Thought for the Day

[broncofan]

In Nashville a hat shop is selling Stars of David that say not vaccinated. I'm at a loss for words and am not going to say what the difference is between the treatment of people forced to wear that symbol and those who aren't vaccinated. If you don't know there's something wrong with you. Just really reprehensible stuff but it's not worse than we've seen with a confederate flag in our Capitol on January 6th or the other ugliness we've seen. It just shocks you every time.

[Stavros]

“In NO WAY did I intend to trivialize the Star of David or disrespect what happened to millions of people,” the store, hatWRKS, wrote in an Instagram post. “I sincerely apologize for any insensitivity.”

yeah right. Or you didn’t care until it hit your sales. The mind boggles at the ignorance or the indifference. And this will not end, this week, next week another offensive and inane stunt will occupy the 24 hour news cycle.

Then you have Flynn saying the US needs what Myanmar has got....

[broncofan]

“In NO WAY did I intend to trivialize the Star of David or disrespect what happened to millions of people,” the store, hatWRKS, wrote in an Instagram post. “I sincerely apologize for any insensitivity.”

yeah right. Or you didn’t care until it hit your sales. The mind boggles at the ignorance or the indifference. And this will not end, this week, next week another offensive and inane stunt will occupy the 24 hour news cycle.

Then you have Flynn saying the US needs what Myanmar has got....
Flynn is more than an embarrassment, he's a genuinely dangerous person at this point. Some of the people in this cabal have pushed the envelope and come really close to psychosis. Lin Wood, Rudy Giuliani, Flynn. These are people who are dangerously unhinged.

As for the Star of David it is disrespect but I also see it as more of the ignorance and self-pity we've seen from anti-vaxxers. People on the right have no sympathy for those like Eric Garner, one of many Black people killed by police, but immediately see themselves as the ultimate victims. Why? They have chosen not to inoculate themselves against a disease that killed 600,000 people in this country. They haven't been blindsided by this, they've chosen to delude themselves.

People are still dying from a disease that everyone in this country is privileged to be able to vaccinate themselves against. They've chosen to turn down a privilege that people all over the world would make enormous sacrifices for. I recal back in January when I was worried about my parents getting exposed to the disease about the kinds of sacrifices I'd make for their safety. It boggles the mind people can turn down vaccines that have gone through a year of clinical trials and then see themselves as any kind of victim at all. Amazing to me that they could put on a star like that and not realize how callous and stupid they seem.

[broncofan]

The concept of Chosen-ness in Judaism is misunderstood, even notably by some Jews, to be a supremacist doctrine and not a statement of the burdens imposed on those who practice Judaism. That's why I hesitate to say without that caveat, anti-vaxxers are not Chosen, they chose.

And they have more to fear from the disease they haven't protected themselves against than the social stigma of advertising their ignorance.

[Stavros]

The people described in this article on Idaho are referred to as ‘Conservatives’, but surely the time has now come to describe them as the Fascists that they are. Three percenters do not believe in Democracy and their fidelity to the Constitution is doubtful, their contempt for Congress absolute. And not just Idaho, but other States too. Unless, and until these groups of people either allied to Trump through the GOP or outside columns of support are identified as what they are, with the racist, the anti- democratic and anti-liberal, and yes, anti-Conservative project they are engaged in, I see no way of stopping them extending their influence to breaking point, ie, gunfire.

Does anyone have the courage to take them on for what they are?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/07/idaho-republicans-far-right-mask-mandates

[blackchubby38]

So what was the point of banning him then?

What Happened When Trump Was Banned on Social Media

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/07/technology/trump-social-media-ban.html

[Stavros]

So what was the point of banning him then?

What Happened When Trump Was Banned on Social Media


Is there an irony that by banning him, the media has limited Trump's opportunity to make statements liable to become incriminating evidence in a Court of Law? Had he been free to range free, who knows what he might say? There are the historic claims about his tax returns and the valuation of his property and business dealings, and normally I would assume his lawyers have told him to keep his mouth shut though that is a big ask. That all he seems interested is banging on about the 'steal' and without the ban would even his supporters not begin to tire of it, day after day?

What I want to know is how 'people in Italy' -what people, where?- managed to use military satellites to instruct voting machines in specific counties in the US to switch votes fror Trump to Biden. If it was serious enough for Mark Meadows to break protocol and write 5 emails to the DoJ seeking an investigation, maybe the man in wrinkled trousers should clarify this claim...?

[broncofan]

Is there an irony that by banning him, the media has limited Trump's opportunity to make statements liable to become incriminating evidence in a Court of Law?
I couldn't read the article because I've reached my limit of free articles but this is a good point. And not just incriminating statements respecting crimes but liability for defamation which he no longer is protected against.

Since I don't know what the NY Times article says I can't really evaluate it but at the time twitter made its decision they can't know all of the effects. These things are easier to see in hindsight. He had just stoked an insurrection and was continuing to do so when they banned the idiot.

[Stavros]

I couldn't read the article because I've reached my limit of free articles but this is a good point. And not just incriminating statements respecting crimes but liability for defamation which he no longer is protected against.

Since I don't know what the NY Times article says I can't really evaluate it but at the time twitter made its decision they can't know all of the effects. These things are easier to see in hindsight. He had just stoked an insurrection and was continuing to do so when they banned the idiot.


