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.
“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.
unqualified
Lacking the qualifications required for
But what qualifications was he lacking?
Except maybe dr flip flop who spent the first two months say[ing] no need for masks […]
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.
[…] then failing to inform people of which mask [] to use for the most safety.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“Admit what? The unproven allegations […]”
That his son got a job he was completely unqualified for simply for being his son.
“Admitted what?”
He got the job because of daddy
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.
Mind telling me what Little B’s qualifications are to be on the board of any company!
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.
“COVID deaths before the election were really his fault”
Who says [a]nyone in the US is at fault for pre[-]election covid deaths?
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.
“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.
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.
“ Let's wait for evidence.”
On the laptop? Yes.
Until then, we will act as though it was false. It is also incredibly unlikely.
I didn’t say it was true. Not once. Anywhere. I said is was possible.
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.
And more likely than the plan pee-pee-gate.
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.
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.
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.
Even if that was Hunter’s laptop and the emails themselves are real, are what they are claimed to be, and we’re actually found on Hunter’s laptop, it doesn’t matter because we have publicly available evidence that proves that the claims actually or implied within the emails that actually have to do with Biden himself are demonstrably false. There was never any meeting as described, nor could there have been, based on publicly available information. Which definitely makes the laptop story even less plausible and less newsworthy.
“Until that happens, the evidence is that Trump was a corrupt […]
(Evidence not provided)
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.
“[…] nepotistic […]”
(most politicians are)
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.
“ loser,”
(disagree)
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.
“…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.
Mostly false. The fact is that Rudy Giuliani says false things more often than true things. He is not remotely credible.
Only serves prurient interests and has no other value, meaning, interpretation, or purpose; or
Cannot be interpreted to not be significantly prurient.
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.
Under definition 2, something can both be purely prurient and have some artistic and/or political value. If that’s the case, then under a plain reading of the relevant law, such a thing would not be obscene.
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.
So something purely prurient that does have a political or artistic value wouldn't be obscene?
That is correct. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the people who wrote the local codes.
This is just another example of this pathetic blog writers making up their own rules.
Actually, it’s a plain reading of the laws at issue. Do you not understand what “and” means?
"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.
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.
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).
They use it—frequently or sparingly—in a similar context as how they learned it.
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.
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.
They sure can do what they want. There is nothing illegal, unlawful, unethical, or (in our opinion) immoral about it. Something can be legal, lawful, not unethical, and neither immoral nor amoral while still being either undesirable or—in this case—ironic or funny. This isn’t a (negative) criticism of the company per se; just an observation of how quickly they pivoted.
Where the hell did that ad hominem attack in the second sentence even come from?
Your math on the rate of wrist-slaps is flawed, unless you consider even termination a “wrist-slap”. The 2.6% figure includes the 1.5% of complaints that resulted in suspension, termination, or demotion. So, depending on what you define as a wrist-slap and how the 1.5% divides among suspension, termination, and demotion, the actual number of wrist-slaps would be somewhere between 1.1% and 2.6%.
I received participation trophies when I was a kid, and I’m a millennial (one of the younger ones); my mom is a boomer (also on the younger end). It was considered standard by the time I got any. It wasn’t millennials demanding or giving out participation trophies. It was boomers or earlier. Don’t blame the kids for how they were raised.
The NJSPBA does not and will not protect bad officers who violate the public trust and, yet, the 99.9% of good men and women serving in law enforcement continue to find themselves under attack.
Huh? The only people this case puts “under attack” are officers who committed serious misconduct. Aren’t those, pretty much by definition, “bad officers who violate the public trust”?
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
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.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
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.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
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.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
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.
On the post: Techdirt Is Fighting A New Lawsuit
Re: Re:
I’m on Safari on mobile. It’s not just Chrome.
On the post: Techdirt Is Fighting A New Lawsuit
I can’t read the lawsuit. I just see a blank box.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
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.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
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.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
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.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
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.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
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.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
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.
On the post: Parler Speedruns The Content Moderation Learning Curve; Goes From 'We Allow Everything' To 'We're The Good Censors' In Days
Re: Re:
They sure can do what they want. There is nothing illegal, unlawful, unethical, or (in our opinion) immoral about it. Something can be legal, lawful, not unethical, and neither immoral nor amoral while still being either undesirable or—in this case—ironic or funny. This isn’t a (negative) criticism of the company per se; just an observation of how quickly they pivoted.
On the post: Using The George Floyd Protests As An Excuse, Minneapolis Police Destroyed Evidence And Case Files
Minor point of correction
Your math on the rate of wrist-slaps is flawed, unless you consider even termination a “wrist-slap”. The 2.6% figure includes the 1.5% of complaints that resulted in suspension, termination, or demotion. So, depending on what you define as a wrist-slap and how the 1.5% divides among suspension, termination, and demotion, the actual number of wrist-slaps would be somewhere between 1.1% and 2.6%.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Re: Re: Re: Patreon apparently also practices censorship
Pretty difficult to do given the fact that you don’t so much as hint at who this storyteller is or where we might be able to find out.
In the context of this thread, you’re making the claim, so we have no obligation to do research in order to support it; that’s your job.
On the post: Exactly Right: 'You're Not Entitled To A Platform, Boomer.'
Re: Re: participation trophies
I received participation trophies when I was a kid, and I’m a millennial (one of the younger ones); my mom is a boomer (also on the younger end). It was considered standard by the time I got any. It wasn’t millennials demanding or giving out participation trophies. It was boomers or earlier. Don’t blame the kids for how they were raised.
On the post: New Jersey Supreme Court Says Attorney General Can Publish The Names Of Cops Who Committ Serious Misconduct
Huh? The only people this case puts “under attack” are officers who committed serious misconduct. Aren’t those, pretty much by definition, “bad officers who violate the public trust”?
On the post: Study Shows Disney, Netflix Continue To Dominate Traditional TV In Customer Satisfaction
In other breaking news, water is wet, fire is hot, pain hurts, and people breathe.
On the post: Oatly Sues PureOaty For Trademark And Trade Dress Infringement
What do they mean that the blue coloration calls to mind the Swedish brand? Their brand is clearly not blue.
On the post: Music Publishers Sue Roblox In Full Frontal Assault On The DMCA
Re:
Please tell me where they do those things.
Next >>