Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
from the dude,-come-on dept
Former President Donald Trump really has perfected every little thing he doesn't like being a grievance that he thinks he can sue over. It's funny because the Republican Party used to insist that "the left" was the party of victimhood, and yet in Trumpist world, they're always victims all the time, and always have to whine about how victimized they are. The latest is that Trump is literally threatening to sue the Pulitzer Prize Committee if they refuse to retract the 2018 prize that was given to the NY Times and the Washington Post for reporting on Russia's attempted interference with the 2016 Presidential campaign.
In a letter sent to the Pulitzer Committee, Trump lawyer Alina Habba has some, well, bizarre theories about basically everything.
... it is hereby demanded that the Pulitzer Prize Board take immediate steps to strip the New York Times and The Washington Post of the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting. Pulitzer Prize Board’s failure to do so will result in prompt legal action being taken against it. Please be guided accordingly.
What is the basis for this? Well, Trump is massively exaggerating the recent indictments of Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko by a grand jury working with Special Counsel John Durham. Sussmann was indicted for lying to the FBI regarding who he was representing when he spoke with the FBI about concerns associated with what was in the Steele dossier. The Danchenko indictment is moderately more damning in suggesting that he provided sketchy information that ended up in the Steele dossier, but that's got little to do with what the Pulitzer Prize was about.
While it's now fairly clear that parts of the Steele dossier were highly questionable (which was pretty much known from the beginning given the nature of how it was put together), Trumpworld has run ragged in arguing that this means anything at all about Russia's attempted interference is now disproved.
Except, that's not at all true, and Sussmann's indictment isn't even about any of that. The charges for Sussman are entirely related to whether or not he lied to the FBI in a single conversation, not about the dossier, but about who he represented. The charges against Danchencko are also about lying to the FBI, but regarding how he obtained certain information that was eventually passed on to Steele and ended up in the dossier.
But, in Trumpworld, these indictments are being used to claim that anything about "Russia" and the "2016 election" are completely disproved, despite that not being the case at all.
As highlighted in President Trump’s letter, it has recently become apparent that the subject articles were based on incontrovertibly false information provided by dubious sources who were maliciously attempting to mislead the public and tarnish our client’s reputation.
These sources are now facing criminal charges for their illicit conduct. On September 16, 2021, attorney Michael Sussman was charged with providing false statements to the FBI when he reported potential incidents of cooperation between our client and Russia. It has now been revealed that he was acting at the behest of the Clinton Campaign and that the accusations made by him were entirely fabricated.
Thereafter, on November 3, 2021, another analyst associated with the Clinton Campaign, Igor Danchenko, was charged with making false statements to the FBI. Specifically, it is alleged that Mr. Danchenko, who has been identified as a key contributor to the widely debunked “Steele Dossier,” lied to the FBI when he denied colluding with the Clinton Campaign in providing his contributions to same.
Despite these revelations, the Pulitzer Prize Board has failed to take any action to correct, retract, or otherwise repudiate the false reporting contained in the subject articles.
Except, as Liz Dye at Above The Law notes, the vast majority of the reporting that resulted in the Pulitzer Prize had nothing to do with the dossier.
Never mind that the prize encompassed a full year of coverage, including stories about Russia’s social media influence operation and coordination with Wikileaks, Don Jr.’s cack-handed effort to get dirt from a Russian spy — “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” — Michael Flynn’s promise to the Russian ambassador to ditch sanctions once Trump got elected, and FBI Director James Comey’s dismissal. None of which has been disproven.
In fact, only one of the stories for which the prize was awarded had the dossier as its main focus. It referred to the document as “controversial” and acknowledged that the FBI might have paid investigator Chris Steele.
And, even if that wasn't true and the reporting was about the dossier, there's nothing that the committee did that gives a cause of action to Donald Trump. The Pulitzer Prize is, inherently, a subjective opinion of the committee. And that's the committee's own protected speech. The letter claims that the committee awarded the prize "erroneously" to the Times and the Post, but that's not his call, nor is it a legal issue. If the Pulitzers want to give an award to terrible reporting, that's it's fundamentally protected 1st Amendment right.
In short, Trump is saying that the Pulitzer Prize committee is not allowed to express an opinion, and such a threat is fundamentally both petty and censorial. What a sad little man, threatening bogus censorial lawsuits over petty little grievances based on someone's opinion he doesn't like.
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: donald trump, free speech, journalism, opinion, pulitzer prize, reporting, russia, steele dossier, threats
Companies: ny times, pulitzer committee, washington post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Idiot Amin spouts again. I'm sure he'll have another lolsuit sent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"were based on incontrovertibly false information provided by dubious sources who were maliciously attempting to mislead the public and tarnish our client’s reputation"
Is this about a pulitzer or the election....
"Please be guided accordingly."
Read as just ignore this shit, Trump's gonna pay me for doing this (despite the sheer number of people he's stiffed before, I'll get paid) and I'm going to waste some time & force you to spend money "defending" yourselves against a completely baseless claim that if state bars actually gave a shit about ethics would get me slapped around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you can also read it as, "we get to make public claims in this performative filing and no one can sue us for defamation because it's in a court document or proceeding".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Man of the Year"
Can we sue Michigan to take down the Pumpkin's fake "man of the year" award...😂
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Man of the Year"
À propos of nothing, I love your public domain avatar!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Specifically, it is alleged that Mr. Danchenko, who has been identified as a key contributor to the widely debunked “Steele Dossier,” lied to the FBI when he denied colluding with the Clinton Campaign in providing his contributions to same.
Interesting. Especially when Trump also said this:
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion
DJT - via Twitter
This was also parroted by his "crack legal team" of Guiliani and Dershowitz.
Tell me again why anyone should give anything even remotely resembling a fuck about some collusion going on? Something like this requires one of those attorney responses that go along the lines of 'OK, so fucking what?'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The left is the party of FAKE victimhood. And the Washington Post has already had to "correct" over a dozen articles about this debunked nonsense. Any honorable organization would have already returned their Pulitzer. This Pulitzer should go on the same shelf as their Janet Cooke Pulitzer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're talking about the US, there is no party that uniformly represents "the left". Dems are center-left at leftmost, if we're lucky, and that's not to saying anything of the Socialists, the Working Families Party, the Greens, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dems are center at leftmost. If we take "center" to be what the majority of US voters want, single-payer healthcare, prison reform, lowering of prescription drug costs, etc, then that is the center. Bernie Sanders, if anything is a moderate because his policies tend to agree with the majority of voters. Everyone to the right of Bernie is to the right of the center.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nah, Center is the middle ground between capital and labor, between the 99% and the 1%, and between corporations and People Who Work For A Living.