Point 1- it may be tedious, but if you register with the NYT you can many of their articles and reports but you have to go to your email first and click a verification button.

Point 2- my argument is derived from the hole Sidney Powell has dug for herself in the legal conflict with Dominion, thus-

"In a March 22 motion to dismiss in the Dominion suit, Powell’s attorneys argued that “no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact” and that they are simply “her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern.” (In the United States, statements of opinion are protected from defamation (https://www.rcfp.org/journals/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/opinion-defense-remains-str/) claims if they cannot be “proven as fact” or if they use “loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language which would negate the impression that the writer was seriously maintaining” a position as fact.)

But a half-hour into the panel at the Dallas Patriot Roundup late last month, Powell appeared to veer away from the defense her attorneys had set out (https://www.thedailybeast.com/sidney-powells-just-kidding-defense-is-seriously-literally-nuts), according to multiple videos reviewed by The Daily Beast.
“I don’t think they realized that some of us litigators were going to catch on and hold their feet to the fire and expose what really happened or that they could shut us up by, say, suing me for 4.3 billion dollars in three different states,” Powell said at the panel discussion. “Threatening me is like waving a red flag in a bull’s face.”
Dominion’s suit against her should be dismissed, Powell continued, because “number one, they don't have jurisdiction over us and number two, we meant what we said and we have the evidence to back it up.”
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sidney-powell-just-eviscerated-her-162126316.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABOWHP_3Vnp5Tu3UrO53Si2blZ14 bLmIDATcGi8yUloPWAS-kvgBcAMdKZI2rdSwgM2qdvSug7P7p-fS-YOcAl6UXNtnEZBtOefnvifOhWCHe3700Y2dsbpA8OpKFlnC7UE ob5cdHAOfgzY-rWidBEV2ETsrLCux3YmTWei-bkSn

[broncofan]

Point 1- it may be tedious, but if you register with the NYT you can many of their articles and reports but you have to go to your email first and click a verification button.

I was reluctant to sign up but I did end up registering with them maybe six months ago and frequently read their articles. I've now apparently read so many of them that they want me to pay a dollar a week to continue reading. It's not expensive but there are just so many newspapers I read just as often that I'm not going to.

[blackchubby38]

I like how NYC can find the time time to put three bike rental stations in my neighborhood. But can't/won't do something about the litter and trash that is all over the streets, sidewalks, and in the grass. Or do something about the 3 or 4 emotionally disturbed people that I see on a daily basis.

On a side note, nothing sums up the state of this city better than walking into a subway elevator and seeing human shit on the floor.

[blackchubby38]

I couldn't read the article because I've reached my limit of free articles but this is a good point. And not just incriminating statements respecting crimes but liability for defamation which he no longer is protected against.

Since I don't know what the NY Times article says I can't really evaluate it but at the time twitter made its decision they can't know all of the effects. These things are easier to see in hindsight. He had just stoked an insurrection and was continuing to do so when they banned the idiot.

Here let me help you out since you don't want to sign up for the site.

The New York Times examined Mr. Trump’s nearly 1,600 social media posts from Sept. 1 to Jan. 8, the day Mr. Trump was banned from the platforms. We then tracked the social media engagement with the dozens of written statements he made on his personal website, campaign fund-raising site and in email blasts from Jan. 9 until May 5, which was the day that the Facebook Oversight Board, which reviews some content decisions by the company, said that the company acted appropriately in kicking him off the service.

Before the ban, the social media post with the median engagement generated 272,000 likes and shares. After the ban, that dropped to 36,000 likes and shares. Yet 11 of his 89 statements after the ban attracted as many likes or shares as the median post before the ban, if not more.

How does that happen?

Mr. Trump had long been his own best promoter on social media. The vast majority of people on Twitter and Facebook interacted directly with Mr. Trump’s posts, either liking or sharing them, The Times analysis found.

But after the ban, other popular social media accounts often picked up his messages and posted them themselves. (Last week, Mr. Trump shut down his blog, one of the places he made statements.)

On Oct. 8, Mr. Trump tweeted that the then-Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his running mate, Kamala Harris, lied “constantly.” The post was liked and shared 501,000 times on Facebook and Twitter.

On March 21, Mr. Trump published a statement on his website saying that his administration had handed over “the most secure border in history.” He went on to criticize the Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis. “Our Country is being destroyed!” Mr. Trump said. The statement was liked and shared more than 661,000 times.


The Global Disinformation Index, a nonpartisan nonprofit that studies disinformation, examined the political leanings of the top accounts sharing Mr. Trump’s statements online after he was barred from Facebook and Twitter. The group classified hundreds of accounts as either left- or right-leaning, or a mix of the two, relying on standards that it established through its work on disinformation risk ratings for news sites and other online media.

One thing that became immediately clear: Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters continue to spread his message — doing the work that he had been unable to do himself.

The top sharers of the March post included the right-wing publication Breitbart News (159,500 likes and shares), a Facebook page called “President Donald Trump Fan Club” (48,200 likes), Fox News (42,000 likes), and Jenna Ellis (36,700 likes), a lawyer who made regular television appearances as Mr. Trump’s proxy to trumpet his debunked claims of a rigged election.

