The commenter said Techdirt and politicians were praising riots.
Accepting the Techdirt argument as true, what politician praised actual riots?
some bookcases were broken and some goofy pictures were taken by awful White people
Also, an officer was killed, bombs were set, and more violence was threatened. Plus some broken windows and other property damage. Don’t minimize what actually happened.
It might be. It might not be. I don’t know. It seems highly unlikely that it is Hunter’s laptop, but I’m not going to claim it’s Russia without evidence, either.
Actually, it appears to be a complete non sequitur.
First off, the two are completely incomparable. Of the three you mentioned, only one is technically possible,* and given the sheer number of publishers out there, not to mention the fact that self-publishing is easier and cheaper now than ever, getting your book published after being rejected by one publisher is a hell of a lot easier than starting a drug company. And even that’s not that difficult (you never said it had to be successful).
Basically, at best, you’re using a false equivalence.
Cancer is actually multiple distinct diseases, so a single cure for all of them is fairly nonsensical. And there is no such thing as President of the World.
No, it would have been removed from this page via moderation or editorial discretion. “Censored” means that the government is preventing, removing, or punishing the speech.
I know the echo chamber of Techdirt demands everyone hold fast to the falsehood that there was absolutely no voter fraud at all and that this was the most-secure election ever in the history of the world, but reality has a way of crashing in when you least expect it.
No one is claiming there was no voter fraud. Just that it’s minimal and only pro-Trump voters appear to have done so. We’re claiming there is no widespread voter or election fraud or enough to change the results of the election. It was the most secure election in modern history simply because of how closely watched everything was.
We claim these things based on past experience and what (mostly Republican) governors, (mostly Republican) Secretaries of State, all election officials, many election watchers, lawyers (for both sides), judges (including Trump employees), and election experts have said and the results of several recounts and verifications. We also haven’t seen any real evidence that would refute those claims, despite the fact that there was plenty of opportunity for proof to be presented.
And what do you do with the seventy-three million people who saw what happened in this election and understand that there was rampant fraud in four key states?
First, not everyone who voted for Trump thinks that there was fraud or irregularities. Second, that’s entirely up to them. I don’t care what they do as long as it’s lawful.
Do you lock them all up in reëducation camps until they conform to your version of reality? Maybe just execute them like other communist regimes do when they take power?
Nope. No one is saying that.
If you think they'll just slink away never to be seen again, you're sadly mistaken.
Disappointing but unsurprising. That said, they can’t change the reality of the situation, no matter how much they hope or believe that it’s false or wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re: In the game of thrones you win or you die.
Most Democrats did not try to cast Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they didn’t go for impeachment until Trump did something impeachable (interference in investigations and enlisting foreign aid in investigating a potential opponent).
You’re making an allegation that doesn’t comport with reality. At any rate, even if you’re right, the point is that no serious attempt was made to discredit the election process, stop his inauguration, or go outside legal processes to remove him from office.
My point is that the two are not remotely equivalent.
Votes can’t be manipulated on a large scale; voters and who can vote can. Dems alleged the latter occurred; Republicans the former. There’s a massive difference between the allegations in 2016 and 2020.
Except the BLM protests were largely nonviolent and didn’t target people for violence when violence occurred. Neither was the case with the attack on Wednesday.
Re: Re: Re: Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick
Let’s see. I don’t recall any police officers getting hurt during the BLM protests. There are currently at least two officers confirmed dead from the Capitol riot. The woman was killed trying to break into where government officials, including Nancy Pelosi, were holed up to stay away from the rioters, and she was accompanied by a number of others, some of whom were armed. We’ve condemned the assaults on largely peaceful protests and the killing of individual blacks who posed no threat or were trying to flee.
Also, I’m not inherently anti-cop. I’m in favor of accountability.
He’s tried to discredit the media, fired anyone who doesn’t do exactly what he says, favors loyalty to him over loyalty to the country or the law, has tried to shut down investigations into him or his cronies, claimed to have absolute power, calls for law and order while holding himself to be above the law, claimed that the election was rigged if he wasn’t elected, and instigated an attempted coup to keep him in power. He may not actually be a dictator, but it’s not for a lack of trying.
On the post: Wednesday, January 6th: The Day The Game Of Politics Turned Into Insurrection
Re: You don't know what "strawman" means
Accepting the Techdirt argument as true, what politician praised actual riots?
Also, an officer was killed, bombs were set, and more violence was threatened. Plus some broken windows and other property damage. Don’t minimize what actually happened.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re:
What ideals?
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re: Unhappy?
