But what does this have to do with Facebook?
Wait, wha—
Whoa, slow down there! I can’t take that kind of whiplash!
Literally two sentences earlier, you said the exact opposite! Make up your mind!
…At any rate, if someone is trespassing on your private property and refuses to leave when asked, in every state, the law explicitly says that you—as the property owner—are permitted to use force to remove them if you see fit, regardless of whether they gained entry legally or illegally, as long as the amount of force is appropriate. That still means that you can drag someone who is not using force from your property, but you couldn’t beat them up unless they started fighting (assuming legal entry and that they aren’t breaking the law by stealing or vandalizing your property or something; illegal entry is a completely different story). What is considered appropriate force depends not only on the context (including whether they entered legally or illegally, how much force—if any—they use, whether they were committing any crimes (besides trespassing) while on your property, the threat you perceived that they posed, etc.) but which state you’re in, but the basics are pretty much the same in all of them.
So yes, you legally can “be like a bouncer at a dive bar” (or any other bar) and legally use physical force to kick them out, so long as you don’t go overboard. It is absolutely, 100% legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are still the idiot who is trying to conflate public house with public housing. Notice the difference in spelling?
Please locate one example of "public housing" that was used to describe a "pub, inn or tavern". And the term "public housing" has to be explicitly used instead of "public house". And it can come from any century.
I'll wait.
Also, as a side point, even Wikipedia has a notice for people like you who do not seem to understand the difference between the words "house" and "housing":
But yet, here you are, still confusing the two.
Why? Tired of me calling out your stupidity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ I don't see too many Pubs these days that offer stabling and lodging.”
Someone hasn’t visited me he American south west. Or much of Northern Europe, or Russia. Or China. Or Japan.
Bars with lodging exist all over the world. In some areas in large numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When was the last time you saw a bar with a stable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The winter before covid in northern Arizona.
Just south of Page. Us 89. Burgers were $6. Room for $30. I didn’t stay but they did have stables attached. Likely for canyon riders is my guess.
They’re popular enough for them to still be around. BBB, beer barbecue, and bed.
No, it’s not 1930, or 1830… but they do exist.east of the SN range they’re easy enough to find if you go looking for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I hope to be allowed to travel again to the point where I can see such strange things. I'm getting itchy just not being able to confidently book a regular film festival I used to go to when the tickets go on sale tomorrow, let alone see a stable at a bar. But, that specific point isn't central to the argument being made by the person he was replying to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bear in mind that the person above is not arguing the definition of pub in good faith. He's trying to backtrack from his assertion in other threads that since you need to jump through legal hoops to evict long term tenants from rented accommodation, you need to do the same to eject an unruly guest from a pub or private home.
He's just trying to avoid responsibility that he misunderstood the term "public house" when he first read it, and launched in completely the wrong direction in response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, understood.
Legal issues.
Didn’t mean to misdirect your discussion, I just happen to like such “inn” locations. By whatever name it uses. Pub, saloon, inn, bbb, wayside… a hidden gem in travel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All of those things sound good, and I hope to return to travel soon in order to see them. Until then, just be aware that in a response to this specific user with reference to "pub", we're talking about a particular argument that doesn't hold water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hoped we can get vacation travel ID worked out so we can start doing so. Looking forward to those “passports”. Shows I used my brain. And I don’t have to worry about copying my vax card or bringing it along or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Hoped we can get vacation travel ID worked out so we can start doing so. Looking forward to those “passports”."
Sadly, not only is there a lot of opposition, they voted the same way you did. Choose better next time, and maybe there will be less of their element preventing you from achieving your aims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some yes, some no. The R party is not unified on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no longer an R party, it has been replaced by the Q party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly true to a degree... but the slide began under that name and they haven't exactly done much to disassociate themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely not.
And the majority of the party really should do something to blast the Chihuahua leg humper net freaks from their legs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that the likes of MTG and LB and all the others who are still loud and proud about Qanon, crazy conspiracy theories, openly racist, sex traffickers, etc., etc., etc., and they are still not only gladly accepted, but are encouraged as part of the R party, basically means that the R party condones their attitudes and actions.
Hence, the R party is now the Q party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And the majority of the party really should do something to blast the Chihuahua leg humper net freaks from their legs."
...and until they do we'll assume that they're happy with the white supremacists, sex traffickers, sexual abusers and Q followers within their ranks. When Al Franken was accused of sexual misconduct way before he was elected, he was forced to resign. When Trump boasted about it, you voted him president. Until something changes, that's really all we need to know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ and until they do we'll assume that they're happy with the…”
Ok. So the Democrats are black suprematists who agrees with violently removing the white race. I got you.
“ When Trump boasted about it,”
See, you just don’t get it. Trump, backstage, in a jovial conversation, mad a derogatory quip and that was it.
It’s braggadocio. Nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if it was, that doesn't make it acceptable behavior. We should expect and demand better from our leaders.
I mean, seriously, why would you not call him out on that, even if you support him on everything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Care to cite an example?
I mean it is easy for anybody to talk about how awful MTG, Gaetz, Boebert, Gym Jordan, and all of the other Qanon freaks because there exists 100s of examples of how awful they are.
But, please do point us to some specific examples fo democrats being black supremacists wanting to violently remove the white race.
In other words, you have spoken like a true racist!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, because it’s incorrect. Just like the claim that all Republicans are white suprematists becaof a tiny minority of the vote.
Calling the Republican Party the q party is as realistic as calling the Dems the NOI party.
Don’t like a fraction of a fraction being thrown at you? Keep that in mind then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What you fail to realize, is that all of the normal "conservative" republicans are being pushed out in favor of the Q freaks, racists, sexual predators, etc.
Just look at what happened to Liz Cheney, she got pushed out of her position because she told the truth about the election lie.
Trump will back whatever candidate that is going to primary against her, and what do you want to guess it will be another election liar, Qanon crazy?
Also look at the loudest voices of the R party, Gaetz, Gym, Boebert, MTG, etc. The republicans will always be the party of Q until they decide that the sexual predators, Qanons, conspiracy theorists, election liars, are no longer welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cheney Was ousted for voting to convict trump for inciting a riot without evidence.
You may not like him but “peacefully” is very different than “who says a protest needs to be peaceful”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "inciting a riot without evidence"
The following are quotes from Donald Trump himself; they come from his speech on the 6th of January, just before the insurrection:
Now, I’m sure you want to mention all the times he brought up marching peacefully and whatnot. Don’t bother; I’ve skimmed enough of the transcript to know those parts exist. Instead, I want you to read each of those quotes, and notice some of the verbs/verbal phrases he uses: “stop”, “save”, “fight”, “take back”, “get tougher”, “show strength”, “protect”. Then look at the overall gist of those quotes: “we’re fighting to stop the steal”, “we have to get tougher on the fraudsters”, “we’re here to save democracy”, “we need to do something about this”.
He isn’t explicitly calling for violence, no. But between his planting the idea that his “patriots” must stop the steal by showing strength and doing “something” about the Democrats/“weak Republicans” to save the country, his talking for months about how the election would be fraudulent only if he lost, and his continual(ly rebuked) efforts to overturn an election he lost both electorally and popularly, those quotes—his words—become a form of his mob boss–esque stochastic terrorism. He didn’t need to directly call for violence; all he needed to do is make his wishes known and let his followers do the rest.
Take a bunch of people who have already been manipulated by right-wing media and Donald Trump into believing the election would be/was stolen. Tell them that the literal last line of defense against the stolen election is a Vice President who has already sworn himself to the duty of his office (i.e., to confirm Joe Biden as the President-elect). Gin them up further by referring to them as true patriots, telling them to toughen up and show strength, and implying that they alone can save American democracy itself. What do you get as a result of all that?
You get an insurrection.
(And yes, I will repost this as often as is necessary.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "inciting a riot without evidence"
Well, all I see is a protest that spun out of control with no direct influence from Trump.
A protest like many over two years that turned into a riot.
Every time someone calls the capital riot an insurrection: I’ll post this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOtXjfFD3M8
But my video is just peaceful protesting right?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SjVe7usakQ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ_XQxQn-7E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A riot is a riot, no matter the reason. But the events of the 6th of January were an insurrection; the people who stormed the Capitol did so with the intent of disrupting the certification of votes. They attempted to subvert democracy by stopping the process by which Congress would certify Joe Biden as the rightful, lawful, and actual winner of the 2020 presidential election. Some of them even went so far as to chant for the hanging of the sitting Vice President, who was tasked with certifying the vote count and sworn to his duty by the Constitution.
You can throw all the “leftist” riots you want in my face. They’re ultimately irrelevant. Biden didn’t encourage those people to do any of that, explicitly or implicitly. No Democratic politician or pundit did. And none of those riots attempted to stop an election result from being certified.
Martin Luther King Jr. called riots “the language of the unheard”. What were the unheard saying with the riots you bring up? “We’re tired of racial injustice. We’re tired of cops killing Black people with no accountability. We’re so fucking tired of all this bullshit, and nobody in power seems to care.” And as has been pointed out multiple times before (which you have ignored every time), the protests from which those riots spawned were largely peaceful before police intervention. And the riots were not nearly as widespread as you and your conservative brethren want us to think they are. (No, America as a whole was not “burning”. No, entire cities were not “burned to the ground”.)
Contrast that with the unheard of the insurrection. Their message was one of false justice: “Donald Trump won the election! We have to stop the steal! We’re the only people who can save the country from communist social justice attack helicopters!” They rioted because their guy lost fair and square, but their guy had said—for months leading up to the election and basically every day since the election—the election was “stolen”.
As I said before, Trump didn’t have to directly ask his followers to riot. All he needed to do was say “you’re the only people who can stop this bullshit” and gin them up further with language designed to inflame their grievances and make them feel empowered. With that done, he needed only to step aside while the mob he fomented marched on their target—all with his implicit approval.
To this day, Donald Trump continues to tell his Big Lie—the same lie that he told months before the 2020 election, the same lie he trotted out before even the 2016 election(!), the same lie that continues to split the country despite its obviously being a lie (a conclusion with which even you agree). He continues to foment unrest and anger and fear in his cult-like political base; he wants people to think democracy is dead so the GOP can cheat even more—especially if they grab more power in the midterm elections. Donald Trump is a fascist, and without stronger repudiation from the same party that denies Congress even the chance to vote on important legislation such as voting rights bills, the party looks more and more like a party of fascists as well.
And so do his supporters, whose thirst for “liberal” blood—whose longing to inflict suffering upon their political “enemies” regardless of the cost—is driving the creeping fascism of the Republican party and American conservatism in general. Combine that with the long-standing push by the Religious Right to turn America into a Christian theocracy and…well, it’s not hard to see how the GOP is anything but fascist at this point, “moderates” like Liz Cheney notwithstanding.
The events of the 6th of January were an insurrection. Every attempt to whitewash those events as a “riot” or refuse the truth of what the video clearly shows (a violent mob trying to stop democracy in action) is a victory for Donald Trump. Every time you say the insurrection was anything but, you both embolden fascists and deny an actual objective truth.