[Stavros]

On a side note, nothing sums up the state of this city better than walking into a subway elevator and seeing human shit on the floor.

That is horrendous and not how I remember the City from my last visit in 2004 -what explains this decline in standards, this neglect?

[broncofan]

Here let me help you out since you don't want to sign up for the site.

The New York Times examined Mr. Trump’s nearly 1,600 social media posts from Sept. 1 to Jan. 8, the day Mr. Trump was banned from the platforms. We then tracked the social media engagement with the dozens of written statements he made on his personal website, campaign fund-raising site and in email blasts from Jan. 9 until May 5, which was the day that the Facebook Oversight Board, which reviews some content decisions by the company, said that the company acted appropriately in kicking him off the service.

Before the ban, the social media post with the median engagement generated 272,000 likes and shares. After the ban, that dropped to 36,000 likes and shares. Yet 11 of his 89 statements after the ban attracted as many likes or shares as the median post before the ban, if not more.

How does that happen?

Mr. Trump had long been his own best promoter on social media. The vast majority of people on Twitter and Facebook interacted directly with Mr. Trump’s posts, either liking or sharing them, The Times analysis found.

But after the ban, other popular social media accounts often picked up his messages and posted them themselves. (Last week, Mr. Trump shut down his blog, one of the places he made statements.)

On Oct. 8, Mr. Trump tweeted that the then-Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his running mate, Kamala Harris, lied “constantly.” The post was liked and shared 501,000 times on Facebook and Twitter.

On March 21, Mr. Trump published a statement on his website saying that his administration had handed over “the most secure border in history.” He went on to criticize the Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis. “Our Country is being destroyed!” Mr. Trump said. The statement was liked and shared more than 661,000 times.


The Global Disinformation Index, a nonpartisan nonprofit that studies disinformation, examined the political leanings of the top accounts sharing Mr. Trump’s statements online after he was barred from Facebook and Twitter. The group classified hundreds of accounts as either left- or right-leaning, or a mix of the two, relying on standards that it established through its work on disinformation risk ratings for news sites and other online media.

One thing that became immediately clear: Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters continue to spread his message — doing the work that he had been unable to do himself.

The top sharers of the March post included the right-wing publication Breitbart News (159,500 likes and shares), a Facebook page called “President Donald Trump Fan Club” (48,200 likes), Fox News (42,000 likes), and Jenna Ellis (36,700 likes), a lawyer who made regular television appearances as Mr. Trump’s proxy to trumpet his debunked claims of a rigged election.
I am signed up to the New York Times. I have read enough of their articles that they want me to pay a dollar a week to read their shit.

People don't make decisions with a crystal ball. At the time he was kicked off twitter it was because he was running an account with millions of followers and amplifying messages that got people killed and was continuing to disseminate bullshit. Did twitter know what the outcome of kicking him off their site would be? No. Nobody knew whether there would be another attempted insurrection or whether we would have a peaceful transition of power.

Anyhow anyone who is curious what he has to say can probably find the orange jackass at parler or something like that or maybe a courtroom near you. Also, his dipstick sons and robot daughter are still on twitter.

Are you arguing that because the machine that disseminates lies that gets people killed is so much bigger than Trump he should have gotten a break? Maybe Jenna Ellis should have been kicked off too and every other person spreading hatred and lies.

[broncofan]

But another thing to note is that the message they provide as an example is from March. I would be curious whether his propaganda was being spread as easily in mid-January shortly after his idiot followers decorated the foreground of the capitol with a gallows, a truck filled with napalm, and two pipe bombs that thankfully didn't explode.

Then read this paragraph:

"Before the ban, the social media post with the median engagement generated 272,000 likes and shares. After the ban, that dropped to 36,000 likes and shares. Yet 11 of his 89 statements after the ban attracted as many likes or shares as the median post before the ban, if not more."

I'm reading this as surprise that some of his messages were still disseminated a lot. But although I'm tired here, I'm seeing 11/89 as being something like 14%. I don't know, so I read that as most of his malicious garbage not being spread as much but some of it was. I think kicking his fat ass off twitter was one of the few just decisions they made.

[blackchubby38]

I am signed up to the New York Times. I have read enough of their articles that they want me to pay a dollar a week to read their shit.

People don't make decisions with a crystal ball. At the time he was kicked off twitter it was because he was running an account with millions of followers and amplifying messages that got people killed and was continuing to disseminate bullshit. Did twitter know what the outcome of kicking him off their site would be? No. Nobody knew whether there would be another attempted insurrection or whether we would have a peaceful transition of power.

Anyhow anyone who is curious what he has to say can probably find the orange jackass at parler or something like that or maybe a courtroom near you. Also, his dipstick sons and robot daughter are still on twitter.

Are you arguing that because the machine that disseminates lies that gets people killed is so much bigger than Trump he should have gotten a break? Maybe Jenna Ellis should have been kicked off too and every other person spreading hatred and lies.

No he shouldn't have gotten a break and I was fine with him being banned from January 6th until the end of his term.

After that when became a private citizen again, I think it would have been better suited to keep him around on social media and whenever he tweeted out misinformation, remove the tweets themselves.

