Re: Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you
However, I do not agree that Joe Biden won the election, regardless of the results.
So you’re saying that even if the official results say that Biden won, you won’t believe Biden won? What would change your mind? It’s one thing to say you don’t think he should have won or that he would be a terrible president, but it’s quite another to say that he did not win despite the evidence.
...while same corrupt entertainment industry owned media pitched anti-Trump propaganda, never giving him credit for anything positive that was going on during the entire four years.
Aside from pulling out of the TPP (which was acknowledged by that same media) and getting tax cuts passed (also acknowledged by the media and only arguably positive), what good things happened under the Trump administration? The economy was growing more slowly during the entire time it grew under Trump than it was while Obama was in office. Pulling out of the Paris agreement, breaking the Iran deal, leaving the WHO, and renegotiating trade deals with Canada, Mexico, and China weren’t positive developments, either. And no one would argue that COVID was a good thing, even if it wasn’t Trump’s fault that it happened.
Then there is the Russia-gate hoax the media ran with...
It wasn’t a hoax. There were the facts that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump and Trump and his people appeared oddly close to Putin, and the question of whether or not and to what extent Trump and/or his associates were complicit in that. It’s unknown how much the interference actually affected the election, but that’s not the point. Furthermore, a number of Trump’s associates have been found/admitted to being guilty of doing exactly what the “Russia-gate pushers” accuser them of. There is some disagreement about Trump’s personal role in the whole thing, but to say that the whole thing was a hoax is a gross oversimplification.
…and their sham of an impechment, …
Setting aside that the media didn’t impeach Trump, I’ll agree that it was a sham because almost every Republican Senator had already decided to acquit Trump regardless of the charges or evidence.
…then blaming him for covid.
No one is blaming Trump for COVID. They’re blaming Trump for the amount of damage it’s done, how quickly it’s spread, stuff like that. COVID was going to happen no matter who was President, but Trump (at the very least arguably) made it worse, and definitely could have done a lot more to mitigate the pandemic’s effects on America, which can be seen by comparing what was done here and the results to what was done elsewhere and the results.
I'd rather see Trump stay defiant, find Biden on criminal activity that places him in prison, which places him the winner.
Setting aside for a moment that there is 0 credible evidence that Biden has ever been involved in criminal activity and how atrocious and anti-democratic it would be for a sitting president to charge their opponent with criminal activity to prevent themself from being replaced, nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about being in prison being a disqualification for being President, so that wouldn’t actually work.
The border wall needs to be finished to prevent drug cartels/human traffickers. You can make fun of trump for not making Mexico pay for it, etc. But the fact is, Trump delivered stopping a lot of crime that was coming across the border.
Ah, the border wall. You know that that hasn’t actually stopped or even reduced any crimes, right? People can pretty easily bypass the wall entirely by using airports, the coastline, or the US-Canada border. Furthermore, the wall hasn’t even affected drug trafficking on the US-Mexico border. People can just use a ladder or rope to climb the darn thing, or just throw drugs over the wall. It’s also worth noting the Trump barely extended the existing barrier, and there is no plan to extend it all the way across the US-Mexico border. But, again, most drug trafficking, human trafficking, and illegal immigration involving the US occurs through paths other than ones crossing the US-Mexico border by land.
I'm sure you will call me a conspiracy theorist. But, Dominion, I'm sure you have hard of the company recently, is assumed to have flipped votes through their voting software that many Trump opponents are havily invest in. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a fact. At least the bit about who Dominian is and that prominant Trump opponents are heavily invested in that software company. Apparently, some of those votes were assumed "anomalies" and were turned back to Trump.
While the bit about who Dominion is is true and I don’t necessarily dispute that Trump opponents have invested in the software (I wouldn’t be surprised either way or if Trump proponents also invested in the software), the rest has been refuted by an official website run by the Trump administration.
In my eyes, Trump has done a lot more good than bad, compared to the Obama and Bush administration, which my family blindly served in almost all 7 wars that stemmed from the Iraq war under Bush.