Don’t be a sucker. Be better than a fascist bootlicker, Lostcause. Call Trump and his cohorts for what they are—fascists—and the insurrection for what it is: a trial run for an actual fascist takeover of the United States government. Modern American conservatives don’t want a president to govern them, Lostcause—they want a king, an emperor, a god to rule over them…and, more important, to make the “other” suffer.
The ouroboros of fascism always eats itself. How long do you think it’ll be before you’re the “other”—an “undesirable”, if you will—in the eyes of those you helped put in power? How long do you think they’ll let you live under their rule?
If that question makes you uncomfortable, too bad. You voted for a fascist. And he’d sooner kill you than thank you if he thought it would put him back in power.
Are you with fascism, or are you against it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ intent of disrupting the certification of votes. They attempted to subvert democracy by stopping the process by which Congress would certify Joe Biden ”
They went with the demand to be heard. It wasn’t right but it wasn’t an attempt to overthrow the government, it was an attempt to demand accountability.
Right or wrong on the belief.
You want to discuss subversion… be cautious with that term. Look at what Texas Democrats just did. They attempted to stop the Democratic process. Is that not the same result by different means?
“ No Democratic politician or pundit did. ”
You almost had a logical thought. But then you went and destroyed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCT2qCBdao8
For a start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn1br0MQFG4
???
Let’s not forget Madonna and her murderous rampage speech.
“ largely peaceful before police intervention”
And as I’ve pointed out that intervention was (almost, can’t say what I don’t know) always warranted.
Be it violence, law, threats….
“And the riots were not nearly as widespread as you and your conservative brethren want us to think they are.“
Just most major cities.
Portland is in ruins.
Chicago’s most historic shopping district was devastated.
Hundred+ year old monuments are destroyed. People are dead.
How many people did the capital rioters kill? Look that up closely.
No what’s the BLM death toll.
You do not address murder, manslaughter, and justified defence, as a group, with hundreds of millions of dollars of destruction and hundreds dead.
Unheard of?
What about June 1873? That riot has a name. The Pensilvania Mutiny.
July 2nd 1915
March 1 1954
July 24 1998
“ Congress”
Is divided.
The “rights” bill is not a solution. It has total disregard to what it can do to weaken security and federalises elections. That would further disenfranchise all the under-18 voters in state elections and local elections by requiring federal rules.
If the dems would actually act American and vote American, like secure the border, not paying ransoms to nuke freaks, and not supporting an environmental group (Paris) that allows the worst to stay the worst.
Not shut down oil and coal until we have actual replacements.
Not create a continuous loop of poverty by raising the taxes on goods and services to the point where the lower income can no longer make it.
I don’t like the religious right. But at the moment they offered a better choice. Who the hell knows who’s running the country today? It’s definitely not Biden. I knew before the election he wouldn’t be the president. Now even the over sappy love puppy CNN can’t hold him together for a town hall while leading him through the answers.
And if the Hillary machine was willing to fix the system to crush someone on her own platform ticket, was she really worthy of office either?
Obama was a beacon of hope in 08. By 12 it was obvious the D machine was crushing his vision.
By 14 there was nothing left that I worked so hard to put into office.
I hope someone worth voting for runs in 24. But I’m not holding my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you realize how many of the Jan 6 domestic terrorists had admitted on video and social media that their reason for being at the capitol was to "overthrow the capital", "overthrow the government" in favor of Trump?
So how can you not call it an attempt to overthrow the government, when the people who actually participated in the insurrection admitted to the very fact that they were there to overthrow the government?
BTW, how's the weather there in LA-LA land, or whatever you call your alternate reality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’ve better things to do after this, so this is my last reply to you.
A not-zero number of insurrectionists literally chanted “hang Mike Pence” while inside the Capitol, likely knowing that a hangman’s gallows waited outside. Mike Pence, then the Vice President, was tasked with certifying the vote counts and the final result of the presidential election. If a violent mob chanting for the hanging of the man tasked with completing the most vital task in American democracy isn’t either an attempt to prevent American democracy from going forward or a threat to make that attempt should they find the Vice President, what the fuck else would you call it.
No. They didn’t leave Texas to subvert American democracy by way of stopping an election from being certified. They left Texas to deny quorum to the Texas legislature so several bills the Texas Democrats felt were bullshit—primarily a voting restrictions bill—couldn’t be passed along partisan lines. I may or may not agree with their tactics, but I sure as shit believe in their intent.
Two things.
He’s right, you know.
Not that I agree with the way she worded what she said, but I agree with the general sentiment: If the system fails the people it’s supposed to serve, people should keep saying the system failed until the system is corrected. And by the by, “confrontational” doesn’t necessarily mean “violent”.
No, it wasn’t. And—as numerous other commenters and I have said before—police intervention in largely peaceful protests were the root cause of those protests turning violent far more often than not. Showing up to a peaceful protest wearing SWAT gear and driving MRAPs is not going to inspire a reaction of “hey, they’re just here to help” from protestors who are protesting against police violence/brutality.
[citation needed]
Really~? The entire city of Portland was burned to the ground, and no one is living there now~? Nothing remains of the whole entire city of Portland, Oregon—absolutely nothing at all whatsoever—except “ruins”~?
I don’t know whether you think I’m intellectually disabled or as gullible as you are. Neither option speaks well of you.
Yes, yes, you’re pissed that property was hurt. We don’t care about your fetish here, fam.
If they were monuments to racists, bigots, and traitors to the United States—i.e., monuments to the Confederacy—I don’t give a fuck. Losers don’t get participation trophies, and bigots don’t deserve monuments. I’ll need a citation for anything else.
How many people died as a direct and attributable cause of the riots you’re talking about? Be specific.
Technically? Zero. Ashley Babbit was killed by Capitol Police while trying to reach members of Congress that the police were protecting. Officer Brian Sicknick died of two strokes, and he died the day after the insurrection. The other three deaths that day were not caused by any direct and intentional actions on the part of the insurrectionists. And two police officers committed suicide after the insurrection.
But here’s the question that’ll gnaw at you tonight: If the insurrection hadn’t happened, how many of those people would still be alive today?
No, the insurrectionists didn’t directly kill anybody. But their actions still led to seven deaths. That nobody can be charged for those deaths is…unsatisfying, but it doesn’t make the insurrection any less violent than it was.
By all means: Tell me exactly how many people are known to have been killed through intentional and direct actions attributable specifically and exclusively to the Movement for Black Lives.
I’ll wait.
Neither is trying to prevent people of color and poor people from voting. But try telling that to the Republicans who keep pushing (and passing!) laws that do exactly that.
And there is one of the telltale signs of an American conservative fascist: the “othering” of those deemed insufficiently unpatriotic.
See, I’ve no doubt that Republicans love America. But they love a fantasy version of it. They love the America where evil immigrants don’t simultaneously take jobs away from “real Americans” and subsist on tons of welfare, where Black people “know their place”, where queers stay in the closet and women stay in the kitchen between pregnancies.
They love the America where slavery was only an oopsie-daisy and racism ended when a Black man was shot in the fucking face. They love the America where the Founding Fathers were demigods instead of bigots, slaveowners, and—verifiably, in the case of Thomas Jefferson—rapists. They love the America where poverty is a moral failing and economic inequality is caused by laziness instead of unregulated capitalistic greed.
Conservatives would absolutely love America if it wasn’t the real America. That’s why they’ve done everything they can to punish the poor and the marginalized while they reward the greedy and the sinful. And anyone who disagrees with their policies—anyone who protests against inequality, who believes immigration and diversity are net positives, who thinks we need to do more to ease suffering rather than increase it—is “un-American”.
That you see Democrats as “un-American” for not going along with the entirety of the Republican/conservative platform is your problem, Lostcause. And by the by, if the Dems did do that, you know what that would make the government? A one-party government. You think shit is bad now? Let conservatives rule the roost without dissent, and you’ll see how much worse things can get.
Democrats don’t generally support raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans. That the wealthiest Americans still find loopholes is both a failing of government in general and the work of Republicans whose own personal greed ultimately drives the party’s reverence of the obscenely wealthy.
Living in a Christian theocracy is a “better” choice than living in a country with religious freedom? What the fuck are you smoking and where the fuck did you buy it from.
I’m sorry to disappoint you, but he is the current sitting President of the United States, regardless of whether you like that fact. (And Biden wasn’t my first choice, either, but he’s still better than another four years of Donald fucking Trump.)
She was still a better option than Trump.
ahahaha, you think the Dems did that shit
No, what crushed his “vision” was Mitch McConnell—who famously said in 2010, after Republicans took control of the Senate, that he would do everything in his power to make Obama a “one-term president”. Mitch failed in doing that, but throughout the back half of Obama’s first term and the entirety of his second term, McConnell and his Republican cronies did everything in their power to stop the Obama agenda from getting anywhere. Democrats didn’t crush the Obama vision—Republicans did, and they did it with brutal efficiency. Hell, you wanna know why Obama had to use so many executive actions after the 2010 midterms—and why Trump largely had to do the same during his term? It was because Congress was, and still is, fucking broken.
No, please, hold your breath until 2024.
I insist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://leakedreality.com/video/6828/rioters-looting-complete-destruction-at-stores-in-minneapolis?c omment_to_load=192234| https://rumble.com/vftlhp-rioters-assault-police-after-vandalizing-monument-in-washington-d.c..html| https://rumble.com/vftlhp-rioters-assault-police-after-vandalizing-monument-in-washington-d.c..html| https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkmxrf| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axgHPbEJ4fw
No, I don’t know. Not as far as I believe.
Police intervention was because they did something in violation of law.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=portland+destruction&FORM=HDRSC2&PC=APPL
“Yes, yes, you’re pissed that property was hurt.”
Did they break the law when they
Damaged property
Broke into stores
Took items from within that property
Set buildings on fire
Set cars on fire
Shot people randomly
Damage historical landmarks that had nothing to do with race?
“Losers don’t get participation trophies, and bigots don’t deserve monuments”
Just because you can only see one aspect of something doesn’t mean all the other’s don’t exist.
Just because you don’t care about all the others doesn’t mean the rest of existence agrees with your narrow blinder tunnel perception.
“how many of those people would still be alive today?”
One, that we can be sure of.
A veteran murdered by a cop for filming the riots from a distant corner.
I guess your happy she got killed? You don’t seam to care if a person isn’t black.
“I’ll wait”
Well more than 1,
https://abcnews.go.com/US/small-town-police-chief-killed-officers-cities-wounded/story?id=71017820
So we’re already over your “insurrection”.
“Neither is trying to prevent people of color and poor people from voting.”
Oh, ID laws.? Yep, stop people who generally have ids from voting by requiring them to verify who they are.
Sure, those IDs should be free. To all. But since the Dems won’t do anything to secure voting further… we have no social aspect in these laws.