People don't make make decisions with crystal balls. But sometimes before you make a decision, you have to think ahead of what some of the probable outcomes maybe. There is also making a decision and when you see that things are not working out as you had hoped, trying something different.

[blackchubby38]

That is horrendous and not how I remember the City from my last visit in 2004 -what explains this decline in standards, this neglect?

In essence, what Bill De Blasio started, a misguided bail reform law, Covid 19, and rush to reform the NYPD finished.

[broncofan]

No he shouldn't have gotten a break and I was fine with him being banned from January 6th until the end of his term.

After that when became a private citizen again, I think it would have been better suited to keep him around on social media and whenever he tweeted out misinformation, remove the tweets themselves.

People don't make make decisions with crystal balls. But sometimes before you make a decision, you have to think ahead of what some of the probable outcomes maybe. There is also making a decision and when you see that things are not working out as you had hoped, trying something different.
Maybe I agree with your first two paragraphs. I didn't realize that you agreed he should have been banned until the inauguration.

I interpret the article slightly differently than you. I see it as indicating that this network of people is much bigger than him and that if you have a large following a private company can't really keep you from reaching your most ardent followers.

I see banning him as the right of a private company not to be associated with or willingly aid the dissemination of that kind of poison. If we accept everything the article says then it kind of undercuts Republicans' argument that they are being silenced. Being shut out of one outlet does not keep someone from talking it just washes the company's hands of complicity.

Twitter will never be able to show they're consistent because it's inconvenient to ban people given that their business model depends on keeping people there. I can think of worse offenders than Trump and they don't ban those people because they want to make money. The decision to ban Trump did not earn them money though.

Slightly beside the point but if you look at that paragraph I pulled out I also see it as contradicting their main thesis. Some of his statements were amplified but apparently most did not have the same reach.

[Stavros]

Is it not time for the 'Republcan Party' to be explicit about its intentions? To limit the people who can take part in elections, to strenthen the powers of invidual States against Congress; to allow those who wish to, ro replace the Constitution of the USA with the Bibe, and to appoint Donald Trump President for Life?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/republican-party-donald-trump-voter-suppression-b1868426.html

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republicans using the filibuster to block Senate Democrats from For The People Act,should be a wake up call to Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema that Republicans aren't to help them pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement and For The People Acts, and should stop being stubborn and do the right by eliminating the filibuster so that the US Senate can pass those two acts and President Joe Biden can the bills into law, and put an end to the 400 plus voter suppression laws. Because as long as the filibuster is in play, Mitch McConnell and his republican colleagues are going to use it to stop President Joe Biden and the Democrats from passing anything. https://www.axios.com/senate-republicans-voting-rights-filibuster-45e84790-6c19-416c-872a-4a5ebddf5d00.html

[Stavros]

Following the abuse of Black players in England's loss to Italy in the '2020' Euro tournament, on social media, and the defacing of a mural of Marcus Rashford in Manchester, Boris Johnson said

“This England team deserve to be lauded as heroes, not racially abused on social media. Those responsible for this appalling abuse should be ashamed of themselves and crawl back under the rock from which you emerged”.

Home Secretary Priti Patel stated that -
"...she was “disgusted that England players who have given so much for our country this summer have been subject to vile racist abuse on social media.

“It has no place in our country and I back the police to hold those responsible accountable,”. She later reiterated her condemnation of the racist abuse as she spoke in the House of Commons and said the government would do more to make tech companies stamp out online abuse on their platforms to make sure racists online “have no place to hide, and action is taken”.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/12/tory-mp-sorry-jibe-marcus-rashford-euros-penalty-miss

Perhaps they could have added for clarification -
'But if you are part of the Windrush Generation, we will continue to do all we can to throw you out of the country, and if it is found we made an error, we will do all we can to make sure you never receive a penny in compensation'.

[Stavros]

According to the US Constitution-

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

The events of the 6th January were not the exercise of free speech -as critics of Sedition (like Jim Jordan) might claim- because a speech act is wholly different from the physical, illegal entry into the Capitol with the explicit aim of preventing Congress from completing the process of a democratic election, thus denying the Congress its right to rule, and the people their choice of President.

So why haven't those arrested been charged with Sedition? And why have those who encouraged, and supported the act of sedition on the 6th January also not been arrested and charged?

[Stavros]

I admit I don't know much about Nancy Pelosi, but it seems to me she is on a road to nowhere with the Jan 6 Enquiry. The second Impeachment was of huge importance, but in the Senate it failed, for even though Mitch McConnell attacked Trump after the vote, he ensured the vote itself was meaningless. The point is that the Sectarian divide is making Congress all but irrelevant, as a Supreme Court opposed to universal suffrage empowers States, so that the US is moving from three branches of Government held together by the Constitution, to State Power, where the State defines/re-defines the Constitution and any Federal Law it chooses, so that in reality power now resides in the State and Congress can go fuck itself. The Enquiry will thus be condemned as a biased attack on Trump even as he and his Party attempts to re-write the history we have seen so that there was no anti-American sedition on the 6th of January, just some boisterous tourists breaking a few rules. Whatever the outcome, the Party of Trump literally coudn't care less about it. The inablity of Speaker Pelosi and indeed, President Biden to score any points against the antii-American Trump may in reality be masking a popular resentment that could prevent the Party of Trump from taking back House and Senate next year, but the aggressive anti-American movement Trump now leads with willing executioners in Texas, Florida and Congress, makes me wonder if the US that was born in 1776 is now on its last legs.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/26/nancy-pelosi-capitol-attack-panel-trump