Left is where most informed voters are -- where the government provides services that benefit the majority of citizens, such as utilities, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and preventing corporate exploitation
Right is where the rich and their uneducated rubes live - reduce or eliminate taxes on companies and the rich and remove all barriers to profit (even at the expense of their workers' health and safety, the environment or the rest of the country)
The Dem party is slightly right of center (thanks to their majority corporate-owned politicians) and the Repubs are so far right you'd need the Hubble to find them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You owe me a new Irony-O-Meter.
He Shall Overcomb said many times Twitter was unfair to him, when they were giving him favored treatment.
Then, when he's finally kicked off for trying to overthrow democracy, he starts a new social media site. Fails
Tries again, this time breaking the TOS of the software he uses.
And you can't say anything critical of his new site according to his TOS.
Uh huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the Washington Post has already had to "correct" over a dozen articles about this debunked nonsense.
And how many stories have Trump-loving publications corrected regarding false allegations of voter fraud? Or made up claims about "anti-conservative" bias?
A good news org issues corrections when they make mistakes. But the underlying reporting that was behind these Pulitzers was not faulty. I'm among the first to call out bullshit reporting by the major publications (including the NY Times and WaPo, see: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20211027/00044947827/let-me-rewrite-that-you-washington-post-misin forms-you-about-how-facebook-weighted-emoji-reactions.shtml and https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210822/23380147412/ny-times-washington-post-criticize-facebook-b ecause-chicago-tribune-had-terrible-headline.shtml ) but this is totally unrelated to your dear leader demanding someone change their opinion or face legal consequences.
Can't you admit that your idol is a censorial buffoon here? Or is that too much for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm feeling especially vicious, so I'm going to say "dear leader" is made of relatively short words, as is 'idol' ... but "censorial buffoon"? I think that might just be too many big words for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then whaddya think of my proposal: BOB, the Bumbling Orange Buffoon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe we could convince them 'BOB' is another way to spell MAGA?
I feel like that has a higher chance of succeeding than explaining what "BOB" means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How can you really say that when the RIGHT has been complaining about being the victim of voter fraud that cost Trump the election for over a year now, with absolutely zero evidence to support the claims.
Oh, except for all the Republicans that have been caught using dead relatives to vote twice for Trump, so it seems that there was some voter fraud but it was done by republicans for Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let’s not forget that Republicans are also the party of the Religious Right, which has constantly complained about being “persecuted” whenever a law is passed or a government edict is handed down that supposedly “attacks” religion but actually does no such thing (e.g., mask and vaccine mandates).
Republicans are also the party most closely associated these days with white supremacist groups, which have constantly complained about being the “real victims” of racism when literally anything tries to tear down the vestiges of white supremacy within the institutions and systems of the United States.
And conservatives love to crow about how they’re being attacked by “cancel culture”, but they had no problem with people being “cancelled” when it was people they wanted to see “cancelled” getting that treatment.
Per usual, every accusation is a confession with these chumps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"How can you really say that when the RIGHT has been complaining about being the victim of voter fraud that cost Trump the election for over a year now, with absolutely zero evidence to support the claims."
Two of the 14 points of fascist ideology right there; The eternal victimhood of the "superior" faction oppressed by the lesser faction, and the adherence to a Big Lie which explains away the majority of people not being on their side.
To these people the fact that they are no longer given ample freedom to consider the other as lesser is what they think makes them martyrs. They're just barely cunning enough never to put that in words because even the alt-right dimly realizes that being visibly upset about not being able to look down on others isn't a good look.
Leading to people like our dear shitwit Baghdad Bob, above, vaguely crying about being the REAL victim...because apparently the factual actions of Dear Leader casting doubt on Dear Leader hurts him to the core.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So were you full ragetears when you wrote that? Or were you doing that thing where you yell “I’m not crying” while you wipe tears and snot all over the place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The left is the party of FAKE victimhood.
For a minute there, I thought you were going to follow with "I know you are, but what am I?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Last I checked, there were no politically active COMMUNISTS in America.
The Dems are firmly right, with maybe a bit of democratic socialism if they actually decided to stop sucking their paymasters' collective dicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Credebility Loss
But this a rather egregious moral mistake. Decisions like this is why trust in the press, and america's institutions are declining. Pulitzer has a pretty clear decision to make: take away the the award, or say goodbye to their credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Credebility Loss
Thank you Koby. Rubles well spent.
And now...A Scotsman on a horse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Credebility Loss
But this a rather egregious moral mistake.
What is? Be specific. What is the "egregious moral mistake" here?
Decisions like this is why trust in the press, and america's institutions are declining
Lol. Koby, you regularly cite debunked nonsense talking points from Fox News. Shut the fuck up.
Pulitzer has a pretty clear decision to make: take away the the award, or say goodbye to their credibility.
Again, why should they take away the award when it was awarded for ACCURATE reporting? Again, the reporting that won the award was not about the dossier. So, please, educate us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Credebility Loss
No, it's not accurate reporting. For example, the first article that they did, regarding the Flynn-Kislyak ambassador meeting, was a lie. It turns out that the FBI had a transcript of the meeting all along. The transcript was later released, and nothing illegal was found at all in the conversation. The amazon post was being fed disinformation from the fbi, and they bought it hook, line, and sinker.
In going down the pulitzer list, I can already tell that there's some sleazy reporting in every one of their other stories as well. I trust that everyone here is intelligent enough to perform internet searches on non-censored engines to be able to find that documented criticism, if you so choose. Mike is sounding very jealous of certain news organizations that have managed to remain trusted by large numbers of Americans. Don't throw your reputation away with these stinker stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Koby, you're an ignorant fool or an easily mislead buffoon.
You have spent years on this site spewing blatant false information. You're misunderstanding of how media works is not surprising, but really, you should shut the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
I have more than enough savvy to understand how media has failed. I think you would do well to also explore how it has gone from being trusted, so being ridiculed by large swaths of the population. Childish name calling won't make the problem go away and regain the media's reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Not until you admit you're a fucking Nazi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Have you tried digging up?