I’d just like to ask what 7 wars you’re talking about for clarification. I’m not necessarily disputing this fact (I’m not guaranteeing I won’t do that, either); I just want clarification.
I wish Tusli or Bernie would have won or went independent and campaigned together because they would had my vote.
I’m genuinely confused here. There is a lot more intersection between Biden and Bernie than between Trump and Bernie. This includes the border wall you care so much about (both Biden and Bernie opposed Trump’s border wall), and I haven’t heard about Bernie wanting to negotiate a peace treaty with Venezuela any more than Biden or Trump, either. Call me ignorant, but I don’t understand the logic of preferring Bernie over Trump but Trump over Biden, especially given their respective positions on the issues you seem to care most about. And I say this as someone who voted for Bernie in the primaries.
There's rational for my opposition to Biden and support for Trump. I'm not a mad crazed supporter for Trump. But I know that Biden is more trouble than Trump in office and if he gets in office, he'll screw ALL of America harder than COVID.
I’ll accept that you have a rationale even if I don’t understand it, and I’ll accept that your support for Trump is more nuanced. However, I still don’t see why you think Biden is a warmonger. Not having specific plans for a peace treaty with Venezuela isn’t evidence of that given the politics of Venezuela at the moment. As for Libya, I don’t know enough to comment on that. I just don’t see how Trump is any better given his stances on Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. Furthermore, I personally see COVID as the more immediate problem right now, followed by climate change, police accountability, and healthcare in general.
Here’s one major difference: the electoral college vote in 2000 was close enough that one state’s (Florida in that election) electoral votes could change the result. That’s not the case here: the results in multiple states would have to change for Trump to win.
Additionally, none of the states’ individual margins (not even Georgia’s) are anywhere near as close as Florida’s was in 2000 where a recount would feasibly make a difference. Furthermore, the issues in that election were more widely accepted as existing by both sides than in this election.
It is well established by legal, political, and historical scholars that if it wasn’t for the Supreme Court stopping the recount in Florida, Gore had a very good chance of winning the 2000 election. Legal and political scholars largely agree that none of the legal challenges or recounts in this election have any real chance of changing the results. Biden’s lead in the key states is too wide and the legal challenges too weak for the final results to change.
I also specifically disagree with this statement:
There were many serious and valid "irregularities" in the Election that could swing the results
With the singular exception on the question of whether Pennsylvania should count late-arriving ballots (as that’s at least arguably not in keeping with that state’s laws), I have yet to see any real evidence of “serious and valid ‘irregularities’” in this election. And even with that challenge, due to the way the votes were counted, we know that even if we remove all of the late-arriving ballots, Biden would still win Pennsylvania and thus the election. And even if the results in PA were reversed, that wouldn’t be enough to change the winner of the election. Again: Biden’s margin of victory is just too large for that challenge to make a difference.
While you could say there were other valid “irregularities” in this election, namely the proportion of the votes that were early votes and the proportion of the votes that were through mail-in votes, these were expected given the amount of interest in this election and the pandemic that’s still around, and those “irregularities” aren’t serious or the sort that could plausibly swing any election results.
I also need to repeat this for emphasis: none of the states are as close in this election as Florida was in 2000 or close enough that a recount or throwing out a few thousand votes will make a difference in any of them, and the electoral college vote is not so close that one state changing will make a difference.
There’s no double standard here. The two elections in question are very different in every relevant way.
Actually, I have to pay separate fees for both the cable box and the service cable provides. It wasn’t “pay once and you’re done”. That they’re going to the same company is irrelevant. Also, Netflix is less expensive than cable.
You know what else? You pay twice to play video games too! Once for the machine and once for the game! Same with DVDs or CDs. Or with apps on the App Store. How is this news to you? Entertainment isn’t like groceries.
I have no clue. It’s unusual for him to even talk about such things, and he’s not that well known in similar circles as this website, so it doesn’t make much sense. I’ll look up the video to see why he brought it up to begin with (I suspect things were taken out of context), but you’re right that he has no real clout here.