[filghy2]

This article looks at how anti-Americanism has become deeply embedded in right-wing circles. These self-proclaimed patriots are prepared to denigrate and undermine their country if it doesn't conform to their demands. This ranges from denigration of Olympic athletes who don't conform to their narrow standards to justifying overthrowing the constitution.
https://www.vox.com/22600500/olympics-conservatives-simone-biles-anti-american

The recent revelation that Trump pressured the Justice Department to declare the election corrupt shows just how close the US came to an even worse crisis over the election. If Trump does not face any legal consequences for this and his other actions there is something seriously wrong and the US will be practically inviting another attempt in future. With the Republican attempts to purge officials who resisted Trump's claims and legal changes allowing electoral officials to be overridden it could well succeed next time.
https://www.vox.com/2021/7/31/22603477/trump-efforts-overturn-election-results-rosen-donoghue

[Stavros]

He has got away with it so far, and his entire career is marked by an ability to use the law to escape justice and then demand compensation, just as he realised years ago that a business loss can be transformed into a financial success through tax remittances -it is hard to believe the people round him, ike Kevin McCarthy can't see a scam when it is shoved in their face, but he chooses to accept it, as does that 'Dumb son of a bitch' Mitch McConnell -in what other country does a man insult and abuse people who then grovel to him in reply?

But is it not the case that when Trump publicly called on Russia to help his campaign in 2016, he broke the Election Campaign Law of 1971, but was not arrested? Did the FBI believe that to do so would have been seen to be interfering in an election campaign -that the law was passed to control? He got away with that, and later with regard to those 100+ meetings with Russians and a studied indifference to the Money Trail, in part because it was not in Mueller's remit, and in part to AG Barr's determination to protect the Presidency, even as he could see it being demeaned by a man who literally then and now has no idea what a President can or cannot do, and has no real understanding of what the 'separation of powers' means in the US Constitution.

This is one reason why the US is in, or headed into the most serious crisis since the anti-American war of 1861-65, and as long as those with responsibility bend the knee to Trump and ignore his blatant criminality they will take the US on a journey to its end. They also calculate that if Kamala Harris is the nominee in 2024, it's a slam dunk for Trump, but that's a whole other story.

[sukumvit boy]

Upon opening my front door this morning I was surprised to find a 9 X 5 inch zip lock plastic bag containing 2, 8 1/2 by 11 inch glossy sheets attached to the doorknob. One was entitled "End CCP" (Chinese Communist Party ) and the other "Falun Dafa" (Falun Gong) !
The area of Los Angeles where I live has some Filipino residents but no significant Chinese population.
Interesting to see that Wikipedia describes Falun Gong as a right wing "cult" that supported Trump and has been unjustly attacked by the Chinese Communist Party , they otherwise appear crazy but peaceful.

[filghy2]

It seems that the Chinese government cracked down on Falun Gong because they felt threatened by people having a rival source of loyalty to the CCP. I wasn't aware of their far right linkages, though it seems to be increasingly normal for religionists in the US nowadays. Perhaps this happened as a response to their persecution, but it does give the CCP a propaganda weapon to justify their actions.

[Stavros]

In fact the Communist Party approved of Falun Gong until 1999, when it was declared an 'evil cult' and many of its folllowers arrested, imprisoned and in some cases, tortured and killed -see the FT article linked below.

It resonates with the Boxer Rebellion of 1899/1900 which targeted forreigners in China, but Christian Missionaries in particular, indeed it may be the precursor of the May 4th Movement-

https://www.ft.com/content/f8bb94fe-550a-11de-b5d4-00144feabdc0

The Boxer Rebellion
https://www.facinghistory.org/nanjing-atrocities/nation-building/rebels-boxer-rebellion

May 4th Movement
http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1750_mayfourth.htm

[Stavros]

If Donald Trump refuses to concede that he lost the 2020 election, and that he remains President, how can his party hold any Primaries or Caucuses, or a Convention to nominate their 2024 candidate as he still occupies that position? It means there can be no other candidate, and that -unless he declines to run- he is the only 'canddate' -? Is this not so?

[Stavros]

An additional point i shoud have made to the above, is that if Trump insists he did not lose the 2020 election, he can't run in 2024 as a President can only serve two terms. Trump would have to concede he lost the 2020 election in order to run for a second term in 2024, but can he openly admit that he lost the 2020 election?

[sukumvit boy]

Yes ! Thanks Stavros that's the information about how the Chinese Communist Party has brutally suppressed the Falun Gong that really completes my post but I was unable to post due to the problem I've been having posting links.
However the information about the Boxer Rebellion is new to me and very interesting.

[sukumvit boy]

Very good article entitled "The Big Money Behind The Big Lie" from the Aug. 9 ,2021 issue of The New Yorker magazine about how Trump's attacks on democracy and the election are being promoted and financed by wealthy conservative groups and individuals. Including all the goddam election audits .
It's a wonder those ballots aren't falling apart some have been examined and hand counted so many times !