“And there is one of the telltale signs “
Such as you call anyone not in total complete agreement with you.
illegal immigrants don’t simultaneously take jobs away from American citizens and legal immigrants and subsist on tons of welfare
“Black people “know their place”,”
What the fuck are you talking about.
“where queers stay in the closet”
Oh, like above, that less than 1% or neo-nazi-Christian-Arian-shites.
Gotcha.
“women stay in the kitchen between pregnancies.”
???
You’ve lost it. Totally mental. Who: …??
“They love the America where slavery was only an oopsie-daisy and racism ended when a Black man was shot in the fucking face. “
That’s same tiny less than 1%. Ohkay.
“They love the America where the Founding Fathers were demigods instead of bigots, slaveowners, and—verifiably, in the case of Thomas Jefferson—rapists. “
..or look at the positives along with the negatives.
Something you yourself said you can’t do.
“They love the America where poverty is a moral failing”
Says who in the last 20 years.
“economic inequality is caused by laziness instead of unregulated capitalistic greed.”
Or, by a method of non-income taxation that slowly inflates the price of living just above the minimum income line call to pay for social services, that more people need to survive the artificial price, that pushes more people over the edge, that raises the price……
“Conservatives would absolutely love America if it wasn’t the real America.”
Agreed! But I’m not a conservative. And the Dems are not saints.
Both parties have their own entrenched way of holding down the bottom.
The right does it with religion, the left with crazed financial systems.
“anyone who protests against inequality,”
Protest, don’t break the law
“who believes immigration and diversity are net positives,”
The vast majority of republicans consider this fact.
Demanding they do so legally makes them racist?
“who thinks we need to do more to ease suffering rather than increase it”
How much could a billion dollar investment do to help the poor? I wonder, but they sent it to a genocidal dictator instead.
“That you see Democrats as “un-American” for not going along with the entirety of the Republican…”
I don’t. You assume that because you care more about finding things “between the line” that doesn’t exist and grouping people into categories based on a single belief, the rest be damned.
I had minimal issue with sanders. Aside from the green new steal most of his platform was sound.
But they handed us a rich white person intent on hurting everyone above the poverty line (except the Uber rich).
It to mention twice supporting genocide. Ukraine (actually kill ethnic Russians) and Iran (wants to kill Jews).
“Democrats don’t generally support raising” … income tax.
Rather they raise sales tax, excise tax, service tax. Anything other than income tax.
The invent city requirements and then charge for complying. Parking. Housing. Etc.
Ever notice how expensive things are in a blue city vs driving 20/30 miles away?
That’s exactly what I’m talking about above.
“but the wealthiest Americans. That the wealthiest Americans still find loopholes is both a failing of government in general …”
And you may want to look at tax law. How many of those loopholes you bring up were passed by Democrats.
The Republicans tend to put forward plans that would, yes, lower taxes across the board, AND close loopholes.
Dems just want higher taxes.
“Living in a Christian theocracy “
We don’t.
“I’m sorry to disappoint you, but he is the current sitting President of the United States”
In name. Not in act.
“She was still a better option than Trump.”
You’re entitled to your opinion, I’m entitled to mine.
“ahahaha, you think the Dems did that shit”
Obama didn’t run on shutting down every fossil file service in the country. He didn’t run on outsourcing jobs with tax credits. He didn’t run on wide open borders. He didn’t run on tax everyone.
“Democrats didn’t crush the Obama vision—Republicans did”
Not without help from entrenched dems.
I blame them, and the figurehead they drove to the top in 16. Not Obama. And not the general Dem or Rep members.
That 16 offered us the same thing 08 did, someone not buried in the Washington muck, and a long time politician?
I insist.
Good. Luckily, I don’t have to abide by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Most of that was instigated or done by people not associated with BLM or didn’t happen until after cops started using force. In particular, most if not all of the BLM protestors were unarmed, so they didn’t shoot people at all.
Also, what monuments are you even talking about?
Furthermore, there is still the question of proportionality.
Uh, what? Where the hell did you get that idea? Also, who are you even talking about?
How exactly does that follow from the article you linked?
You haven’t demonstrated a need to do so. Voter fraud is incredibly rare, never enough to influence election results in the past few decades at least, and that’s the only thing voter ID laws would address.
Voter ID laws were calculated (according to the courts, BTW) to require forms of ID that black and/or poor people were less likely to have, and then make it even harder to get those forms of ID on top of that.
It’s not just the ID laws, either. They make registering for and casting a vote harder in areas with a larger minority population (as well as making it harder for them to get the necessary forms of ID) in a number of ways, like restricting the number of polling places, making places where you can get an ID or register to vote in those areas only open for, like, a few hours every month, restricting voting on Sundays (when black people often vote), and so on.
Instituting these law should be done only after (or at the same time as) making those IDs free and fixing the other mentioned problems.
You clearly haven’t been paying attention to what Republicans and conservatives have been saying. I already know you don’t watch Fox News, which constantly says things like that.
Have you actually read the Green New Deal? Because it’s largely aspirational and mostly intended to mitigate climate change. Unless you deny manmade climate change (which I’m not saying you do), I honestly have no idea why you’d have a problem with it.
[citation needed] both regarding either Hillary or Biden (I don’t know which you’re referring to) being “intent on hurting everyone above the poverty line (except the Uber rich)” and supporting Iran (supporting the Iran Nuclear Deal is not the same as supporting Iran), as well as the claim of Ukraine committing genocide. (Mostly the former.)
Uh, no… That would be the Republicans. Every time Democrats suggest raising taxes, it’s almost exclusively the income tax, primarily for the high-income brackets.
Again, no. Just as many, if not more, of those loopholes were passed by Republicans as Democrats. Additionally, the loopholes Republicans try to close generally don’t affect the rich but the lower-to-middle class. And, again, Democrats generally try to raise and close loopholes for income taxes—primarily on the rich—and other taxes that primarily or solely affect the rich. When they have done otherwise, it’s usually to satisfy Republicans, who generally categorically oppose income taxes and taxes on the rich. The one exception in the past decade or so I can think of is the individual mandate for the ACA, which was only applied to those who both can afford it and either don’t have health insurance or get it through the ACA, and 100% of the funds from that were earmarked to fund the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Fossil fuels:
No one was saying to shut them down immediately. At most, it was just to phase them out. It’s also worth noting that Obama increased fossil fuel regulations while in office and signed the Paris Climate Agreement.
Outsourcing jobs with tax credits:
That happened well before Obama. In fact, I can’t recall Obama or the Dems doing that during Obama’s presidency. I do recall Republicans (and probably some Democrats) proposing and passing such a bill that was signed by George W. Bush, though…
Wide-open borders:
Literally no US politician has ever so much as suggested such a thing or attempted to push such an agenda. This is flat-out false.
Tax everyone
Again, that is not something that Dems have pushed for, either. Raising taxes on the rich? Yes. Closing tax loopholes (which are mostly used by the rich)? Yes. Raising taxes for everyone? No.
So, basically, all of those were either things done primarily or solely by Republicans, not Democrats, a gross exaggeration, or flat-out false.
“I’m sorry to disappoint you, but he is the current sitting President of the United States”
In name. Not in act.
Uhhh, what? He’s personally pushed/been pushing for the infrastructure bill (including the taxes within), the pandemic stimulus, right-to-repair, and protections for voting rights and been personally involved in negotiations regarding those bills. He’s also signed a number of executive orders. While exactly two of the Dems (Sinema and Manchin) and basically the entire Republican Party have been stymieing his efforts to get most of the bills passed, I fail to see how he is not the current sitting POTUS “in act”.
Also, a lot of what you questioned came from a hypothetical America that Trump supporters and/or Republicans (allegedly) dream of. It was not intended as a description of America as it is now or even as it actually was under Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On voting: I really wish the Dems would use their ability to negotiate rather than walk away.
I’m not fond of making it harder to GET an ID.
Quite the opposite, I want everyone to have one, for free.
Keep in mind nearly all countries require id to vote.
US elections are now at the point where they are so close fraud can swing an election.
“ Have you actually read the Green New Deal?”
Considering it’s more than a ‘the’ and actual umami different ‘thes’. And my biggest problem with it is it sets goals with no backing to get there.
If you want to make radical change you need to have radical setup to do so properly.
On climate: my stance for most of my voting life has been ‘show proof’.
Starting 6 years ago we are now seeing proof from Siberia and Alaska, in the form of core pulls that place carbon levels outside of natural explanation.
So yes, evidence now is in favour of man made global warming—enough so to to take it from hypothesis to full theory.
This is the point where we discuss solutions.
Hillary’s voting record for tax plans stamped every plan that created new loopholes. Any plan that gives more outs to the top 10% hurts the bottom 50% in social funding.
Her support of the Ukrainian government is a rubber stamp of their slaughter of Russian ethnics in the ongoing civil war.
“ supporting the Iran Nuclear Deal is not the same as supporting Iran”
It is handing a billion dollars of US funds to a company that wants to wipe a neighbour off the map. In the most violent way possible. With no way for the US to monitor the restrictions directly.
Democrats have a tendency to support raising income taxes with loopholes in the plan. Democratic cities quickly raise local taxes and fees nearly every time it happens.
Obama
I didn’t say “ immediately”. He had a plan (in general) to replace them.
“ Obama increased fossil fuel regulations while in office and signed the Paris Climate Agreement.”
The former I agree with, the latter I do not.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFoi_leYDw
During the early period she pushed that boarders were xenophobic.
She’s softened her stance since.
And it’s nice to see the VP tell people to stop flooding over illegally.
“Uhhh, what?”
I’m not going to keep going around with you, and others, on the Dementia issue.
Reading from a script he does just fine.
Take away to script and he’s confused and lost.
I’ve spent my whole life in a family where dementia is genetic on both sides. I don’t need a degree to see it. I live with it.
Biden has dementia.
So who is writing the script/speeches? That’s the person behind the curtain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They tried that. Republicans were unwilling to do so. We can argue about the Texas Dems walking away, but I was under the impression that we were being more broad than that.
But until then, Voter ID laws should not be put into effect. The Texas law in particular actually makes this harder, by the way. It’s not just Voter ID.
Yes, but they also provide those IDs for free as a matter of course. We don’t. Unless and until we address that difference, what other countries do is irrelevant.
Nnnnnoooooppppppeeee!
You seriously don’t understand how rare voter fraud is, do you? It’s around 0.00006% (1 in 1 2/3 million votes) nationwide.
Keep in mind that the population of the US—including nonvoters—is around 330 million. 0.00006% of that is 198. Considering that most of that population is not registered to vote, and voter turnout proportional to the number of registered voters is rather low, the actual number of fraudulent votes would be significantly lower. Let’s say the number of votes cast is 2/3 the population (which is definitely higher than the actual). This would mean 132 fraudulent votes nationwide. How many elections are decided by a margin less than or equal to that? Outside of local elections in very small towns, not many.