Re: So, web-sites can kick anyone off, but DIFFERENT when physic
Disambiguate your clear position here that hostile strangers physically on property marked "no trespassing" must be allowed,
They weren’t hostile, and they weren’t on private property.
and rectify it with your many prior assertions that mere hosts of web-sites have total control over those including for 1A-protected speech that the host simply doesn't want seen.
Speech on a website is more like someone talking inside your house or writing on a billboard you own than people walking past your house. Here’s a rule of thumb: can a police officer be there without a warrant or permission? Then a stranger can go there, too.
Isn't it true that web-site hosts which solicit persons to publish their own views have almost no grounds for such control?
Nope. They have grounds in the 1A and in property law.
While persons in the McCloskey case had clear intimation of physical danger?
Re: Maliciously prosecuted for opposing a violent mob.
1) They weren’t on “private property”. They don’t own the streets or the sidewalks.
2) I don’t see how the “mob” (read: peaceful protestors) were alarming or hostile. They stopped after being confronted, rather than stopping in order to confront.
3) No one was saying they had to retreat. They could have and maybe should have, but no one was saying they had to. They weren’t even outside at first, as I recall, so they could have just ignored the protesters as they passed by. Also, common law does not say that or overrule statutes contrary to them. Excluding rulings involving the state or federal constitution, statutes can and often do override common law.
4) Setting aside that their property was not, in fact, “surrounded”, that no threats were made against them, and that the house was not in any danger of being burned down, “brandishing” still applies whether they had any moral or legal right to do so. If I fire a gun and that directly results in someone’s death, I still shot and killed them even if it was a clear act of self-defense against a known and widely disliked serial killer or it was unintentional. When you show off your weapon at someone trying to rob your home or something, generally in a threatening manner, that’s still “brandishing” your weapon, justified or not.
Re: Re: Actually, "Glenn", you just stated agree with Common Law
Yes, the law only comes from legislation, constitutions, and courts. Anything else is pseudolegal nonsense. “Common law” refers to court decisions. It is not the golden rule.
As for Glenn, he’s talking about what he thinks the law ought to be, not what he thinks the law is. That’s not breaking with Masnick.
Re: So: 1) ridiculous over-exaggemeration of importance of some
1) The “ridiculous over-exagg[]eration” is a genuine, reasonable opinion held by many who played the game. Others may reasonably disagree, but that doesn’t invalidate the claim. Also, while I haven’t played the game myself, Techdirt didn’t really make any grandiose claims about the game, and it’s important enough that I’ve heard of it, so I’m not sure that they exaggerated anything.
2) What “can’t” are you talking about?
3) Assuming you’re talking about the Constitution on copyright, it says it’s for the “arts”, not “artists”. A plain reading of the text suggests it’s for the common good of culture, not the ones producing it. It does so by giving incentive to artists in the form of copyright if Congress wants to.
Um, yes. It is the consumers who are ultimately supposed to benefit. It says so right in the Constitution. It does so by providing incentive for producers to produce, and in this case, the producers aren’t producing, so this is clearly a failure of copyright.
On the post: Donald Trump Argues That Use Of 'Electric Avenue' In Campaign Video Was Transformative
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can want “impartial” reporting, but you
So you’re saying that even if the official results say that Biden won, you won’t believe Biden won? What would change your mind? It’s one thing to say you don’t think he should have won or that he would be a terrible president, but it’s quite another to say that he did not win despite the evidence.
Aside from pulling out of the TPP (which was acknowledged by that same media) and getting tax cuts passed (also acknowledged by the media and only arguably positive), what good things happened under the Trump administration? The economy was growing more slowly during the entire time it grew under Trump than it was while Obama was in office. Pulling out of the Paris agreement, breaking the Iran deal, leaving the WHO, and renegotiating trade deals with Canada, Mexico, and China weren’t positive developments, either. And no one would argue that COVID was a good thing, even if it wasn’t Trump’s fault that it happened.