"Childish name calling won't make the problem go away and regain the media's reputation."
Being an snowflake douchecanoe ain't doing anything for yours...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Sir, this is an Arby's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
"I have more than enough savvy..."
Are you performance artist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
I have more than enough savvy
No, you don't, Koby. You don't. You have no savvy at all.
how media has failed
You are conflating many things here, because it suits your ignorant narrative. The media makes plenty of mistakes. We call them on their mistakes all the time here. But EVEN SO, you are deflecting from the fact that (1) just because they make some mistakes is not he same as (2) all reporting that disfavors the idol you worship is wrong and (more importantly) (3) none of that means that Trump gets to tell the Pulitzers what to do and who they should award a prize to.
I think you would do well to also explore how it has gone from being trusted, so being ridiculed by large swaths of the population
I've written extensively on the problems in the media -- but much of that is driven by them trying to appease grifters like you, and supporting the idea that there are "two sides" to every issue. In other words, the distrust in the media has been driven by your heroes exploiting the system, not a few reporting mistakes like you claim.
Childish name calling won't make the problem go away and regain the media's reputation.
I'm not here to "regain the media's reputation" and I call you names because you're a fucking ignorant troll. I engaged with you politely in the past. But you continued to lie and spew nonsense, and you refused to respond to multiple requests to back up your nonsense. So, I will call you names, not because it's childish, but because you deserve it, you ignorant buffoon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Dude, you don't even have enough savvy to understand section 230, like that time when you stated that Facebook could use §230 to dismiss a lawsuit over its own speech!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
"I have more than enough savvy to understand how media has failed"
I'm assuming how you've been told one part of the media has "failed" by the right-wing of the media that likes to pretend it's not "the media" but some kind of oracle (despite most of the things they tell you being demonstrably false, or even dangerous)?
"Childish name calling won't make the problem go away"
I know, yet that was the only real weapon Trump had in his arsenal until he started killing people with misinformation and had to be kicked of the Twitter account he used to do it. Objectively the most powerful man on Earth for a time, and all he could do is repeat lies told by Fox and come up with childish nicknames for those who dared correct him... I mean, I'm thankful that he was an incompetent toddler at heart, but I'm sorry for the hundreds of thousands he killed to sooth his own ego.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
"I have more than enough savvy to understand..."
Obviously not.
Koby, you've repeatedly demonstrated around here that concepts as stunningly simple as the difference between private property and government property is beyond you.
And that you can't spot the difference between people refusing to listen to you and government throwing you in jail for speaking.
And that you don't understand that there is no both sides argument going on between the got damn american nazi party and civil rights activists.
People demanding equal rights to everyone else are not comparable to those wishing to enshrine the right to treat others as lesser because of race, sexual or gender identity, or nationality.
You've kept trying to make the bigot comparable to the humanitarian. That is evil, Koby. As are you. No matter how "reasonable" you like to appear there's little difference between you and the shaven-headed thugs swinging the odal banners in the streets of Charlottesville.
Just fsck right back to the very fine people you keep carrying water for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
No matter how "reasonable" you like to appear there's little difference between you and the shaven-headed thugs swinging the odal banners in the streets of Charlottesville.
There is one notable difference and that's honesty, at least the skinheaded bigot has the guts to own their abhorrent position when they're waving that flag around whereas Koby always seems to get remarkably scarce any time someone tries to nail them down to specifics of just who and what they are so worried about being shown the door on social media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
"...at least the skinheaded bigot has the guts to own their abhorrent position when they're waving that flag around whereas Koby always seems to get remarkably scarce any time someone tries to nail them down..."
Which is why I personally hold the cowardly shills unwilling to own the position they're taking as more dangerous than the thug waving the swastika or odal.
Koby and his peers know damn well the very second they let slip their honest political allegiance the game is up for that persona - and then they'll have to build another one. They're at least smart enough to realize that.
They still aren't smart enough to realize that in some online communities, like this one, the forum has proven highly resistant to rhetoric tricks and persistent nagging after having had to put up with copyright maximalist trolls of all types for a long damn time.
On the one side I'd like for Koby to realize he'll never make headway here and go away. On the other side he does serve as a good weathervane showing the current trend on stormfront for any given topic without anyone sane having to visit that place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Koby has a peer? Where, pray tell, is this alleged peer? If there's more than one of him, I'm quitting the internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
"Koby has a peer? Where, pray tell, is this alleged peer? If there's more than one of him, I'm quitting the internet!"
He certainly does. A lot of them. Usually found in places like Parler, Gab and Stormfront.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LEAVE KOBY ALONE!
Please everyone stop kicking Koby!
Line forms to the left. Tickets are two dollars each, photos of you kicking Koby are five dollars each. Balloons, stickers, and T-shirts with I kicked Koby and all i got was a sore toe and this T-shirt are available at the merch tent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
The transcript was later released, and nothing illegal was found at all in the conversation.
And yet:
Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents in early 2017 when he was asked if he discussed sanctions with the ambassador.
So the transcript was fine, nothing to see there, and Flynn lied despite not having to? That's the problem with you people - you never ask yourself why that shitbag felt the need to lie about something that "wasn't illegal or improper."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Translation:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Translation: Fact-free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss that you never had to begin with
"I can already tell that there's some sleazy reporting in every one of their other stories as well."
Cool now just list specifically what reporting is shoddy making sure to cite your sources...
Oh wait not citing your sources for your bullshit is what got you kicked out of two schools this year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
That's a roundabout way of saying "I won't show you my sources to justify what I said, so go fuck yourself".
Move over, Koby. Let Lostinlodos take his turn, at this point you're just embarrassing yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
It's always such a time saver when someone tries to pull the 'It's your responsibility to back up my argument' stunt, Hitchen's razor slices that one up so very quickly and allows you to move on to other things.
(For anyone unfamiliar Hitchen's Razor is simply 'That which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Credebility Loss
This coming from somebody who thinks facebook can use §230 to dismiss a lawsuit over facebook's own speech.
How come you have never admitted you were wrong in that assertion?
Or they can say STFU, our opinions are our own and they are protected protected speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Male Pattern Credebility Loss
“ goodbye to their credibility.”