It’s also worth noting that swing states and the states currently pushing restrictions on voting have lower rates of fraud than the nationwide average, anyways.
So no, US elections are not so close that there is any real chance of voter fraud having any real effect on the results. Even the close elections that get a recount have a wider margin than that.
So, you oppose setting nonbinding goals before trying to reach those goals? I fail to see the problem.
I’d say we had pretty good evidence earlier than that, but I would certainly agree that the evidence has been pretty clear for several years, and we should discuss solutions.
I would say that proposing goals, followed by determining how best to reach those goals, is a reasonable start. Since many people have been denouncing the goals, I don’t see any real chance of concrete steps being more successful.
You keep going between Hillary, Obama, the squad, Texas Dems, and the Democratic Party, generally talking about the individuals and then putting that belief on everyone else in the party.
Anyways, you found one Dem who created new loopholes. This says nothing about the general stance of the party.
I know nothing about Hillary supporting Ukraine, a genocide by Ukraine, or a civil war (outside the one that only began because Russia unilaterally annexed part of Ukraine).
Where do I even begin with this one?
Those weren’t US funds. They were Iranian funds that we were withholding.
We did have a way to monitor whether or not Iran was complying with restrictions. In fact, we were actually doing so. And the fact of the matter is that until, Trump unilaterally pulled out of the deal, they were in full compliance.
The whole point of the deal is to prevent them from wiping that neighbor off the map for as long as possible through peaceful means. It’s not much, but it’s better than nothing at all.
[citation needed]
Which was inevitable one way or another. If man-made climate change is a real thing (and you seem to agree that it is), we’re going to have to replace them eventually. We’re also going to have to replace them eventually either way simply because they are finite, nonrenewable resources. Having a general plan to gradually replace them with more eco-friendly and renewable resources shouldn’t be an issue in that case.
And what’s the problem with the Paris Climate Agreement?
Okay… She’s talking about refugees. And she’s also right that it’s not a crime. It’s a civil law issue, not a criminal one. And she’s talking about the family-separation issue. She’s not pushing for open borders.
That is not supported by the video you presented.
Okay.
Technically, it’s primarily about refugees, which are not illegal, but again, this doesn’t support your point that Dems support open borders. You didn’t even present evidence that shows that AOC does.
You keep bringing this up, and you never present evidence for this claim, so please do stop.
He’s always been like that, at least as far as speaking goes. That’s not dementia. He’s had a speech impediment (among other things) since he was a kid. It acts up more when speaking in front of a crowd without a script. It is in no way reflective of his cognitive abilities; just his ability to speak. This is well-known, publicly-available information.
It’s also no worse than Trump was, so I fail to see your point.
Guess what: so do I. And yet what I see in Biden isn’t dementia. So, clearly, living your “whole life in a family where dementia is genetic on both sides” and “liv[ing] with it” aren’t enough to definitively determine whether or not some public person you don’t know personally actually has dementia. Maybe we should leave such determinations to people with the training and experience to make such determinations. Maybe—and I’m just spitballing here—someone with a degree in psychiatric care or something?
No, he does not.
So, a couple of problems with this.
First, as I’ve said, this is not a new thing for Biden. He often would write his own scripts ahead of time to stay on track. He likely still does.
Second, every President in modern history has had an official speechwriter. I believe their identities are a public record, so you could probably find out who this person is if you really wanted to. But regardless, I bring this up because you clearly don’t understand how speechwriting actually works. They don’t come up with them on their own. Generally, the President and possibly some advisors give the speechwriter a list of points to cover, they write a speech, and then there’s some back-and-forth over it before it’s actually read from in public.
Third, this only applies to speeches. As I’ve noted before, Biden has done things besides public speech. He’s also done private negotiations with people in Congress and foreign leaders and written and signed executive orders.
Fourth, everything he’s said in his speeches is perfectly consistent with things he’s said long before anyone even considered or alleged that he had dementia. No reason to suspect that they aren’t things he’d say without someone else writing his speeches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“But until then, Voter ID laws should not be put into effect.”
Why not do them at the same time?
“You seriously don’t understand how rare voter fraud is”
You really don’t understand how much easier some of these left laws would make it, do you?
“330”, we’ll, 320 which makes your token number even smaller.
Yesterday doesn’t equate to tomorrow.
“So, you oppose setting nonbinding goals before trying to reach those goals?”
I oppose setting binding mandates. I oppose reduction in ability without replacement.
I oppose cap and trade that lets China etc make no changes at all.
I oppose stupidity in process, grandstanding, and ignorant plans that don’t look at reality.
“Since many people have been denouncing the goals”
That’s just it though. How many people, at the National government level, Trump or today, are actually against the goals?
I flop around because anti-Republicans here keep lumping everyone who voted for trump into the q group.
So if that’s the rule of the game I’m just fine with pointing out individual activities.
Clinton because I not only refuse to vote for her, but because I am so against her I’d vote for nearly anyone with a chance to win over her.
I’m not complaining about Obama. I have my dislikes with some of what he did but I was a strong supporter and campaign volunteer twice.
Even what I don’t like I don’t blame him.
Democratic Party, because the implicit need to categorise, group, and force association. If all trump voters are q for not individually, 150million people, disowning them, then all dems are the squad for not individually, 150mil people disowning them.
Etc etc.
The Texas dems just happen to be the latest act of subverting democracy.
“This says nothing about the general stance of the party.”
No, it doesn’t. I’m glad at least you can separate person from group from party.
“Russia unilaterally annexed part of Ukraine”
It’s far more complicated than that. But the Ukrainian government has been crushing the area’s majority Russian population for a long time. That moved to exterminating anyone who resisted.
Russia’s involvement in supporting a Russian population being slaughtered may not be the most politically correct action. But it was the moral high road. Of sorts.
The entire situation there is far more involved than anything we could debate here reasonably. But this goes back decades.
“They were Iranian funds that we were withholding.”
Held because Iran is a supporter of terrorism. Among other issues.
And we, the US, we’re specifically excluded from inspections. As far as what I’ve read.
“[citation needed]”
https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/bacp/sbc/tax_information.html
Not to mention this is on top of sales tax which is on top of item taxes.
Take a bottle of water. You have the food and beverage tax, the beverage/bottle tax, and the bottled water tax. That is all combined and then charged a sales tax on the item total.
Sales tax at the city, county, and state levels.
Buy that bottle at a private location, say, a theatre, hosting a free show? Add the entertainment and amusement taxes.
I could literally print a book on this crap.
“Having a general plan to gradually replace them with more eco-friendly and renewable resources shouldn’t be an issue in that case.”
No it shouldn’t. Setting binding dates and starting shutdowns without anything in place should be.
“And what’s the problem with the Paris Climate Agreement”
It’s total lack of ability. Cap and trade. Inconsistent state goals.
“Technically, it’s primarily about refugees, which are not illegal”
Crossing our boarder anywhere other than a point of entry is a violation of our sovereignty. A criminal act. And not negated by the reason for doing so.
“You didn’t even present evidence that shows that AOC does.”
A matter of record… but that involves digging back through years of videos.
“You keep bringing this up, and you never present evidence for this claim, so please do stop.”
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=biden+dementia&FORM=HDRSC3&PC=APPL
https://www .bing.com/videos/search?q=biden+confused&FORM=AWVR
“He’s had a speech impediment “
There’s a difference between a speech impediment and cognitively not remembering what you were discussing mid sentence.
There’s a difference between that and not knowing what the question was halfway through the answer.
And the rest: if, Biden has dementia, which I believe, and is in the situation where he is not conducting the government affairs himself alone, which I believe is possible, the question is who is.
And, I’m using dementia generically for many dozens of age and genetic conditions that develop into cognitive inconsistencies. I didn’t believe grabbing my relatives’ medical books was the best choice for discussion. Terminology of the DSM and PDMA is a bit heavy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t have a problem with that, but Republicans have not only prevented such changes but made it actually harder to get compliant IDs. In my mind, “unless and until” means “not before”; doing both at the same time is fine.
There are no new laws being put into place that would make it easier.
My point was to overestimate the amount of fraud significantly to show that that would still be insignificant.
Public policy shouldn’t be based on idle speculation. And barring some change to voting laws that make fraud more likely (which is not going to happen), there is zero reason to believe that voter fraud will be more likely tomorrow than it was yesterday.
Which is not in the Green New Deal or Paris Climate Accord, so that’s irrelevant.
Again, the Green New Deal proposes replacement.
You clearly didn’t read these things, huh? Nor did you pay attention to what actually happened. China voluntarily made more changes than they had agreed to (one of the few things I’ll give China credit for). They also did a better job of cutting their carbon footprint than we did.
Look, you clearly couldn’t be bothered to read either of the things you’re complaining about, because none of what you just said are actually problems that they have rather than what Republicans claim that they do.
Both the Green New Deal and the Paris Climate Accord are nonbinding. All they do is set goals and allow for us to choose how to meet those goals. That’s it. There isn’t even any punishment for failing to meet those goals. The PCA even let individual nations choose their own goals. And, as I said, China’s goals were more ambitious than ours. So, again, I have no idea why you have a problem here.
A lot of them. Seriously, you need to pay more attention to what people say.
Okay, but I’m not one of them.
And I still don’t understand why, but fine. For the record, that’s how we feel about Trump.
Agreed.
And here you lose me. You’re now attributing to the group the characteristics of a few, which you just agreed not to do.
First, I’ve already explained that I’m talking about official actions by leaders of the party with respect to elected officials in the federal government. You have also failed to make a reasonable equivalence between the likes of MTG and the likes of AOC. You’ve made broad assertions and one specific assertion that wasn’t backed up by the evidence you provided, but that’s it.
You haven’t alleged any other instances of that, so you haven’t established that this is a pattern.
It goes far beyond political correctness, and I dispute the “moral high ground”. If that was the case, make it an independent nation.
Nope! It was actually because they had dethroned the America-friendly dictator in charge, so we refused to let them have access to their funds! Sure, we have excused keeping them as because Iran is a supporter of terrorism, but then, so is Saudi Arabia. We haven’t exactly been consistent on that, really.
At any rate, the point is that, contrary to your claim, they weren’t US funds. We never had a legitimate claim to them at all. We just had physical possession of them.
Even if true, I don’t see a problem with that. Do you not trust our allies in Europe (among others) to do a sufficient job? Why should the US have to have direct access?
The Chicago taxes are a bad example as they are notoriously corrupt. I won’t say that they aren’t Democrats, but they aren’t reflective of Democrats elsewhere.
Well, since that was never the plan, I fail to see a problem.
Again, I don’t know what you’re talking about. None of that’s actually there.
Legally, crossing the border anywhere other than a point of entry is a violation of civil law, not criminal law, and is thus not a criminal act. And it is absolutely a defense to such an allegation to be seeking refugee status. So you’re just flat out wrong here from a legal standpoint. You may not agree that that should be the law, but I’m just saying what the law is.