[Stavros]

It's a wonder those ballots aren't falling apart some have been examined and hand counted so many times !

Those Bamboo Ballots Made in China just don't last.

[sukumvit boy]

:dancing:

[blackchubby38]

6,200 Corona virus deaths in NYS Nursing homes, most Democrats don't say a word.

Governor Cuomo gets accused of sexually harassing 11 women, they all abandon him and say he must resign, which he did today.

Look I'm no fan of Cuomo or sexual harassment. But of those two issues, you would think he would have resigned for the former and not the latter.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Those Bamboo Ballots Made in China just don't last.Nope they sure don't.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Very good article entitled "The Big Money Behind The Big Lie" from the Aug. 9 ,2021 issue of The New Yorker magazine about how Trump's attacks on democracy and the election are being promoted and financed by wealthy conservative groups and individuals. Including all the goddam election audits .
It's a wonder those ballots aren't falling apart some have been examined and hand counted so many times !Completely Agree.

[Stavros]

6,200 Corona virus deaths in NYS Nursing homes, most Democrats don't say a word.

Governor Cuomo gets accused of sexually harassing 11 women, they all abandon him and say he must resign, which he did today.

Look I'm no fan of Cuomo or sexual harassment. But of those two issues, you would think he would have resigned for the former and not the latter.


Your short but potent post hits by now what is a rusty nail on the head, and nobody wants to carry the coffin, it stinks.

In the UK we have had a similar issue with the allegation that ex-Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock, made a promise he could not deliver when, in March 2020 he said 100,000 people a day would be tested when neither the UK nor the indivdual health authorities in England, Scotland or Wales had the ability to test 100,000 a day, it was barely 10,000 by April. Thus

"The UK health secretary has admitted that some hospital patients with Covid-19 were discharged into England’s care homes last year because of a lack of testing capacity, as he faced claims that he lied over the policy. Matt Hancock is under pressure after Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser, claimed the health secretary had promised colleagues that patients being sent into care homes would be tested. Some 30,000 care home residents are thought to have died from the virus. Under repeated questioning at a Downing Street press conference on Thursday about whether he told the truth about care home testing, Hancock said: “My recollection of events is I committed to delivering that testing when we could do it. I then went away and built the testing capacity.” Hancock set a target of offering 100,000 tests a day by the end of April 2020, but in the meantime Covid-19 was sown disastrously in care homes. He previously insisted he had thrown a “protective ring” around the sector. Cummings said on Wednesday, during seven hours of evidence to MPs: “We were told categorically in March that people would be tested before they went back to care homes. We only subsequently found out that that hadn’t happened."
https://www.ft.com/content/b77b39c8-a747-4d05-acd0-5ea1889ee45b

Here's the nail -when it happened, Hancock resigned/was sacked because married man was found on CCTV snogging his girlfriend. 30,000 dead people were not the point of reference.

The woman in question was given a £15,000 a year job as a 'non-executive director' in his own department, to be compared to an entry level nurse in the NHS on £4.85 an hour or barely £10,000 a year.

You can read more about the Ministers and the gravy train for their mates in the link below, but is it any surprise if people become cynical about elected politicians who seem more interested in themselves and the perks of office, than the job they are supposed to do, and the people they are elected to serve?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/at-least-16-tory-supporters-given-paid-independent-roles-in-government/

[filghy2]

There's a simple explanation. If a politician is forced to resign for a policy failing it reflects badly on the governing party. If a politician is forced to resign for a personal failing it reflects only on them.

Let's not forget that in the Republican Party nobody is forced to resign for anything other than opposing Trump.

[Stavros]

There's a simple explanation. If a politician is forced to resign for a policy failing it reflects badly on the governing party. If a politician is forced to resign for a personal failing it reflects only on them.

Let's not forget that in the Republican Party nobody is forced to resign for anything other than opposing Trump.

Concentrated wisdom!

[Stavros]

But, the question is, why Portland?

"Between 1 January 2020 and 30 July 2021, Portland saw 128 demonstrations that were violent and/or destructive, amounting to 31% of the total number of demonstrations in the city in that period. This was more than 10 times higher than the national average of 3% of demonstrations becoming violent or destructive.

In the same time period, Portland saw 21 armed demonstrations – about 4% of all armed demonstrations across the country in that time. Fourteen of those – or 67% – turned violent or destructive in that period, whereas only 16% of armed demonstrations did in the country as a whole."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/26/portland-proud-boys-rally-gunfight-protest-violence

[broncofan]

My sense is that geographically Portland is caught in between two worlds. Lots of progressive activism in Northern California and in Washington state but there are also a lot of militias and white supremacists in the pacific northwest. It's not all that close together up there but it seems almost like it's become a meeting ground for right wing and left wing radicals to engage in street fighting.

Often times right wing groups like the proud boys will seek out areas where there are a lot of left-wing activists because that is where they believe problems are. So they were starting shit at UC Berkeley in San Fran and they sense they can cause a big stir in Portland as well.

[filghy2]

I had not realised how weird California's recall election system is until I read this article.
https://www.vox.com/22617048/california-recall-gavin-newsom-larry-elder

The incumbent Newsom has to get over 50% of the vote on the recall question to stay in office. If he fails, he will be replaced by the candidate (out of 46) who gets the most votes on the second question. This means that a Governor supported by 49.9% of voters could be replaced by somebody supported by less than half that. American democracy is nuts.