It wasn’t a hoax. There were the facts that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump and Trump and his people appeared oddly close to Putin, and the question of whether or not and to what extent Trump and/or his associates were complicit in that. It’s unknown how much the interference actually affected the election, but that’s not the point. Furthermore, a number of Trump’s associates have been found/admitted to being guilty of doing exactly what the “Russia-gate pushers” accuser them of. There is some disagreement about Trump’s personal role in the whole thing, but to say that the whole thing was a hoax is a gross oversimplification.
Setting aside that the media didn’t impeach Trump, I’ll agree that it was a sham because almost every Republican Senator had already decided to acquit Trump regardless of the charges or evidence.
No one is blaming Trump for COVID. They’re blaming Trump for the amount of damage it’s done, how quickly it’s spread, stuff like that. COVID was going to happen no matter who was President, but Trump (at the very least arguably) made it worse, and definitely could have done a lot more to mitigate the pandemic’s effects on America, which can be seen by comparing what was done here and the results to what was done elsewhere and the results.
Setting aside for a moment that there is 0 credible evidence that Biden has ever been involved in criminal activity and how atrocious and anti-democratic it would be for a sitting president to charge their opponent with criminal activity to prevent themself from being replaced, nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about being in prison being a disqualification for being President, so that wouldn’t actually work.
Ah, the border wall. You know that that hasn’t actually stopped or even reduced any crimes, right? People can pretty easily bypass the wall entirely by using airports, the coastline, or the US-Canada border. Furthermore, the wall hasn’t even affected drug trafficking on the US-Mexico border. People can just use a ladder or rope to climb the darn thing, or just throw drugs over the wall. It’s also worth noting the Trump barely extended the existing barrier, and there is no plan to extend it all the way across the US-Mexico border. But, again, most drug trafficking, human trafficking, and illegal immigration involving the US occurs through paths other than ones crossing the US-Mexico border by land.
While the bit about who Dominion is is true and I don’t necessarily dispute that Trump opponents have invested in the software (I wouldn’t be surprised either way or if Trump proponents also invested in the software), the rest has been refuted by an official website run by the Trump administration.
I’d just like to ask what 7 wars you’re talking about for clarification. I’m not necessarily disputing this fact (I’m not guaranteeing I won’t do that, either); I just want clarification.
I’m genuinely confused here. There is a lot more intersection between Biden and Bernie than between Trump and Bernie. This includes the border wall you care so much about (both Biden and Bernie opposed Trump’s border wall), and I haven’t heard about Bernie wanting to negotiate a peace treaty with Venezuela any more than Biden or Trump, either. Call me ignorant, but I don’t understand the logic of preferring Bernie over Trump but Trump over Biden, especially given their respective positions on the issues you seem to care most about. And I say this as someone who voted for Bernie in the primaries.
I’ll accept that you have a rationale even if I don’t understand it, and I’ll accept that your support for Trump is more nuanced. However, I still don’t see why you think Biden is a warmonger. Not having specific plans for a peace treaty with Venezuela isn’t evidence of that given the politics of Venezuela at the moment. As for Libya, I don’t know enough to comment on that. I just don’t see how Trump is any better given his stances on Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. Furthermore, I personally see COVID as the more immediate problem right now, followed by climate change, police accountability, and healthcare in general.
On the post: Trumpland Apparently Just Forgot About Its Manufactured TikTok Hysteria
Re:
Xenophobia is a good thing?
On the post: Trump Campaign Gets Laughed Out Of Court For Claiming A Bunch Of Unvetted Webform Submissions Is 'Evidence' Of Voter Fraud
Re: Re:
Actually, I’ve only ever heard of trolls and outside inciters trashing businesses, and the protestors all wore masks (i.e. they didn’t thwart PPE).
On the post: Trump Campaign Gets Laughed Out Of Court For Claiming A Bunch Of Unvetted Webform Submissions Is 'Evidence' Of Voter Fraud
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny thing: most of the counties along the US-Mexico border voted for Biden in this election and have polled as being opposed to a border wall.
On the post: Donald Trump Argues That Use Of 'Electric Avenue' In Campaign Video Was Transformative
Re: Re: flagged!