And until you provide such evidence, I have zero reason to believe that.
As for the dementia stuff,
Presenting full lists of search results is not presenting evidence. Most of that is entirely consistent with what I’ve already said.
I said a speech impediment among other things. The point is that he is acting no differently now from how he did then, and no one accused him of dementia or anything like that until around 2019.
You still haven’t demonstrated that he has dementia, which means that your very first condition is questionable at best.
You say that it’s possible that Biden isn’t conducting the government affairs alone. I’ll go so far as to say he definitely isn’t because no President ever has. It doesn’t mean there is someone directing him or anything like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I welcome you to toss up video links of Biden from the 2000s the 90s. The 80s, etc.
Not withstanding you’ll have the same issue I do finding a single situation out of 10^99:1 hours of video… i always thought him a decent speaker for someone both with a historical stutter and a bit of public speaking phobia.
I don’t recall him ever being lost halfway through an answer.
Or ever calling the VP the president. Or ever mixing up years. Or ever asking what am I “” reading, doing, signing. Where am I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m not even sure if we have video evidence from that far back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even so, who really cares? Obama's tendency to pause and say "erm" while speaking was attacked as some kind of issue by the right wing, but all it really seemed to indicate was that he was thinking about what he was saying. I don't see evidence that people need to be worried about Biden because he's doing a somewhat similar thing while trying to convince a divided nation to obey basic common sense recommendations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"i always thought him a decent speaker for someone both with a historical stutter and a bit of public speaking phobia"
Good for you.But, your subjective opinion of his current speaking isn't really irrelevant, especially when compared to Trump's track record. At least Biden is capable of delivering a speech without going into random tangents about TV ratings and off-the-cuff remarks that result in staffers immediately rushing to say he didn't really mean what he just said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So out of six claims in that sentence, you got three right (veteran, cop, riot). Not a passing grade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ok. She’s white so it wasn’t murder. Dems sure that term around a lot every time a black suspect is killed.
She had her cell phone out.
She was still in a corner. What thh the video.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/woman-shot-during-capitol-riots-named-as-us-air-force-vet eran-ashli-babbitt/ar-BB1cxZfl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The killing was legal, so it wasn't murder.
Was she taking video with it?
Your video shows her on the floor after being shot. This video shows her fall from where she was trying to climb through the door. She was not standing in a corner far from the action.
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/capitol-shooting-that-led-to-ashli-babbitt-s-death-captured-on -video-99180613572
Here's another angle.
https://wjla.com/news/local/graphic-fatal-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-in-the-capitol-caught-on- video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, that makes it look even worse from that angle.
She’s still in the corner, technically. I haven’t seen that angle.
She’s not bursting through the barricade. She’s behind them. Again, apparently filming.
This angle l, both videos, makes it look like they shot the wrong person.
But I remind you BLM doesn’t make a separation in police shootings. They’re all murder.
Again it’s how many people died directly during or from the capital riot. We’re at one.
Imzthe first one up to say lethal force is overused. Regardless of suspect race.
Just head over to the various body cam channels on YouTube to understand that.
Most are clearly “justified” but I’d say more than half could have been solved without shooting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know what video you were looking at, but there was nobody between her and the door when she was shot.
Where did they state that? If that is actually what they said and not paranoid delusion, then they're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the angle you posted she was a good 5 feet or more away. Not part of the group breaking in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have literally no idea how you could come to that conclusion from watching that video, unless you're looking at the wrong person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's a raging moron, with a long track record of inventing reality when the evidence is against him.
Nothing about this thread is surprising, except for how racists he's announced himself to be. I knew he was a Murdoch sucking, Trump voting idiot who can't bear verifiable reality when there's a cozy fiction nearby, but his racism here did surprise me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny. I point out multiple times how BLM and DTP movements fail to sort out the few bad form mostly good police.
I point out how the movement over all does little to dissuade or disown violence and crime in its ranks.
All while demanding police do.
If you (the movement) want support don’t be a hypocrite.
Where’s the BLM leaders disavowing the “thugs” among them?
Where do they stand up against their own criminal element?
I disagree with how the movement is going about it’s push.
That doesn’t make me racist, it makes me rational.
I’m not going to listen to ‘criminal cops’ from ‘criminal protestors’ rioters.
You loose your moral ground when you turn to criminal methods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Funny. I point out multiple times how BLM and DTP movements fail to sort out the few bad form mostly good police"
Yes, because that's essentially meaningless. If the "good" cops are putting up with, or even rewarding, the bad cops, then they're all bad. That's why the protests started, remember - unarmed people being murdered and the murderers being let off or even promoted?
The saying is not "meh, it's just a few bad apples, let them sit". It's "a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel". They've allowed the rot to spread, and are actively defending it.
"Where’s the BLM leaders disavowing the “thugs” among them?"
Pretty much everywhere, though you likely haven't been spoon fed the information by your favoured sources and you have rejected every other source outright. But, unlike the police, BLM is not a centralised organisation with rules for joining.
https://apnews.com/article/police-brutality-us-news-ap-top-news-wa-state-wire-portland-96be 8a461ab0f3886fc1723607c926e7
https://kutv.com/news/local/utah-black-lives-matter-leaders-condemn-vio lence-and-vandalism-at-protests
...and many more examples if you search for them. It's really not hard to find lots of stories where they do this, you just won't see Tucker Carlson admit it.
"I’m not going to listen to ‘criminal cops’ from ‘criminal protestors’ rioters."
Or from people who aren't part of either group, apparently.
"You loose your moral ground when you turn to criminal methods."
It's "lose", and your strawman building is as bad as ever. I know it's easier for you to invent a fictional version of people to attack, but it won't work.
Also, there are not mutually exclusive arguments. A person does not have to be a saint in order to say that American cops are way out of line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One example?
And “ Destroying property and setting fires cannot be your only activism.”
Doesn’t help.
I am glad to see someone stand up against the rioting though.
“ you just won't see Tucker Carlson admit it.”
And that means what to me? I made it clear I can’t stand the FNC talking heads.
“ it's easier for you to invent a fictional version of people to attack”
Every time a protest turns violent and commits illegal acts, those that care about the law will look unfavourably on the movement.
Complaining about illegality whilst committing illegal acts is the ultimate hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"One example?"
I picked the first two results from a Google search, so I apologise if I didn't catch something or repeated the story. That was lazy research, I just wanted to point out that it has happened.
But, there's plenty out there. This is just the same argument people use on a lot of other subjects, usually from the right wing. "Why don't muslims decry terrorism" - 10 seconds searching shows hundreds of examples of them doing exactly that, but it's easier for some to pretend that it didn't happen because Fox didn't run the headline.
But, even that's beside the point. The only qualification for being a "BLM protestor" is to carry something saying BLM, or even just to be in a crowd during a protest. That's rather different to being employed by a police force. The bad cops were selected to work for the department, and are often shielded from consequences when they do something wrong. That's nothing like a "BLM protestor", who only needs to stand on a certain spot at a certain time to get given the label. Whataboutism doesn't change this fact.
"And that means what to me? I made it clear I can’t stand the FNC talking heads."
You favour news from the same source, even if you dislike the people employed to deliver it in one format. Murdoch's talking points tend to be the same whatever the format.
"Every time a protest turns violent and commits illegal acts, those that care about the law will look unfavourably on the movement."
Yes, which is why they're vulnerable to "false flag" stuff. I won't go full Alex Jones here, but if you have hundreds of protestors and one guy in the crowd throws a Molotov, the effect is there even if nobody else in the crowd agreed with his actions. Because there's no necessary collaboration between protestors other than gathering on the same spot, it's relatively easy to disrupt if motivated. Unless something changes so that there's some actual membership requirements and centralised management, all you need to do to discredit them is wave a BLM flag while you break stuff.
"Complaining about illegality whilst committing illegal acts is the ultimate hypocrisy."
Yes and no. I can criticise Jeffrey Dahmer for murder even as I'm sitting in a cell for shoplifting. I can say that Escobar was a criminal even if I'm saying it while in court for dealing coke. One thing does not make the other thing invalid, even if it does affect direct credibility.
But, the problem is you just attacked people who did neither, because it was easier for you to pretend they did. There's a lot of people criticising police who are not part of BLM, and lots of people who are part of BLM who have not committed any crime. The existence of bad actors on the BLM side does not absolve bad cops, or the "good" cops who protect them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ Why don't muslims decry terrorism”
They do. Despite your refusal to accept my own statement I’m not right wing. Or Republican.
“ You favour news from the same source”
I’d invite you to actually try looking at the news feed. Which, while it includes FNC headlines (that I usually skip as they’re opinion pieces) also includes over 100 affiliates, who have full editorial control and we’re grandfather in in the Murdoch takeover.
And the existence of a few bad Cops does not exonerate BLM supports who commit acts of looting and arson. Nor those who stand up for them.
Police have been calling out bad cops for decades. The top result for “cops say bad cops bad name” is a series of 2004 articles.
When you push past the BLM stuff that follows you find many many many stories and interviews and statements by police calling out the ‘bad cop’ issues.
I myself pointed out, just a few posts back, that there’s definitely something lopsided in the use of deadly force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They do."
You do seem to have deliberately missed the point, as usual.
"I’d invite you to actually try looking at the news feed."
I'd rather look at reliable sources. If I have to curate their new feed to filter out ridiculous propaganda, they're not reliable, and better sources are capable of the same quality journalism you claim they have elsewhere. The fact that you personally chose to ignore 95% of national and 100% of international sources does not change my view.
"And the existence of a few bad Cops does not exonerate BLM supports who commit acts of looting and arson."
Nobody said it did - you're the only one trying to conflate things from what I'm seeing. The fact is - anyone can be a "BLM protester" if someone wants to pretend that they are, even if their actions suggest otherwise, and nobody can do anything about that label once someone decides to pretend that the actions of that person was somehow sanctioned by the majority. It's illegal to pretend to be a cop.
"Police have been calling out bad cops for decades. "
Until it comes to taking action, in which case bad cops are regularly prevented from being fired, or even forced to be rehired, by the organisations representing the "good" cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, that’s not fair. Sometimes they do try to take action and get fired over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they're lucky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He attributes the actions of the same extreme-right terrorists that attacked the capitol (the boogaloo bois), who were the ones setting fire to police stations and attacking cops in the hopes of provoking race war, on BLM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have zero chance of me believing Republicans burnt anything during the nation wide riots without a court record of conviction.
Your ranting hatred is clearly the left wing version of the q fucks you don’t like.
Maybe if you stoped acting like a spoiled 2yo when people don’t bow down and worship the ground you and your like walk on, we, the non-2-party bloc, may be more open looking at something.
Because people like you, vile, militantly angry, the pure hatred for anyone not lock step to you… you scare me.
You check every profile box for someone who is set to do something violent in response to being ignored.