You know who else said goodbye to their credibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Male Pattern Credebility Loss
That's imllying Koby had any credibility in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Male Pattern Credebility Loss
The truly sad thing is that he did, for a time there they were actually capable of making insightful comments and engaging in worthwhile discussions but as time went on it became more and more clear that they were not commenting in good faith and were just here to cheerlead for the professional victims/'very good people' with anything else the exception rather than the rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Male Pattern Credebility Loss
As That One Guy has it, yes, Koby did start out with credibility, pushing a number of reasonable arguments for anything beyond his actual interests.
Then as soon as it came to Trump, section 230, free speech in general, or anyone tossing nazis and bigots out of the door, there was Koby, using his "reasonable" voice to shove a hot mess of false premises, false equivalence, red herrings, straw man arguments and other troll rhetoric down everyone's throat.
Koby is the quintessential shill. He'll weigh in on other issues using normal smarts but as soon as the topic is about his friends in the KKK and neo-nazi party he swings right back to the stormfront talking points.
That tactic of building credibility in order to sell a selective piece of bullshit is as old as speech but the most infamous user of the tactic in modern times is still Goebbels - in whose footsteps Koby has spent some time walking, on these boards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Credebility Loss
or say goodbye to their credibility
So the Pulitzer committee is going to lose credibility with a bunch of red hat retards who think everything outside their bubble is bullshit, fake news, or alternative facts...to be honest, that doesn't mean nearly as much as you think it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Please try to avoid stuff like 'retard' when making your point, not only does it undermine your comment people with mental issues beyond their control really don't deserve to be lumped in with that lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Yeah, I'm afraid that word has lost usability. We do need some new ways of defining people who have voluntarily crippled themselves mentally the way the red hat Qanon cult and the nurgle cultists have.
I tend to fall back on the term Fuckwit - but that language just isn't usable in many forums either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
I agree, but as Scary Devil Monastery pointed out, there needs to be another word.
A word with teeth. A demeaning word.
And before anyone chimes in as to they deserve empathy or sympathy, let it sink in that because of their turning a solely scientific problem into a political one, we have north of 750,000 people dead. Three-quarters of a million people are dead because of Trump's incoherent response to the pandemic, and his followers embracing his stupidity.
At some point, you run into the paradox of tolerance. That's where I am. These people are beyond just making poor decisions. They're doing it and it's putting us in significant danger. It's not just 'another opinion' or 'diverse ideas' - this stupidity is getting people killed in significant numbers.
I'm fine with substituting for 'retard' but I'm at a loss as to how else to describe such an incredible number of clueless fucking morons. It's a serious mental condition, and that they embrace it willingly, facts be damned, points to some kind of brain deficiency. And that condition is a literal threat to the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Trumpists” seems like a good alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trumpanzee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, but it doesn't have the same impact.
Think impact. We can do this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trumpalo
Because they all worship an insane face-painted clown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
"Trumpista" would be a good one, but the fact is, all "retard" really means is that one thing is comparatively behind or below another thing. It's a synonym for "retrograde", and an antonym for "advanced". Still and all, while the dictionary (usually) does not define "retard" as a description of a person lacking in brain-power, we as a society do tend to use the word that as a pejorative, and it's been accepted into the common vernacular.
For all intents and purposes, Koby's development in ability to recognize and accept reality has been completely arrested in progress, and thus it is fair to say that he is clinically retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
For all intents and purposes, Koby's development in ability to recognize and accept reality has been completely arrested in progress, and thus it is fair to say that he is clinically retarded.
Barring medical/psychological evidence to the contrary not so much, there's a big difference between 'can not' versus 'will not' when it comes to comprehension and/or education. One of those is excusable, the other is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Great point - that begs the question though - is it truly will versus can? With how some of these people just threw their lives away, I'm not sure that its such a binary question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An entire party of 'cut off your nose to spite your neighbor'
It's entirely possible that for a number of them it really is 'can' rather than 'will' but I think you underestimate the ego and spite that is such a core part of that group, where most of them would happily risk their own lives so long as they get to 'stick it to the libs' in the process' and/or refuse to accept that their Dear Leader might have lied to them until it's far too late for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Oh I'm not at all saying not to insult them I'm merely asking that you don't insult another group in the process.
As for a derogatory word/term for the red-hat wearing jackasses my go-to for a while now has been MAGAts, which while admittedly insulting to literal maggots who actually serve a useful function does nicely get across the feelings of disgusting worms swarming over whatever carrion they can get their claws on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
"let it sink in that because of their turning a solely scientific problem into a political one, we have north of 750,000 people dead. "
Just a number, but to put that into context;
Statistically speaking the pandemic would have cost the population of a first world nation the size of the US somewhere around 50k dead if all they did was sit on their hands.
The rest, more dead americans than both world wars and vietnam together cost the US - can all be blamed on the Trump administration willfully trying to turn defying normal medical precautions a test of loyalty.
Let that sink in - Trump and his gang cost the US more dead people than Wilhelm II, the whole of Viet Cong and Hitler together.
"At some point, you run into the paradox of tolerance. That's where I am. These people are beyond just making poor decisions. They're doing it and it's putting us in significant danger. It's not just 'another opinion' or 'diverse ideas' - this stupidity is getting people killed in significant numbers."
I've been advocating applying Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance" for some time now. Changing the law to make those misfits go away just means they win - because when they come to power again that law will be used against you.
But there is something you can do, as a citizen. Stop putting up with those people. Don't tolerate them. Don't lend them the credibility of your silence and grudging inclusion. Not as employees, not as partners, not as family members, not as part of your circle. Because those who vote for the fascist don't get to plead that it wasn't the fascist ideal they voted for;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Uh, the Spanish flue pandemic left 25-50 million dead.
With a population under 2 billion.
Covid has left less than 20 million deaths from over 8 billion.
Neither come close to Black Death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
The Scots call him a "cockwomble". But may not work on some sites either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Oh, come on! The vast variety of Twitter insults from the Scots against him when he erroneously claimed that they were somehow in favour of Brexit, and that's the one you go for?
You're not even going to go with "Cheeto-faced, ferret wearing shitgibbon" or "mangled apricot hellbeast"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Credebility Loss
First off, America was partially founded on DISTRUST of anuthing that could be manipulated by the state to disenfranchise the "common man" (ie, anyone who wasn't British). That's largely why America's institutions are schizophrenic and largely override one another.