It was hidden because it was nonsense. Also, it can still be seen on this site, so how was it censored?
On the post: Trump Campaign Gets Laughed Out Of Court For Claiming A Bunch Of Unvetted Webform Submissions Is 'Evidence' Of Voter Fraud
Re: Re:
Here’s one major difference: the electoral college vote in 2000 was close enough that one state’s (Florida in that election) electoral votes could change the result. That’s not the case here: the results in multiple states would have to change for Trump to win.
Additionally, none of the states’ individual margins (not even Georgia’s) are anywhere near as close as Florida’s was in 2000 where a recount would feasibly make a difference. Furthermore, the issues in that election were more widely accepted as existing by both sides than in this election.
It is well established by legal, political, and historical scholars that if it wasn’t for the Supreme Court stopping the recount in Florida, Gore had a very good chance of winning the 2000 election. Legal and political scholars largely agree that none of the legal challenges or recounts in this election have any real chance of changing the results. Biden’s lead in the key states is too wide and the legal challenges too weak for the final results to change.
I also specifically disagree with this statement:
With the singular exception on the question of whether Pennsylvania should count late-arriving ballots (as that’s at least arguably not in keeping with that state’s laws), I have yet to see any real evidence of “serious and valid ‘irregularities’” in this election. And even with that challenge, due to the way the votes were counted, we know that even if we remove all of the late-arriving ballots, Biden would still win Pennsylvania and thus the election. And even if the results in PA were reversed, that wouldn’t be enough to change the winner of the election. Again: Biden’s margin of victory is just too large for that challenge to make a difference.
While you could say there were other valid “irregularities” in this election, namely the proportion of the votes that were early votes and the proportion of the votes that were through mail-in votes, these were expected given the amount of interest in this election and the pandemic that’s still around, and those “irregularities” aren’t serious or the sort that could plausibly swing any election results.
I also need to repeat this for emphasis: none of the states are as close in this election as Florida was in 2000 or close enough that a recount or throwing out a few thousand votes will make a difference in any of them, and the electoral college vote is not so close that one state changing will make a difference.
There’s no double standard here. The two elections in question are very different in every relevant way.
On the post: Netflix Gets Cute Using DMCA Notices To Take Down Tweets Critical Of 'Cuties'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I have to pay separate fees for both the cable box and the service cable provides. It wasn’t “pay once and you’re done”. That they’re going to the same company is irrelevant. Also, Netflix is less expensive than cable.
You know what else? You pay twice to play video games too! Once for the machine and once for the game! Same with DVDs or CDs. Or with apps on the App Store. How is this news to you? Entertainment isn’t like groceries.
On the post: Netflix Gets Cute Using DMCA Notices To Take Down Tweets Critical Of 'Cuties'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no clue. It’s unusual for him to even talk about such things, and he’s not that well known in similar circles as this website, so it doesn’t make much sense. I’ll look up the video to see why he brought it up to begin with (I suspect things were taken out of context), but you’re right that he has no real clout here.
On the post: Gun-Toting Couple Sues Photographer For Privacy Violation Over Photo They Used As Christmas Cards, After He Billed Them
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was outside the front of their house. How is that not visible from any public right-of-way?
On the post: Gun-Toting Couple Sues Photographer For Privacy Violation Over Photo They Used As Christmas Cards, After He Billed Them
Re: Re: Re: Maliciously prosecuted for opposing a violent mob.
The street in front of the official residence of the mayor is public property.
On the post: Gun-Toting Couple Sues Photographer For Privacy Violation Over Photo They Used As Christmas Cards, After He Billed Them
Re: So, web-sites can kick anyone off, but DIFFERENT when physic
They weren’t hostile, and they weren’t on private property.
Speech on a website is more like someone talking inside your house or writing on a billboard you own than people walking past your house. Here’s a rule of thumb: can a police officer be there without a warrant or permission? Then a stranger can go there, too.
Nope. They have grounds in the 1A and in property law.
No, they did not.