Actually, “literally”, intended literally, would still make sense here.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It might be. It might not be. I don’t know. It seems highly unlikely that it is Hunter’s laptop, but I’m not going to claim it’s Russia without evidence, either.
On the post: Snowflake Josh Hawley Seems To Think The 1st Amendment Means Simon & Schuster Has To Give Him A Book Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, it appears to be a complete non sequitur.
First off, the two are completely incomparable. Of the three you mentioned, only one is technically possible,* and given the sheer number of publishers out there, not to mention the fact that self-publishing is easier and cheaper now than ever, getting your book published after being rejected by one publisher is a hell of a lot easier than starting a drug company. And even that’s not that difficult (you never said it had to be successful).
Basically, at best, you’re using a false equivalence.
On the post: Snowflake Josh Hawley Seems To Think The 1st Amendment Means Simon & Schuster Has To Give Him A Book Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How so?
On the post: Snowflake Josh Hawley Seems To Think The 1st Amendment Means Simon & Schuster Has To Give Him A Book Contract
Re: Re:
Actually, I don’t think that publishers need to be used.
On the post: Snowflake Josh Hawley Seems To Think The 1st Amendment Means Simon & Schuster Has To Give Him A Book Contract
Re: Re:
No, it would have been removed from this page via moderation or editorial discretion. “Censored” means that the government is preventing, removing, or punishing the speech.
On the post: Snowflake Josh Hawley Seems To Think The 1st Amendment Means Simon & Schuster Has To Give Him A Book Contract
Re: Re:
And that is not only perfectly legal but also protected by the 1A.
On the post: Identifying Insurrectionists Is Going To Be Easy -- Thanks To Social Media And All The Other Online Trails People Leave
Re:
No one is claiming there was no voter fraud. Just that it’s minimal and only pro-Trump voters appear to have done so. We’re claiming there is no widespread voter or election fraud or enough to change the results of the election. It was the most secure election in modern history simply because of how closely watched everything was.
We claim these things based on past experience and what (mostly Republican) governors, (mostly Republican) Secretaries of State, all election officials, many election watchers, lawyers (for both sides), judges (including Trump employees), and election experts have said and the results of several recounts and verifications. We also haven’t seen any real evidence that would refute those claims, despite the fact that there was plenty of opportunity for proof to be presented.
First, not everyone who voted for Trump thinks that there was fraud or irregularities. Second, that’s entirely up to them. I don’t care what they do as long as it’s lawful.
Nope. No one is saying that.
Disappointing but unsurprising. That said, they can’t change the reality of the situation, no matter how much they hope or believe that it’s false or wrong.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re: Re: In the game of thrones you win or you die.
Most Democrats did not try to cast Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they didn’t go for impeachment until Trump did something impeachable (interference in investigations and enlisting foreign aid in investigating a potential opponent).
You’re making an allegation that doesn’t comport with reality. At any rate, even if you’re right, the point is that no serious attempt was made to discredit the election process, stop his inauguration, or go outside legal processes to remove him from office.
My point is that the two are not remotely equivalent.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: "Whiny babies"
They also killed an officer and set pipe bombs at DNC and RNC HQs. They also planned to hold hostages. Don’t minimize what happened.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Votes can’t be manipulated on a large scale; voters and who can vote can. Dems alleged the latter occurred; Republicans the former. There’s a massive difference between the allegations in 2016 and 2020.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re: Stupid people do stupid things
Except the BLM protests were largely nonviolent and didn’t target people for violence when violence occurred. Neither was the case with the attack on Wednesday.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re: Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick
Let’s see. I don’t recall any police officers getting hurt during the BLM protests. There are currently at least two officers confirmed dead from the Capitol riot. The woman was killed trying to break into where government officials, including Nancy Pelosi, were holed up to stay away from the rioters, and she was accompanied by a number of others, some of whom were armed. We’ve condemned the assaults on largely peaceful protests and the killing of individual blacks who posed no threat or were trying to flee.
Also, I’m not inherently anti-cop. I’m in favor of accountability.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re:
What case?
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: WAR
What are you talking about?
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He’s tried to discredit the media, fired anyone who doesn’t do exactly what he says, favors loyalty to him over loyalty to the country or the law, has tried to shut down investigations into him or his cronies, claimed to have absolute power, calls for law and order while holding himself to be above the law, claimed that the election was rigged if he wasn’t elected, and instigated an attempted coup to keep him in power. He may not actually be a dictator, but it’s not for a lack of trying.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick
And people say that these thugs weren’t violent.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Unhappy?
I call projection.
Next >>