If you had pointed to the montage on daily motion up front that clearly shows her attempt to climb in the window when she was executed instead of lier lier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's only no conviction yet because the case appears to still in process as fat as I can tell, projector:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo-boi-minneapolis-police-build ing-george-floyd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You use anti government anarchists, who aren’t even collectively racist, as an example of republicans?
These aren’t Republicans of any sort. Nor any sort of pro trump supporters. They’re anarchists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogaloo_movement
Nice. What? Was I not supposed to look it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you expect nobody to scroll up and see your strawman for what it is?
Either that, or you are saying Republicans are extreme-right terrorists.
Your own wikipedia link, its very first sentence describes the boogaloo bois as far-right extremists, but you left that part out because you're fundamentally dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“… but you left that part out because you're fundamentally dishonest.”
I left that out because the American far right has very little to do with Republicans.
The American far right, generally, want’s nothing to do with government at all,l: the vast
Majority looking to destroy or dismantle it completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Liar. She was crouched in the smashed-out window frame of the door when she got shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Long video of ther terrorist attack, creation of a Good Nazi at 35:06:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfiS8MsfSF4
Split-screen video showing more angles of the moment that security guard became the hero that saved the day:
https://youtu.be/_UydxYukou8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, it took me half an hour to find a video that clearly shows it.
Yes, you are apparently correct, a rare occurrence.
So it like it’s, in actuality, another misuse of deadly force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More demented delusions frim you. A never-ending occurrence.
Not in any way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She was breaking into the interior of the capital as part of a violent mob. Deadly force was completely justified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow.
We, as in me and the majority, agree in general:
When a criminal runs at a cop with a machete, we a taser is the best choice.
When a crazed loon speeds his car backwards into a cruiser on a safety check a taser is warranted,
When a suspect refuses to show their hands a taser is warranted.
Do you really think she couldn’t have been stopped with a taser? A bean bag shell. Rubber pellets. A quick shove with a body shield?
For all the options a deadly round kill shot?
Ask two questions:
Was there a better option?
Would I be just as comfortable with deadly force if she had be Black, Asian, Indian, Anyone other than a white trump supporter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you know if the officer had any of those things with him? If so, then yes I would say a taser would have been a good option. At that range, I'm not sure about the others. I don't know that much about bean bag or rubber rounds. I didn't see any sign that he had a shield with him, and at any rate that would have put him in range of the angry mob. I wouldn't blame anyone for not using that option even if it were available.
It's telling that you think everyone considers race a significant concern in such matters. I hope that most people do not, and don't care about the races of the police officer or victim when deciding whether a killing was justified. I certainly try not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet the anti-police movement is “black lives matter”
When someone says all lives
Matter it’s declared racist.
A beanbag round from that distance would likely have been permanently damaging if not fatale. But at least you can say they tried not to kill her.
Let’s backtrack here. Completely outside of party politicking.
You know there’s a rally and a plan for a protest March, ending at the capital. So they SHOULD have been readily supplied with the ‘typical’ crowd control devices.
Tear gas, pepper gas, CS.
Tasers, shields, clubs.
They should have had dispersement rounds.
Rubber shot, bean bag slugs.
They should have kept them out of the building, or at the most in the lobby. A single canister of CS would have cleared the lobby in 15-30 seconds.
For all the complaints about excessive force, there’s stunningly little over this at all.
Given the outrage over much more dangerous people being shot on video by police than a woman climbing through broken glass…?
Like a girl being shot as she’s about to stab someone in a neck.
But it’s racial because she was black.
Or the machete maniac who comes flying out of a room at full sprint. But it’s racial because he’s Mexican.
Or the man holding the knife to his girlfriend’s throat. But it’s racial because he’s Asian.
Or here, based on a dozen plus videos now, a lady trying to climb through the glass window of a door in no position to hurt, let alone kill, anyone.
None of these needed lethal force.
But I am pointing out where’s the outrage here?
Someone is dead and the police did it.
Someone is dead that could have been stopped by any number of less than lethal methods.
Hell, in that position just shove her back through! Didn’t look like she had a prayer to make it anyway.
Yes, I was wrong about her position. I believed it was the guy in the stay-puff style jacket that was climbing through. In fact I thought she was short from the stairs, not from the front.
Finding the truth here today actually makes me more angry about the shooting. He looked her in the face and fired point blank.
Regardless of the reason for being there, such a response was more lethal than necessary.
In each of these cases outlined. And in nap many others.
Don’t turn your head and ignore it becau You disagree with the circumstances. Police kill too many people. That’s a period statement.
Doesn’t matter who’s dead. They shouldn’t be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BLM isn't anti-police, it's anti-police brutality.
That's because it's only said in opposition to "black lives matter". It's a dog whistle, because people saying it know they can't get away with saying "black lives don't matter" in public.
Yes. There were a lot of things that should have happened that day and didn't.
Because there wasn't any excessive police force that day.
The lead individual in an armed mob storming the seat of government with apparent murderous intent. I am not going to let you make out like it was just some random window she was climbing through, or why she was there that day.
I ask again if you are aware of the non-lethal means that officer had at his disposal at that time?
I ignore nothing. This was a terrible and avoidable event, but the police officer is not the one at fault.
That's right. Hopefully others take note and don't take part in an insurrection if there's ever another possibility of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With murderous intent?
You can feel free to believe what you want.
Ignoring what he should have had, if he did not, a simple push. His own arms. Would have been less deadly.
There’s not much I can do if you simply reject the parallels.
Angry mob of people yelling and chanting.
Approaching police and civilians.
Deadly force isn’t the choice solution.
It doesn’t matter what group is where they don’t belong. It doesn’t matter what group is breaking the law. It doesn’t matter what group is angry for what reason.
If your to blind to see the only difference between cities around the country and the capital is what they were angry about then there’s nothing anyone can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't have to believe me; the rioters were chanting about killing people.
To her, yes. There's no telling what would have happened to the police officer if he had gotten close enough to do that. While attacking other officers, the mob was chanting things like "kill him with his gun". Thankfully that didn't happen, but I would say it would be downright stupid to get within arm's reach of those people if it were avoidable.
Hopefully it's a last resort. Too often that isn't the case, but I don't know what other options this officer had available. By your continued refusal to answer, I must conclude that you do not either.
If there was another riot where rioters were breaking into a building the police were defending, and an officer shot one of them, I would defend that shooting too. Was there? If not, then it wasn't "the only difference".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Honestly I’d say cops in general should follow my personal method.
I chamber three rounds per, a 20 inch 8gg double shotgun and a 45 grip feed pistol.
Salt, rubber pellets, live round.
Know who else uses that, and where I learned it? Secured bases in the us military.
You can chamber a 45 shell in 8-12 gage shotguns with a paper casing. I believe flange is the correct term but I just call it what it is, thick cardboard tube. The army calls it a TCT.
Slat is painful as hell, has a wide dispersal, and has consistently outperformed all other choices for simple dissuasion .
If the person is on stimulants, and is still coming at you a 180-220pt shell of rubber shot takes care of most of the rest.
And finally, they they’re still coming simply aim for the knee.
With military and federal experience, I never did understand kill first in civilian settings.
In this case, honestly, what were they going to do? Beat you to death with Brochures?
Girl can’t get through the damn window. He shot her in the face point blank (hyperbole).
And best this is a poorly trained officer without the correct tools for the position.
At worst this is a stupid cop who made a stupid overaction that cost a woman her life.
Let me make a few things clear hear.
I 100% support police.
I think they need more funding, not less.
I believe from experience on their side of the devise that they need more realistic, less military, training.
Let me give you a personal example1
I spent time in HK, some years back, working with an SED officer who is today still a close friend.
They used a similar methodology.
The first round was a blank. The second a plastic slug.
You see all the time from the likes of MSNBCNN and Wafool and the likes, complaints of police trains like military.
Believe me. Or don’t.
Given what I can see form the multiple videos, me reaction would be to shove her back through.
I have no intent to kill. If your a kid with enough explosive to level 10 blocks or a ‘patriot’ or a protester.
Police need to be trained to not kill at first instinct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People need to be trained to not try climbing into an area where members of Congress are being protected by armed police during a violent insurrection.
Because that’s why Ashley Babbitt died. She wasn’t shot for “filming” the riot. She wasn’t shot because she was merely standing in a specific area. She was shot because, during a violent riot where hundreds of people stormed the Capitol to disrupt the functions of American democracy, she tried to get past a barricaded entryway that was right in front of where several members of Congress were being kept safe from the riot.
I don’t fault the officer who shot Ashley Babbitt for his reaction. I fault her for making a series of poor decisions that ultimately led to her death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is it with you. You can’t leave well enough alone?
You get to sit back and watch as the truth implodes my view of the situation?
It’s quite clear from the less shown footage that she was in the wrong.
But
You have to go and show that you don’t care about a white, Republican, female, veterans’s life.
One more dead trump supporter, good riddance. Right?
But she didn’t need to die. Any and every police encounter that results in loss of life should be saddening.
It’s quite clear you don’t care as long as ‘those people’ are at the end of the barrel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m not happy about Ashley Babbitt dying. I didn’t celebrate her death, as you might want to imply that I did. Hell, I would send my condolences to her family for their loss if I believed that would be worth doing.
That said: Nobody held a gun to her head or otherwise forced her to do any of the things she did that day. She chose to do those things of her own free will. I lack sympathy for her because she alone made the decisions that ultimately led to her death—decisions that she might not have made were it not for the drug that is Trumpism.
Ashley Babbitt didn’t die because she was a white woman. Ashley Babbitt didn’t die because of police brutality—because of an overuse of force, lethal or otherwise, in response to a given situation. Ashley Babbitt died because she willingly made a bunch of bad decisions, the last of which was trying to reach members of Congress during a violent riot. I take no pleasure in any of that, despite what you might think; her death isn’t something to celebrate.
But I do take pleasure in, as you put it, watching the truth implode your worldview. I do so only because it has been a sincere pleasure to see you finally confront facts that don’t validate your worldview, fellate your biases, and make you feel like you’re smarter than everyone else because you have some sort of super-duper-secret info that the rest of us idiots have overlooked.
Having your worldview challenged makes you feel like shit—as well it should. It means you’re being forced to confront your own biases and preconceived notions. You’re being made to justify those biases, to work out whether they’re legitimate or bullshit. That isn’t supposed to make you feel good all the time. It’s supposed to make you feel like shit whenever you get it wrong so you don’t make the same mistake again.
You’ve had your worldview rocked because now you know that your story of Ashley Babbitt—your idea of her being an innocent bystander who was shot by the bloodthirsty Republican-hating Capitol Police for being the wrong race at the wrong time or what-th’fuck-ever you told yourself—is complete bullshit. Don’t complain about that. Instead, ask yourself if your broader narrative of the insurrection is bullshit. Stop trying to equivocate the protests against police brutality that ended up becoming violent (often because of police intervention) and look at the insurrection from the context of Trumpism. Ask yourself this one question: “If I was wrong about her, what else might I be wrong about?”