Secondly, and partly as a result of said schizophrenia, these institutions have become bloated, myopic, selfish, incompetent and INSANELY SPITEFUL and if the CIA nad FBI is of any indication, all of America's institutions are rotten to the core.
Lastly, it's people like you that keep propping up powerhungry bastards like the Kochs and Rupert Murdoch, who, by the way, are the engineers behind THIS wave of anti-intellectualism.
Not like you care, since they're on YOUR side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Credebility Loss
For now... The moment the convenient idiots become inconvenient, they'll get tossed under the bus. And even then, a majority of them will think it's all right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Credebility Loss
Seeing as this bunch of replies are aimed at Koby, I've got the ultimate rush for him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ityjblbczI
Koby, expect to see this a whole lot more, cause I'm sure others will pick it up and run with it as well, just as I will post it every time I see your name come up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine a world where this was given the coverage it deserved.
Somewhere after the obits & classifieds & only if they needed filler.
He isn't POTUS anymore, there is no fucking reason to give him more coverage. He helped murder citizens with his lies & fake medical information & for some reason because he threatens to file yet another meritless bullshit lawsuit (I mean of the 3 million hes threatened to file has he met one he hasn't run away from yet?) people care?
Racist Con-Man with badly executed make-up & fake hair flails around trying to get 15 min more fame. Let him get his ass on My Pillow Guys "news" site & ignore him.
He doesn't matter & is a well known liar.
His lies inspired an attempted coup of the government so he could stay in office and kill another million citizens with his lies.
He ruined the nation & managed to push our government into being his own petty grievance enforcers & yes men who will support him saying the sky is hot pink because keeping him happy means the base of idiots will support them too.
When your toddler misbehaves you put them in timeout, you don't make them the defacto leader of the house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel that the Pulitzer Committee ought to refer to the Arkell vs. Pressdram reply from the Private-Eye
https://lettersofnote.com/2013/08/07/arkell-v-pressdram/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a third way to look at this
It's not binary: Trump can be wrong and the NYT/WP should return their Pulitzers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is a third way to look at this
Please give some specific reasons why they should return their Pulitzers?
Please be as succinct and specific as you are able to while articulating your reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is a third way to look at this
Wait, I thought you wanted a reply and then you throw in that impossibly high bar?! Shame! /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a 1st Amendment issue, not censorship
when a sad little ex-president would like less coverage of his pathetic attempts of tilting the table in the 2016 election, and abuses the court system for converting money he does not actually have into nuisance for his advantage like he has done most of his life.
This is just the U.S. legal system inherently being a tool for letting money (or rather access to money) buy injustice, and since the targets here actually also have money, there is not a lot of injustice Trump will be able to buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a 1st Amendment issue, not censorship
I'll bite.
How is someone attempting to control someone else's speech through the courts not a First Amendment issue or censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a 1st Amendment issue, not censorship
Because he is a private citizen, even if he still considers himself president. And this performative suit has about the same likelihood of becoming a First Amendment issue due to government action as a confetti bomb has for becoming an act of war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a 1st Amendment issue, not censorship
Psst: civil suits that seek to enjoin or punish speech are using state action to suppress speech and are inherently a 1st Amendment issue. I mean, if you knew anything at all about the law you would know this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a 1st Amendment issue, not censorship
Let's not forget that he is suing over speech that occured during his time as moron in chief, making this a compelled speech argument as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a 1st Amendment issue, not censorship
THE STOOOPID... IT BURNS!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupidity doesn’t burn people—it drowns them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They tried that once... somehow the stupid survived.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a 1st Amendment issue, not censorship
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-firs t-amendment/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because it will likely fail doesn't mean it wasn't tried
When you involve the government the first amendment comes into play. The second a private citizens goes from asking or even demanding that someone change what they've said to threatening legal action it goes from one person making use of their first amendment rights to respond to another's use to a first amendment issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a 1st Amendment issue, not censorship
So, asking the courts to suppress speech is not a first amendment issue if you're not personally working for the government? It's fine as long as you're only asking others to do the dirty work that would break the law?
I mean, true, it's not an actual constitutional issue unless the courts agree with you and take action, but it's really not a good look for a former government chief to be trying to do such a thing, even if the courts are unlikely to actually destroy the first amendment to placate him (and, sadly, it's not a given that they won't for him specifically)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most deranged old men can only yell at clouds but when you have money, you can sue them too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm curious. What cause of action does Trump have here? In what way is he damaged by the Pulitzer board refusing to strip the awards, such that he'd have standing for a lawsuit? I see this being smacked down relatively quickly for failure to state a claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"In what way is he damaged by the Pulitzer board refusing to strip the awards, such that he'd have standing for a lawsuit?"
Because it'd be a judging against him, obviously. Trump has never in his lifetime been shy of dropping lawsuits at anyone daring to not give him a public reacharound. It's the trusted way he used to make himself feel important before he a horde of fuckwits saw fit to make him president.
Narcissism is his drug of choice and the way he now insists the pulitzer committee is morons unless they withdraw prizes from those who've dared criticize him is just typical behavior from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's been butthurt, and he needs to lash out at what his feverish mind believes is the source of that buttpain. Of course, the narcissism in him never seems to make the connection that he's bringing all this shit down on himself by the very fact that he suffers from diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
You got it in one. However, he'll be allowed to amend it two or three times before the court realizes that it has other cases to adjudicate, and tosses it out for good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from the dude,-come-on dept
Like most lawsuits from Trumpland, the point of this one is not ... how to explain the scope of the "not" ... not anything to do with winning a lawsuit or what the law might let one enforce. Not anything to do with the WaPo or the NYT's reporting or with their Pulitzer Prize. Not anything to do with the events it says it is about.
The letter, and the lawsuit if one follows, are PR to be lapped up by people who are already convinced that "the mainstream media" has zero standards, lies all the time, and that the only source of truth is DJT who is Fighting For You. The letter has no other function. Ahh, that "no" is the scope of the "not."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the dude,-come-on dept
"The letter, and the lawsuit if one follows, are PR to be lapped up by people who are already convinced that "the mainstream media" has zero standards, lies all the time, and that the only source of truth is DJT who is Fighting For You. The letter has no other function."