To add to the weirdness, the Democrat Party has opted for what looks like a risky strategy of focussing only on defeating the recall question and not nominating a serious alternative candidate for the second question.

[sukumvit boy]

I had not realised how weird California's recall election system is until I read this article.
https://www.vox.com/22617048/california-recall-gavin-newsom-larry-elder

The incumbent Newsom has to get over 50% of the vote on the recall question to stay in office. If he fails, he will be replaced by the candidate (out of 46) who gets the most votes on the second question. This means that a Governor supported by 49.9% of voters could be replaced by somebody supported by less than half that. American democracy is nuts.

To add to the weirdness, the Democrat Party has opted for what looks like a risky strategy of focussing only on defeating the recall question and not nominating a serious alternative candidate for the second question.
Yes,it's just nuts!:iagree:

[sukumvit boy]

My sense is that geographically Portland is caught in between two worlds. Lots of progressive activism in Northern California and in Washington state but there are also a lot of militias and white supremacists in the pacific northwest. It's not all that close together up there but it seems almost like it's become a meeting ground for right wing and left wing radicals to engage in street fighting.

Often times right wing groups like the proud boys will seek out areas where there are a lot of left-wing activists because that is where they believe problems are. So they were starting shit at UC Berkeley in San Fran and they sense they can cause a big stir in Portland as well.

:iagree: Yes I lived in Portland in the early 1970's and have family there and visit Portland and the Long Beach Peninsula at least once a year (we have a family beach house in Long Beach,WA) . Lots of "Skinhead " types visible there now.

[Stavros]

“Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion,” -Greg Abbott

“Our creator endowed us with the right to life and I have authorized the execution of 50 prisoners on death row who lost their right to life because of me…”Greg Abbott

Funny old world, innit?

[filghy2]

You could also add to the list of contradictions their attitudes toward deaths from guns, Covid, police brutality, poverty, lack of access to health car, etc. Life is apparently sacred up to the point of birth; after that it becomes a lesser concern. Other peoples' freedom is paramount over safety for those actually living; the reverse applies for potential lives.

[broncofan]

A lot of Republicans also place an enormous amount of value on the life of Ashli Babbitt, a clown who tried to climb through a shattered window into the House Chamber and was shot and killed. Apparently they don't think the life of an unarmed Black person resisting arrest has any value but a white woman being shot while trying to enter the House Chamber inside the capitol during an attempted insurrection is an example of tyranny. Really obvious racism and hypocrisy. If ever there were a justifiable shooting it was that one.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

A lot of Republicans also place an enormous amount of value on the life of Ashli Babbitt, a clown who tried to climb through a shattered window into the House Chamber and was shot and killed. Apparently they don't think the life of an unarmed Black person resisting arrest has any value but a white woman being shot while trying to enter the House Chamber inside the capitol during an attempted insurrection is an example of tyranny. Really obvious racism and hypocrisy. If ever there were a justifiable shooting it was that one. Another example of the Trump Enablers Party trying to distract and change the narrative of what happened on Wednesday January 6th 2021.And completely agree that it is racism and hypocrisy from the Trump Enablers Party. And the shooting was justifiable.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

House Minority Kevin McCarthy is threatening companies that might participate in the January 6 select committee 's investigation,saying Republicans will remember they involvement when the GOP comes back into power. Kevin McCarthy is afraid that when the companies hand over phone records to the January 6 select committee,it's going to implicate Republican Members of Congress. and Kevin McCarthy knows is that the GOP is going serious trouble,and is trying everything he can to prevent the truth about what happen on that dark day from coming out. and in the end his efforts will fail and the truth will be revealed.

[Stavros]

I am puzzled by this new law in Texas.

-Does it mean that if she becomes pregnant, a woman in the US ceases to have rights as a citizen of the USA?

-If a 40-year old woman believes she is pregnant, is it legal for her to drive from Texas to a Planned Parenthood Clinic in another state? Is it legal for her husband to drive her, can either or both be taken to court by a spotty 19-year old they have never met in search of $10,000?

-Does this law now give someone she doesn’t know, full control of the woman’s reproductive abilities and decision making, and is this not a violation of her rights as a citizen?

I am sure Taliban Trump would approve, but is this a step too far, even for his party of Sedition, Sleaze and Lies, or will this mark a turning point in the demolition of citizen’s rights and the Constitution, as Texas and similar states effectively secede from the Union- with the people’s support?

Or will Americans campaign to restore their rights? And succeed?

[filghy2]

Everything about this is bizarre. The Supreme Court majority seems to have green-lighted a mechanism for states to get around it's own precedents on constitutional rights with barely any attempt at justification.
https://www.vox.com/22653779/supreme-court-abortion-texas-sb8-whole-womans-health-jackson-roe-wade

[broncofan]

-Does it mean that if she becomes pregnant, a woman in the US ceases to have rights as a citizen of the USA?

-If a 40-year old woman believes she is pregnant, is it legal for her to drive from Texas to a Planned Parenthood Clinic in another state? Is it legal for her husband to drive her, can either or both be taken to court by a spotty 19-year old they have never met in search of $10,000?