Being wrong isn’t a bad thing. Hell, admitting you were wrong is a good thing. But being stubborn about your wrongness to the point where you’re complaining about how people proved you wrong even as you admit you were wrong? Well, that just makes you an asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ Having your worldview challenged makes you feel like shit”
Ohkay now, I wouldn’t go that far.
We’re talking about the difference between murder and a “justified” use of deadly force.
And weather or not there may have been a segment of the protest that may have possibly had more aggressive motives than being heard.
But, and it’s something you need to come to terms with yourself having now watched over 2 hours of video it’s still well below the level of of the multiple, actual, insurrections list I posted above.
It’s still a few wild people.
And just as much as you like to point out that BLM violence may not be BLM, we know these anarchists are showing up and being called trump supporters. As you like to point out; the shirt does not make the cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The people who entered the Capitol may not all have had violent intentions. But enough of them did that, in the heat of the moment, Ashley Babbitt being shot by a Capitol Police officer tasked with protecting Congress is both justifiable and understandable.
Put yourself in the shoes of the Capitol Police that day: A group of hundreds-to-thousands of people inspired by the words of the sitting POTUS storm the steps of the Capitol, and in the process, some of them break open windows and storm the premises, with several of those now-rioters (both inside and outside) chanting for the hanging of the Vice President. Would you treat that situation as “an ordinary day”, or would you be on guard to the point where any threat to the safety of Congress seems like it might require the use of force?
I haven’t heard of any credible evidence that suggests the insurrection was the plot of any kind of leftist or anarchist group. The only groups I know of that planned to do anything that day were right-wing militas such as the Oathkeepers. They did make plans to attent the rally, and they possibly had plans to go further than merely storming the Capitol.
If you can find fact-based evidence from a credible source that proves the insurrection was a “false flag” operation, feel free to share it. If you can’t show me that kind of evidence, please fuck off with that baseless claim, you gullible asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your double standard is very confusing.
When “protestors” at BLM gatherings that partake in acts of looting, violence, arson, etc… those aren’t BLM supporters. They’re people who put on a shirt.
But saying there’s a potential for anti-government anarchists to interject in a pro trump rally gone riot; especially given the people running around with pipe bombs the night before… just not possible right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone can say they’re a “BLM supporter”; the Movement for Black Lives isn’t an organized group like the Oathkeepers are. It doesn’t have a central leadership or group running the show.
And unlike Trump supporters, BLM supporters also support a wide range of politicians and policy ideas, which can change from person to person. Some BLM supporters may support the “defund the police” movement; some may not. Some BLM supporters may support Kamala Harris; some may not. Contrast them with Trump supporters, who—by and large—support the policies of Donald Trump, the politicians who support him, and the candidates to whom he gives his political endorsement.
Don’t act like being a BLM supporter is the same thing as being a Trump supporter. It’s about as true as “Ashley Babbitt was shot only for being white and standing peacefully in the Capitol”.
It’s possible, sure. But did it happen? The most credible evidence available to us says “no, that didn’t happen”. If you have any actual evidence that credibly contradicts that statement, now is the time to produce it. If you don’t, shut the fuck up and go back to fantasizing about building a skyscraper on top of a graveyard or whatever twisted bullshit gets you property rights fetishists off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Skyscraper? You come up with some twisted ideas. You know that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's possible that there was some false flag activity - but most of the people who have been arrested thus far appear to have been true believers who spent months or years before the insurrection supporting Trump.
Your whataboutism falls apart when we know names, histories and records, especially given the track record of the peaceful protests being violently opposed by police in a way that was missing on the 6th.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Listening to the testimony from the Capitol police officers uesterday, they didn't mince words when it came to calling out the terrorist traitors who try to gaslight us about the anti-American violence on the 6th, like Lodos is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"we know these anarchists are showing up and being called trump supporters"
Mostly based on their track record of supporting Trump. Weird, that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the article that I linked to in the above comment:
Again, until the R party can get rid of its ring leader Trump, and all the Qanon crazies, sexual predators, racists, and just plain garbage people, they will remain the Q party. In fact, I doubt the republican party will ever recover and the "Cheney" / "Romney" / sensible conservatives will create their own party. (Not that I agree with any of them, but at least there are a few who still have some morals and ethics, haven't knelt at the altar of Trump, and don't believe in the alternate reality that most of the GQP live in)
There was nothing peaceful about the 1/6 insurrection, Trump was the lead instigator, and other prominent republicans agree (even if they did flip flop later).
GOP’s McConnell: Trump morally responsible for Jan. 6 attack
Sen. Lindsey Graham blames Trump for Capitol riots and says the president needs to 'understand that his actions were the problem'
I'm sure I could find more, but those two should suffice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your basing your assertion on an op-Ed. An opinion.
The public comments all EDO the same thing. Voting to convict for incitement without direct incitement was a violation of her duty. And as such she was removed.
Quoting a few R trump haters doesn’t change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And there you go, thinking her duty was to Trump and not the constitution. She did her duty, by upholding her oath to country and the constitution. She put country over party, and country over Trump.
Almost all other Rs were too spineless to uphold their oath.
What kind of crack are you smoking?
Lindsey Graham is one of Trump's most loyal lapdogs.
And it sure does seem that Trump has McConnell's backing as well.
So calling them Trump haters is just your way of denying reality. See also, my comment about the many R's who live in an alternate reality, which apparently includes you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
McConnell backs nobody but himself.
Oh, and he didn’t find the claims rose to impeachable offences.
Sasse? Never Trump
Collins? Nt
Mit? Nt
Two more are in variable states that require more than just Republican faithful to win.
Toomey, and Cassidy.
The votes were political, not factual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Graham, btw, lashed out at everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, he was pretty specific about where the blame lied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not entirely wrong, but that doesn’t make him a Trump hater, either.
False. He explicitly said he voted against impeachment because he didn’t think that they should impeach a former President, period. He also said that the claims were impeachable offenses if brought against a sitting President. You may or may not agree with either of those claims or believe him when he says that that’s his reasoning, but that is what he said.
Which is why they all voted to impeach Trump the first time, right?
No, wait. Mitt Romney was the only Republican Senator who voted to convict Trump in the first impeachment. The other four voted to acquit the last time, including two of the ones you called “Never Trumpers”. It’s almost like there was some other reason they voted to impeach beyond being Never Trumpers or being from variable states…
At any rate, you’re addressing the wrong point. You claimed that McConnell and Graham were Trump haters. They are not.
Furthermore, impeachment is a political process, and most of the Republican Senators who voted to acquit said they agreed with the facts underlying the claims, so the votes to acquit were just as political. I fail to see your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Not entirely wrong, but that doesn’t make him a Trump hater, either."
Sadly, it makes him even worse, and a good example of the rot that will continue to stay after Trump is gone. Repairing things will be hard when you have a class of "representatives" who make it their life's mission to stop the other "team" from achieving anyway, no matter what damage is done to their own "team" or the nation as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But she didn’t vote to convict Trump. She voted to impeach (i.e. indict) him. There’s a huge difference between the two. The latter has a very low burden of proof, for example. A vote to impeach doesn’t mean “he’s definitely guilty and should be punished”, but that there’s enough evidence to move to the Senate for a trial.
Also, you misunderstand the difference between impeachment—a political process—and a criminal or civil court case—which is a legal one. The former is not actually required to hold to the same standards as the latter, including regarding speech. As such, there is no need to prove direct incitement. (Also, it’s not impossible that he could be said to have directly incited the crowd, so that part of the premise is equally flawed.)
Except she wasn’t removed soon after the impeachment. In fact, McCarthy explicitly refused to do so even when many House Republicans asked him to. Instead, they waited months later to do so. If that was the actual reason for her removal, this chain of events makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
It only makes sense if there was another reason for her removal over things between then and when she was ousted. To claim otherwise would be to ignore a ton of context.
“Trump haters”? You mean Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell? Did you actually read the article, or did you just see that it was an op-ed and dismiss it? Because no one in their right minds would call Graham or McConnell “Trump haters”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We’re just asking for an example of an elected Democrat who has been publicly black supremacist and not been denounced and/or punished immediately by other Democratic leaders. That’s what would need to happen before this is even close to a true equivalence.
But it’d actually have to go further. They’d have to be some sort of conspiracy theorist on top of that.
Why? Because MTG, Gaetz, Jordan, et al are vocally conspiracy theorists but (with just one or two exceptions), almost no Republican politicians or Republican leaders have denounced or punished them for any of the crazy thing they’ve said or done. They also hold elected positions in government.
This suggests that the R party doesn’t consider being a conspiracy theorist (or a white supremacist, or even both) to be a disqualification for being a government official within their party.
While I don’t agree with calling the R party the Q party for other reasons, you should still present evidence for your points. They’ve presented examples to support their view, so your counters should match theirs to be effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, the ties to the NOI are well document.
The response has always been “in context” excuses but in context always makes the entirety of the statement worse.
My point isn’t that the dems are black power.
My point is that both sides have fringes and calling the whole of a party based on that fringe is inaccurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m not asking about fringes in the party in general. I’m asking about comparable fringes who are in office that are treated similarly by other elected officials of the same party for each party.
I’m also not saying you’re wrong per se. Just that you failed to prove your claim.
You were provided with explicit examples. All I’m saying is that, to counter that, you need to give explicit examples at least as good as the ones presented. You’re being too vague and broad for that to be an effective counterargument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Just like the claim that all Republicans are white suprematists becaof a tiny minority of the vote."
No, because of a non-tiny number of elected representatives that hold those views. Your "side" may appeal to the knuckledraggers, but those aren't the people in question here.
Please try to keep up and understand that others are talking facts here that can't be rejected by a "no u" or misrepresentation of the arguments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So the Democrats are black suprematists who agrees with violently removing the white race. I got you."
Which elected officials hold that stance? Which of them are as prominent in the party as the white supremacists hand picked by Trump to serve in his administration?
"Trump, backstage, in a jovial conversation, mad a derogatory quip and that was it."
If only it were the single quip, but you do see the double standard and why one party is more involved with removing the scum from its ranks than the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unified, no, but there's not exactly a push to disassociate those people from the mainstream party. In fact, they seem to be pushing out less objectionable members.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No if you remember correctly the sites 4 stooges were trying to come up with some kind of example where property rights allowed a person to use physical force to remove someone. We went from in a restaurant, in a bar, in your home, in a public house. You couldn't get through your thick skulls that its never legal to use force to remove person who entered legally unless force is being used upon you or in defense of someone else.
No matter what examples you can think of its never legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Completely wrong, again, you idiot.
Once you tell somebody who is on your private property that they are no longer welcome on your private property, then you can use whatever force necessary to remove them. It's called trespassing.
Five seconds on google came up with this Texas law:
Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
And I am sure there are plenty of other states with something similar. Hell, the pro 2A states probably allow you to shoot somebody once you tell them they are trespassing.
So, wrong again.
Are you getting tired of constantly being schooled here?