And the problem is, of course, that too many of the sane and rational still think a tort is meant to address a grievance and laugh in disbelief at the clown launching lawsuits at random where he has no hope to win.
Meanwhile the 25% of the US citizenry still subscribing to Dear Leader's fan club and cult will just shoehorn it into their victim complex. Points seven and eight from Umberto Eco's 14 features of fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some people claim the Steel dossier disproves Trump's collusion with Russia.
Others, in contrast, actually have at least some knowledge about how investigations work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paraphrased song line, "It's my history and I'll change it if I want to."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dick Clark much? ;) But seriously, good parody.
For the younger set: the song "It's My Party" was sung by Leslie Gore, and released in 1963. She did this at age 16, no less!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For the even younger, also a hit in the UK in 1981 for Barabara Gaskin & Dave (not the Eurhthymics one) Stewart. Barabara is 4 years younger than Leslie :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For the even younger, also a hit in the UK in 1981 for Barabara Gaskin & Dave (not the Eurhthymics one) Stewart. Barabara is 4 years younger than Leslie :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you want to/are doing X, first blame the other person of X
It's funny because the Republican Party used to insist that "the left" was the party of victimhood, and yet in Trumpist world, they're always victims all the time, and always have to whine about how victimized they are.
Every accusation a confession, every self-given label a rejection of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When you want to/are doing X, first blame the other person o
Straight out of the Roy Cohn playbook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just give Pulitzers to the people Donald hates the most, in order to annoy him.
And the Pulitzer prizes for being gay, being poor, being black and reporting on Donald's very illegal property portfolio are........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike is going to cry
I can't wait until the midterm elections when Democrats lose 60 seats in congress. Mike Masnick will have a full blown temper tantrum with tears rolling down his liberal cheeks!
It's a complete lie that leftist media offer retractions on lies and mistakes. He also lies in this article saying "clear that parts of the Steele dossier were highly questionable (which was pretty much known from the beginning" Not true because it was the document responsible for getting FISA warrants to spy on a political opponent. Let me ask you this... what parts of the dossier weren't questionable and proven to be true?
If you can't cite a single article or news report from the NY Times or CNN that was proven wrong about Trump they didn't retract then clearly you are biased, and should go back to reporting on urinals.
No proof of election fraud? Let's ignore common sense. Let's ignore Biden gets 18 people to his rallies and Trump get thousands. Let's ignore Biden got more votes than Obama. Let's ignore even in leftist cities people chanting FK Joe Biden. And instead look at Project Veritas on Youtube and have actual video showing election fraud.
Among independents Biden's approval rating is 29.8% and Kamala has similar numbers overall. People are waking up, and your 1,000 unique visitor per month has the same effect as a drop of water in a tanker full of gasoline.
Enjoy your echo chamber of opinions. Enjoy your food shortages, spiking prices, housing crisis, employment crisis, and all the other messes that were created by Biden. People are waking up and Democrats are going to get wiped out in a big way over the next 10 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike is going to cry
No proof of election fraud? Let's ignore common sense. Let's ignore Biden gets 18 people to his rallies and Trump get thousands. Let's ignore Biden got more votes than Obama. Let's ignore even in leftist cities people chanting FK Joe Biden. And instead look at Project Veritas on Youtube and have actual video showing election fraud.
Should we also ignore that Trump lost the popular vote both in 2020 and 2016?
Enjoy your food shortages, spiking prices, housing crisis, employment crisis, and all the other messes that were created by Biden.
Food shortages? I don't know where you live, but there are no shortages with anything where I do. You could argue prices have spiked compared to what they were a year ago. Or you could remember that in the event that you could find ANYTHING to buy last year, how much it cost...I always thought it was supply/demand free-market stuff that dictated price...why are you advocating for price-fixing, you commie heathen scum?
The housing crisis is my favorite - as a homeowner, I've seen my property value shoot up nearly 35% over the past year. Homes were being bought sight-unseen by people looking to get away from you dipshits. If that's a crisis, I'm fucking all in!
In terms of an employment crisis, you can blame your own whiny fucking asses for that. Perhaps being treated like shit by a bunch of soiled diaper babies complaining about having to put on a mask during the middle of a pandemic illustrated just how not worth it those jobs were, amirite?
My only regret is that more of you assholes aren't dead of COVID.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike is going to cry
My only regret is I can only vote for your post once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike is going to cry
"Food shortages? I don't know where you live, but there are no shortages with anything where I do. You could argue prices have spiked compared to what they were a year ago."
And, of course, the alt-right shills conveniently fail to point out that the current president always inherits the fallout coming due from the last administration. Trump was able to rest on the outcome of Obama policies and Biden is now having to deal with what Trump's policies caused. This is how, for the last ten presidencies or so, the GOP have beaten their chests claiming credit for what the last guy did.
That's one explanation for the inflation spiking. Trump's reign wasn't too good on anything pandemic-related so now when people once again need things they couldn't care less about when they were in full quarantine the supply chains literally don't exist any longer.
And then there's the other half of the equation; Inflation is responsible for some price hikes, yes, and the gaps in the supply chain exacerbate that issue...but the major reason for the massive price hike has to do with all of the US market by now consisting of pseudo-monopolies and cartels all taking the opportunity to price hike in lockstep. Google "We need to talk about the real reason behind US inflation" by Robert Reich. Interesting how so many US corporations in this time of crisis are increasing their margins innit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike is going to cry
It's funny to see the projection. What we have seen the last years is that it's always the republicans that have temper tantrums for the smallest insignificant thing. Case in point: Trump demanding the Pulitzer Prize Committee to take away the prize or he'll sue.
And then there's you, your whole post is one big temper tantrum triggered by Trumps own tantrum.
Seriously, you folks are like the human centipede with Trump in front.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is sad, even for a Trumpist. Even Lodos tries to make a better case for Trump being a competent ruler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Even Lodos tries to make a better case for Trump being a competent ruler."
Well, aside from his apparent blind spot where Dear Leader is concerned Lostinlodoss at least has a brain. Also you can spot vestiges of a conscience.
But he's the rare exception. Most other trump cultists can't handle the level of cognitive dissonance associated in having a brain and cheering for Dear Leader and thus tend to bypass that apparatus altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuck your feelings
Sad low energy post. Not nearly enough reverse vampires and mole people. You didn't even say clotshot or sheeple once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike is going to cry
The only people who think election fraud is "common sense" are the GQP, related grifters, and their fanbase.