On the post: Gun-Toting Couple Sues Photographer For Privacy Violation Over Photo They Used As Christmas Cards, After He Billed Them
Re: Maliciously prosecuted for opposing a violent mob.
1) They weren’t on “private property”. They don’t own the streets or the sidewalks.
2) I don’t see how the “mob” (read: peaceful protestors) were alarming or hostile. They stopped after being confronted, rather than stopping in order to confront.
3) No one was saying they had to retreat. They could have and maybe should have, but no one was saying they had to. They weren’t even outside at first, as I recall, so they could have just ignored the protesters as they passed by. Also, common law does not say that or overrule statutes contrary to them. Excluding rulings involving the state or federal constitution, statutes can and often do override common law.
4) Setting aside that their property was not, in fact, “surrounded”, that no threats were made against them, and that the house was not in any danger of being burned down, “brandishing” still applies whether they had any moral or legal right to do so. If I fire a gun and that directly results in someone’s death, I still shot and killed them even if it was a clear act of self-defense against a known and widely disliked serial killer or it was unintentional. When you show off your weapon at someone trying to rob your home or something, generally in a threatening manner, that’s still “brandishing” your weapon, justified or not.
On the post: Gun-Toting Couple Sues Photographer For Privacy Violation Over Photo They Used As Christmas Cards, After He Billed Them
Re: Re: Actually, "Glenn", you just stated agree with Common Law
Yes, the law only comes from legislation, constitutions, and courts. Anything else is pseudolegal nonsense. “Common law” refers to court decisions. It is not the golden rule.
As for Glenn, he’s talking about what he thinks the law ought to be, not what he thinks the law is. That’s not breaking with Masnick.
On the post: Happy 20th Birthday To 'No One Lives Forever', The Classic PC Game That Can't Be Sold Today Thanks To IP
Re: So: 1) ridiculous over-exaggemeration of importance of some
1) The “ridiculous over-exagg[]eration” is a genuine, reasonable opinion held by many who played the game. Others may reasonably disagree, but that doesn’t invalidate the claim. Also, while I haven’t played the game myself, Techdirt didn’t really make any grandiose claims about the game, and it’s important enough that I’ve heard of it, so I’m not sure that they exaggerated anything.
2) What “can’t” are you talking about?
3) Assuming you’re talking about the Constitution on copyright, it says it’s for the “arts”, not “artists”. A plain reading of the text suggests it’s for the common good of culture, not the ones producing it. It does so by giving incentive to artists in the form of copyright if Congress wants to.
On the post: Happy 20th Birthday To 'No One Lives Forever', The Classic PC Game That Can't Be Sold Today Thanks To IP
Re: How have I lived without this?
Um, yes. It is the consumers who are ultimately supposed to benefit. It says so right in the Constitution. It does so by providing incentive for producers to produce, and in this case, the producers aren’t producing, so this is clearly a failure of copyright.
On the post: Netflix Gets Cute Using DMCA Notices To Take Down Tweets Critical Of 'Cuties'
What
Dude, let that goddamned comment go. It wasn’t a mistake. It was a joke that you didn’t get. It’s been nine years. Get over it.
On the post: Netflix Gets Cute Using DMCA Notices To Take Down Tweets Critical Of 'Cuties'
What
Legally, it’s not child pornography.
On the post: Netflix Gets Cute Using DMCA Notices To Take Down Tweets Critical Of 'Cuties'
What
Uhhhh, they are criticizing Netflix. Read the goddamned article.
On the post: Netflix Gets Cute Using DMCA Notices To Take Down Tweets Critical Of 'Cuties'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He’s a YouTuber who primarily comments on video games and occasionally internet-related issues.
On the post: To Prevent Free, Frictionless Access To Human Knowledge, Publishers Want Librarians To Be Afraid, Very Afraid
Re: Re: Re: Hey, "Scary Devil Monastery": you are wackily prolix
I’ve been known to be rather prolix with my vocabulary as well. Are you going to call me a sockpuppet too?
Also, you’re surprised to see “techno-babble” on a site called “Techdirt”?
Next >>