Also, at some point you should just quit digging as each new comment just reenforces that you are an idiot who knows nothing about that of which you speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ability to shoot is not just red states.
The difference is in blue states you tend to have to give fair warning first. Red states tend to be shoot on site no warning.
The funny aspect of that is red states tend to have less cases of trespassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, what?
I don’t know where you live but it is 100% legal to drag a person kicking and screaming from private property in nearly every part of the US.
Ow, that ability is limited by permanence doctrine. But depending on the state that’s from 2 weeks to 90 days.
Permanence is a thorn in the side of extended/long-term lodging.
It why some states only have a few dozen (Cali) and some states have thousands (Nevada, Wisconsin…)
Until that point is crossed I can youse whatever method of physical removal I want within equal force law.
That means I can only guide the drunk crying meltdown to the door, the the fist swinging drunk maniac can be all but dragged by the hair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We went from in a restaurant, in a bar, in your home, in a public house"
None of which had anything to do with your whining that you couldn't eject a renter from the property in the middle of the night with no prior warning. Those examples are pretty much on par with each other in terms of invitation vs recourse to ejecting a disruptive presence.
"You couldn't get through your thick skulls that its never legal to use force to remove person who entered legally unless force is being used upon you or in defense of someone else."
Because that's literally not true? It doesn't matter how they entered to my knowledge, as soon as they refuse to leave they are trespassing. Are you going to argue that you need to fill in contracts to eject trespassers who had a temporary invitation to your home?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope! That’s just flat-out wrong.
While the details vary from state to state (specifically regarding warnings and what is or isn’t reasonable force in certain situations), once a person, who is physically on property you—as a private citizen/resident or as a private corporation/organization—own, refuses to leave after being told to leave, they become a trespasser who no longer has any legal right to be there, and you are legally allowed to use whatever force you see fit (within reason) to physically remove that person from your property (as well as any of their possessions that are also on your property as you see fit). It doesn’t matter whether or not they ever had a legal right to be there to begin with or even if you personally invited them. While that can change what amount of force is permissible (unlawful entry, threats or violence against you or someone else, and the presence of firearms for the trespasser to use will generally allow more force—even lethal force—to be used against the trespasser), there is essentially always some amount of physical force that you can use to evict a trespasser.
That’s not to say there are no exceptions to that rule (depending on the time they were there unlawfully, for example), but the fact is that not only is it not never justified to use physical force to remove an unresisting but noncompliant person from your property, almost the exact opposite is true: usually, you can do so (at least as long as fair warning is given, though that depends on the state).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Close enough” only works in horseshoes, hand grenades, and moneyshots in porn. When the law is involved, all boxes must be checked—doubly so when the law involves speech. So yes, speech that is “purely prurient” but “does have a political or artistic value” wouldn’t qualify as obscene. It might offend people, but that alone isn’t enough to allow government censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"So yes, speech that is “purely prurient” but “does have a political or artistic value” wouldn’t qualify as obscene."
So a picture of Joe Biden on his knees fellating Xi Jinping would not be obscene as it has serious political value?
We all get the metaphor and the serious political meaning of the metaphor but that doesn't mean such a picture isn't obscene.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“So something purely prurient that does have a political or artistic value wouldn't be obscene?”
By definition if it’s purely prurient it wouldn’t have political or artistic value. I’m sorry no seven year old were around to explain the concept to you. It would save you the self inflicted public humiliation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh child I already gave you an example. Biden on his knees fellating Xi. That is purely prurient but also a clear political metaphor.
Why is this site populated with children. Oh thats right Mike is a "L"ibertarian but runs his site like an authoritarian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it's partly political, then it cannot be purely prurient. That's what "purely" means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is 100% prurient. It is a prurient metaphor, child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A sexualized image can be both prurient and political. To be “purely prurient”, it can’t be political. That’s the difference between, say, Pam Anderson posing naked for Playboy and Pam Anderson posing naked for PETA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you have to call people child?
Are you some sick fuck with pedo fantasies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Technically, “purely prurient” could either mean:
Only serves prurient interests and has no other value, meaning, interpretation, or purpose; or
The way you’re using the term suggests you mean definition 2. The others are using definition 1, which necessarily excludes anything that has even the slightest amount of political and/or artistic value. It’s unclear which is meant in the relevant law, but regardless, both of the following are true:
Under definition 1, something cannot both be purely prurient and have some artistic and/or political value. Therefore, anything that has artistic and/or political value would not be “obscene” under the relevant law no matter how prurient.
Either way, something that has artistic and/or political value would not be obscene under this law, regardless of how prurient it is. We can argue whether or not that ought to be the case under the law, or whether the law should change, but this is about what the law actually says, not what we want it to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It’d depend on the context, but generally, that wouldn’t be “obscene”, at least as the term is explicitly defined in this particular statute.
You have to understand that the legal definition of “obscene” is distinct from the colloquial definition we generally use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked. Jesus Christ how does this tripe get through.
I'd suggest looking up the word 'whole.'
HTH
'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd suggest you look up the word "considered."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have - and it changes absolutely nothing to the definition of 'whole.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
""Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked. "
It actually does considering that it's what the law says.
Then again you've tried to argue that putting a comment on Facebook should be considered similar to renting a damn apartment or house so I'm not exactly surprised at your kindergarten-level of legal logic.
"It's like sports judging."
It really isn't. And even the example breaks down given that the analogy you insist on here would be said sports judge deciding that a fist missing by three inches should still be considered a "hit".
Honestly, Baghdad Bob...you really need to stop trying to argue from assumed authority.
I mean, don't get me wrong; it's usually pretty amusing to watch you clown around. Aside from making readers snicker and smirk at you I don't really see these masochistic exercises of yours doing you much good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"It actually does considering that it's what the law says."
That is not what the law says. You are taking the word "whole" and ignoring the word "considered."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Honestly, Baghdad Bob...you really need to stop trying to argue from assumed authority.
I mean, don't get me wrong; it's usually pretty amusing to watch you clown around. Aside from making readers snicker and smirk at you I don't really see these masochistic exercises of yours doing you much good."
I never claim to be an authority just smarter than you, which isn't saying much. I don't make these absolutist religious arguments. I operate in the real world which is very grey, even on constitutional issues. Its very easy to give examples that falsify your absolutist religious arguments because your arguments have to be correct 100% of the time.
You make simplistic absolutist statements like 'The government cant force a private company to host speech' all I have to do is give the examples where they alredy do.
That is your problem. You are blinded by religion. I recognize that I'm dealing with a religious zealot. Not someone engaging on actual thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is your problem. You are blinded by religion. I recognize that I'm dealing with a religious zealot. Not someone engaging on actual thought.
Whoooo boy! You should run a drive-in with that kind of projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I don't make these absolutist religious arguments."
Law is a religion to you? No, Baghdad Bob, the issue we're having is that you think law is subject to your personal opinion. It's not. When it says "and" it means all points must apply and when it says "when considered as a whole" nothing else is suggested or implied. Wording of law is absolutist and if you think otherwise I advice you never to sign any contracts without competent legal counsel.
"I never claim to be an authority just smarter than you..."
I would never be daft enough to try to compare a platform owner or pub owner evicting patrons with a landlord evicting tenants. Nor was I the gormless lackwit who doubled down on it.
"I operate in the real world which is very grey..."
Not where legal issues are concerned and particularly so not where the law has been quite clearly spelled out. The only gray area left is the bit where a presumptive claimant offers to deal in equity and good faith rather than rely on the contract body.
Which you'd know if you in fact "operated" in any area where you need more than a handshake to close a deal.
"You make simplistic absolutist statements like 'The government cant force a private company to host speech' all I have to do is give the examples where they alredy do. "
You have failed to provide a single example so far which wasn't based on a false premise...but by all means keep bragging about all the "proof" you can deliver about Russel's Teapot.
"That is your problem. You are blinded by religion."
Ah, since you've got absolutely nothing except ad hom you fall back on spurious rhetoric and marginalization? True to form, Baghdad Bob, true to form.
I can only hope for your sake that you're just trolling here, because in that real world you describe you end up wondering what happened when the repo men come help you with your personal bankruptcy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Based on statements like these, you clearly have no idea what “religion” is.
Morally? Yes. Legally…? Not so much. At least not in this area. Some parts of the law really are pretty straightforward, and this particular case isn’t in a grey area legally speaking.
Assuming they’re absolute statements, then yes, it should be fairly easy to disprove them by simply giving counterexamples… if there are any counterexamples, that is.
Oh, but what am I saying? Surely you’re about to give us a counterexample if you’re so confident you’re right!
…Yes… That is indeed how you would refute an absolute statement… Now, what about those examples?
Uh, no. That’s not it at all. You can’t just say, “That’s an absolute statement, so all I need is to provide one counterexample to refute it,” then immediately conclude by saying that’s their problem and finishing off with an ad hominem. You do still need to actually provide that counterexample.
As far as the specific statement you reference, there are some exceptions regarding disclosure in commercial and legal settings, but that has nothing to do with Facebook, so while that technically means the absolute statement is wrong, the main point still stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is correct. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the people who wrote the local codes.
Actually, it’s a plain reading of the laws at issue. Do you not understand what “and” means?
That applies in, say, the “fair-use” test, where the values are weighed against each other and was explicitly defined as such, or where the factors are connected by the word “or”. In this case, we have a conjunction of factors, not just a list of factors or a disjunction of factors. That means that all of the factors have to be met.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The closest any of the signs come to the "purient interest" standard of the law (and to be clear it is still well off) is the "Socialism sucks, Biden blows" sign - in that I could see a bunch of 10 year old boys pointing to the sign and gigling after having it explained by an older kid. Even this is a stretch, along the lines of "rational basis review" where anything even cocievable (even if irrational) counts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No laws agaisnt being white trash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the children?
I was born in 1958, so back in the early '60's I was definitely a children, I lived in a small Texas farming community, went to a Catholic School, my mother made sure we only went to movies cleared by the Catholic Church's rating system's cleanest rating, it was AI, 'A' came with some I, II, III IIII subcategories if I remember correctly, which were listed in every Sunday's bulletin. Needless to say, this was a pretty sheltered existence, not very far removed from Mayberryesqueville, and I can't remember how young I was when most kids I knew used 'fuck' regularly but it was maybe 2nd grade. Do most folks simply forget what it was like when they were kids? If merely seeing the word 'fuck' somehow traumatized a kid, then virtually every kid today would require massive doses of Thorazine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the children?
"If merely seeing the word 'fuck' somehow traumatized a kid, then virtually every kid today would require massive doses of Thorazine."
Yes, well...I posit that were your parents from the early 60's to meet the current crop of american evangelicals the first thing they'd be greeted with would be a "Repent, Sinners!!".
American puritanism hasn't aged well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition of Fuck
Its contextual, padowan. In this case, it is an imperative verb that means "Invalidate and dismiss with anger".
Now, is that really SO HARD to explain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]