Never mind that Biden was/is following social distancing and masking guidelines, whereas Trump rallies were/are COVID superspreader events by people who think wearing a mask or being inoculated against a disease during a pandemic are Satan's ways of corrupting the children.
Citing Project Veritas is like citing Breitbart, Infowars, Fox News, Newsmax, or OAN - at best, it shows your ignorance of the lies and manipulation they spew all the time. At worst, it shows you're arguing in bad faith.
Tell me you're part of QAnon without saying you're part of QAnon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is this supposed to be a damning point somehow? Rally counts don't mean jack when it comes to voting for someone. What it meant is that Trump cared very little for respecting pandemic recommendations.
Plenty of leftists and Democrats weren't keen on Biden as their representative. They still don't, for any number of reasons such as him not being harsh enough on his political opponents. Biden doesn't lose his shit because people he dislikes get accolades that he thinks they don't deserve, though.
This strategy of "you are insignificant and I'm here to remind you" shitposting has never made sense to me. Why the need to post in such an agitated manner if you view everyone else here as a non-threat? You guys pulled off the same kind of grandstanding before and during 2020 all through the elections. How'd that turn out, again?
There are plenty of crises ongoing as the result of being a developed economy that focuses on making decisions that favor corporations over individual workers. As well as a global pandemic. Just in case you weren't aware. The crises resulted from countries simply not having or neglecting the infrastructure to protect those who weren't capable of protecting themselves. Biden didn't create these. I'd even go so far as to say Trump didn't create these either. As for how they're handling these situations... that's a separate discussion, but if you think Trump handled these issues well you're kidding yourself.
Personally I don't doubt that Republicans will fight tooth and nail to ensure that happens. If Democrats don't haul ass, actually solve problems like housing in their communities and take elections seriously they'll pave the way for another Trump era.
That said, if you think that Republicans will meaningfully solve the issues you brought up, based on their track record... again, you're kidding yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike is going to cry
Taking that claim as true for the sake.of argument, all that proves is that proves is that those 18 have a collective IQ greater than that of the thousands, for spacing out and limiting capacity (not to mention those who attended Bidens rallies virtually, that the bot conspicuously omitted) so as not to be lemmings in the middle of a deadly pandemic like Trump's zealots did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike is going to cry
"No proof of election fraud? Let's ignore common sense."
What common sense?
That a lying grifter lost an election all on his own...
Or there was a global conspiracy of airdropped bamboo ballots and yet somehow they didn't take the time to sweep into every fscking office?
How many courts have thrown out the "election fraud" cases?
Are they all on the take or maybe just maybe the claims of fraud are lies with no evidence to support them?
Evidence is not - I saw someone come in with a bag! So they snuck in 5 million ballots.
Someone brought in dinner for the workers who were doing a long tedious job & a bunch of idiots decided that there were 5000 communists inside the bag ready to change the votes?
Evidence is not - Handing voting machines to an unproven, untested, unbonded "expert" company to audit the machines that resulted in the machines having to be scrapped because they didn't even do the most basic things to keep the machines secure.
Evidence is not - The my pillow guy claiming hackers changed thing when none of the machines were not connected to the interwebs & his evidence is some deep seated belief from his cocaine addled brain that the only possible way Trump lost was because they cheated and not that many Americans got tired of the lies and bullshit spewing out of his mouth & fiddling while 700,000+ people FUCKING ACTUALLY DIED from his complete failure to be a leader.
Link the veratis video don't claim it exists without citing it.
How is it if they have video of election fraud (I mean other than the fraud they ran in trying to get people to not vote) no court, no police agency, no one else has seen it and acted on it?
Could it be it doesn't exist?
I mean veratias has a problem with the truth, or do you still believe that Elizabeth Warren rocked that young marines world so hard he can never recover?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is so surprising?
That a foreign government tried to influence an election. You act like that’s something abnormal!
Every major country get’s involved in foreign elections, including the US!
The question of importance is if Trump knowingly had direct help.
No such evidence exists.
And, if such evidence is found, is it illegal help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is so surprising?
Yes and no. Lets just say it's not hard to bypass the Federal Election Campaign Act (see the SCOTUS decision regarding Citizens United) when it comes to monetary help.
Otherwise, the FEC says the following:
Despite the general prohibition on foreign national contributions and donations, foreign nationals may lawfully engage in political activity that is not connected with any election to political office at the federal, state, or local levels. The Commission has issued advisory opinions that help to define the parameters of that activity.
See FEC on foreign nationals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is so surprising?
"The question of importance is if Trump knowingly had direct help.
No such evidence exists. "
What does exist is that Trump is sitting with massive loans for which he owes the Russian FSB as a guarantor.
What also exists is the tacit fact that Trump has consistently been the best US president Russia ever had.
Legally speaking there may be little you can do but if your actions benefit your own company that much at home and abroad while benefiting the competition to the extent that Trump did, questions should be asked.
Statistically, if the US administration had just sat on their hands they should, by now, be looking at roughly 50k dead or so. Possibly a 100k with bad luck.
Instead, entirely due to Trump's administration making defying basic medical standards a test of loyalty, the US is looking at more casualties courtesy of Covid-19 than you guys lost in vietnam and both world wars combined. Some 700k more than what ought to have been the case for any other G8 nation.
And yet the adherents of Dear Leader exculpate him, as if that death toll was somehow a...minor hiccup.
And then as a minor addendum to that monumental fsckup he undid some 50 years worth of patient US diplomacy and more or less handed the keys to the middle east completely to russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is so surprising?
And what I see with covid is anyone who chose to not get a vax or use a 95%+ filtration mask (or any at all) and got sick and died because of their choice is one less idiot to worry about.
There it is in plain English black on white text. If your that stupid to choose, choose, full liberty over safety, you deserve it.
That doesn’t change my view of the choice it should be.
Because yes, when you do something that stupid… so be it.
It’s like pointing a gun or running with a knife at cops.
Like the fuck nutz that weave in and out of dense traffic.
When you out everyone around you in danger just drop dead. I won’t loose sleep over it.
Clear enough for you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is so surprising?
All they'd need to do is threaten to sue and watch you roll over like a soy boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is so surprising?
"Because yes, when you do something that stupid… so be it."
Which would be great if they didn't risk everyone else at the same time. Because they do - including people who cannot get the vaccine or is at greater risk for genuine reasons - we have to do more to protect those people. Which, for anyone with the most basic sense of empathy and relationship to medical facts - is not a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is so surprising?
"There it is in plain English black on white text. If your that stupid to choose, choose, full liberty over safety, you deserve it. That doesn’t change my view of the choice it should be. "
And when that choice puts other people into harm's way?
George Washington wasn't shy about ordering his army to be vaccinated, because if you've chosen as a job being part of the civil servant then that job bears a responsibility. Fine. Make the choice not to vaccinate yourself, but;
Expect to be invited to quit that job demanding that you are vaccinated, because your choice does not entitle you to endanger other people.
Expect not to be welcomed in service chains who make a habit of not endangering their patrons.
The problem, you see, isn't whether vaccinating yourself is a choice or not. It is.
But it is a choice which has consequences. And that last part is what the anti-vaxxers keep screaming about.
That John & Jane Q Doe don't want to risk dragging Covid home to grandpa - or their niece - who can't be vaccinated or the vaccine won't take properly because they're on immunosuppressants.
That the public as a whole shouldn't expect police officers to provide them a case of covid along with a speeding ticket or routine pullover or frisking.
Aside from those who can't be vaccinated there's a pool of people who actually have a good reason not to trust yet another "cure" coming from a bunch of white people - with the Tuskegee experiment in fresh memory it's no wonder a lot of poc's refuse to trust a government project involving injections. Even those, however, need to realize that if they don't take their shot they'll have to restrict their interactions to those who are likeminded. Ironically putting the alt-right in the same boat as many of their victims.
By all means let the moron choose to not vaccinate. It's their choice. And that choice should mean they aren't allowed to endanger the rest.
We don't allow people to piss in the water mains. People who insist they are entitled to get carted off to jail. Same as people who drive while drunk. Hell, the cops will remove you from the street if you haven't washed in weeks or are otherwise being a public nuisance. And no one argues about any of this. But the guy who refuses a vaccination feels entitled to keep their job as a hairdresser, police officer or customer representative? Hell, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is so surprising?
Not sure if that happened or not. But I’ve made clear multiple times that I agree with that premise.
When you take a job you abide by the requirements of that job.
That goes back to the poll counting.
If you are unwilling to have someone stand next to you or are I willing to stand next to someone you leave the job and someone willing to do it takes your place.
If you’re front line emergency and don’t want the vax? There’s the door.
Flipping my burgers? Get the fn vax.
I have no problem with vax mandates down to ending at the individual.
We require all sorts of vaccinations to be members of our society. I fully agree with that.
Especially the military.
Given what your pumped full of before you make it to basic I don’t see covid as a stumbling block. Say no, get sectioned out.
Those with “special skills” who exit into the IRR still get annual vax.
*No vax no work. **
(I don’t expect to be tax funding your sad arse though).
And I’ve tried to be clear it’s the same with a mask. I’ve played muse that inaccurate and over stated mandates for inferior product creates a bigger problem than no mandate. But I support a mandate for effective protection.
No mask no entry. Sounds good.
And I support publicly beast marking anyone who disagrees.
Companies have hat disobey should be boldly marked. Then you Can make your own choice of patronage.
And trace tracking allows for those who still visit such places to be properly monitored and quarantined.
When you visit a freedom hub you limited yourself to such places.
That’s the way a safe civilisation works.
Rejoining society should require vaccination and weeks of quarantined testing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Steele Dossier is 100% discredited
Anyone who says "some parts are highly questionable" is living in fantasy world.
Oh, right, it's Mansick, someone who lost a lawsuit that forced him to reveal that he is, in fact, paid by Google. He's also someone who thinks that the New York Times should be allowed to post private information between a lawyer and their client. He's also someone who thinks that Gawker is good and wholesome and that mr. mean Hogan was evil for the lawsuit.
Here's a hint for the New York Times, Gawker and so many others...
Do NOT thumb your noses at a judge and say "we won't listen to your order". It REALLY does not go over well with them.
Can't believe I ever liked this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Steele Dossier is 100% discredited
"Can't believe I ever liked this site."
Oh, hey, Baghdad Bob. What is it now? Twelfth time in a row you felt compelled to shit out a few ad homs and false assertions at Mike and bombastically make your old claim of being a long-time recently disillusioned reader once again?
I'll remind you in case you've forgotten - your usual continuation after that assertion is a claim that you're quitting and never coming back. Normally you do that at least once every two years after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Steele Dossier is 100% discredited
Mind you that’s not a wholly accurate subject line:
The pee pee manifestos has been completely discredited in regards to illegal support on the part of Trump.
Only a fool would deny that there /could/ be evidence of misdeeds by others. But that wasn’t the claim or question to investigate.
The ultimate result was yes, Russia supplied propaganda into the US space of influence. Just like every single country does.
Nothing new. Nothing different.
The results of reviewing such propaganda was… mostly true. Hate or love trump all you want. It wasn’t disinformation. It was spurious. It claimed a and reported b.
Just like the pee pee files.
What we found out from all of this?
Trump is a ruthless businessman and some people related to both his business and/or campaign have committed either question or illegal acts.
Clinton and her foundation (…see previous line).
Wow, political ties in foreign countries.
That surprises anyone?
But you shoot yourself every time you say no evidence rather than no fault.
He was not directly involved in any actions by others.
That’s all that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Steele Dossier is 100% discredited
You know, John Smith, for someone so terrified of getting doxed, you do an absolutely shit job of hiding your identity.
That's not how the Shiva Ayyadurai lawsuit went, broski.
Look, we all know at this point that the Shiva Ayyadurai suit didn't go down the way you wanted it to, despite all the Melania Trump/Shiva Ayyadurai fanfiction you wrote together with Hamilton while frantically devouring each other's genitalia. You placed your bets poorly. Get over yourself.
Yeah, that genuinely hasn't worked out for Malibu Media after they refused to pay the lawyer fees of an innocent guy they sued. How is it that your copyright boys keep being such absolute, thorough shitweasels?
Ah, don't flatter yourself. Nobody ever believed for a moment you ever liked this site. Nobody claims to like a site and then spend the good part of four or five years desperately trying to tear it down and piss on the corpse afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]