-Does this law now give someone she doesn’t know, full control of the woman’s reproductive abilities and decision making, and is this not a violation of her rights as a citizen?

This is a great point. If a normal criminal law were at issue one might say it would not have jurisdiction over acts that took place outside of their state. But since the law is enforced by private citizens they can file suit and a Texas Judge will decide whether their courts have jurisdiction.

I think your post brings up issues covered by the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution because such an application of the law would impede interstate travel (briefly covered in the second to last section here). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause

I believe the Supreme Court will eventually hear these cases. While the law itself will deter abortion providers, someone will eventually sue and the Supreme Court will be able to hear the case because the defendant can appeal it to higher courts once it is enforced. As the vox article points out, simply violating the law so that you can challenge it threatens you with bankruptcy because of how many suits can be brought against you.

Another problem I have with the law is that by providing for civil lawsuits to enforce the law it evades the principle of standing for judicial cases. The standing requirements basically ensure that someone who is suing (in a civil action) is the actually harmed or aggrieved party in a case and that the issue can be redressed by a favorable decision. The standing requirement is a constitutional requirement that applies to state courts as well and is embodied in the "case or controversy" clause in the federal constitution. It is inconsistent with these principles to say that a random person is the aggrieved party when someone violates an anti-abortion law.

The issue as the vox article pointed out is that Texas came up with a novel way to frustrate challenge by not having the attorney general enforce the law. I would say the law would be overturned when it gets to the Supreme Court (on a number of grounds) but all bets are off with this court.

[Stavros]

This is a great point. If a normal criminal law were at issue one might say it would not have jurisdiction over acts that took place outside of their state. But since the law is enforced by private citizens they can file suit and a Texas Judge will decide whether their courts have jurisdiction.

I think your post brings up issues covered by the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution because such an application of the law would impede interstate travel (briefly covered in the second to last section here). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause

I believe the Supreme Court will eventually hear these cases. While the law itself will deter abortion providers, someone will eventually sue and the Supreme Court will be able to hear the case because the defendant can appeal it to higher courts once it is enforced. As the vox article points out, simply violating the law so that you can challenge it threatens you with bankruptcy because of how many suits can be brought against you.

Another problem I have with the law is that by providing for civil lawsuits to enforce the law it evades the principle of standing for judicial cases. The standing requirements basically ensure that someone who is suing (in a civil action) is the actually harmed or aggrieved party in a case and that the issue can be redressed by a favorable decision. The standing requirement is a constitutional requirement that applies to state courts as well and is embodied in the "case or controversy" clause in the federal constitution. It is inconsistent with these principles to say that a random person is the aggrieved party when someone violates an anti-abortion law.

The issue as the vox article pointed out is that Texas came up with a novel way to frustrate challenge by not having the attorney general enforce the law. I would say the law would be overturned when it gets to the Supreme Court (on a number of grounds) but all bets are off with this court.

I appreciate your well-informed reply and the fine tuning of aspects of US law I am not familiar with- but surely the lawyers in the Attorney General’s office in Texas are as familiar with Constitutional law, and key concepts such as the ‘principle of standing’- or are they plain ignorant, or deliberately challenging an aspect of law they want to remove to allow this kind of litigation to proceed, or just, as someone in London’s East End might say, ‘taking the piss’?

And where, in all this, is the discussion of the rights a woman has as a citizen of the USA?

[holzz]

never mind.

[broncofan]

I appreciate your well-informed reply and the fine tuning of aspects of US law I am not familiar with- but surely the lawyers in the Attorney General’s office in Texas are as familiar with Constitutional law, and key concepts such as the ‘principle of standing’- or are they plain ignorant, or deliberately challenging an aspect of law they want to remove to allow this kind of litigation to proceed, or just, as someone in London’s East End might say, ‘taking the piss’?


The Texas Legislature is familiar with the principle of standing because they used it to make review by the Supreme Court difficult. Pre-enforcement review is not available by filing a suit against the AG because regular citizens enforce the law and there can't be a challenge until the proper party is determined. Just as I don't believe ordinary citizens should have standing to sue women having abortions, the Supreme Court will not hear a case until the defendant can be ascertained. That was deliberate.

My view is that the legislature passed this law to make it difficult to challenge and that prior to challenge it has the effect of deterring a lot of abortions by making the potential punishment nearly unlimited. Maybe it gives the Court a chance to strike it down on other grounds without re-affirming Roe since the punishment scheme may be unconstitutional. I take it the Texas legislature is not that concerned about women's needs to get safe abortions which is very sad.

[filghy2]

Useful article on how unconservative (in the true sense) the current Supreme Court is. Conservatives used to complain about judicial activism; now they are all for it. https://www.vox.com/22662906/supreme-court-conservatives-abortion-constitution-roe-wade

[Stavros]

What is the 'Met Gala'? Every year I see photos of the well-known and to me, the unknown, mostly women dressed in designer frocks walking up some steps, or posing inside the lobby. What happens then? They go into a ballroom, stand around, gossip and drink white wine with canapés? Is that it? What is the news content?

As for AOC, I am amazed this appeared in the Telegraph (and so are the readers if the obnoxious comments are a guide, some referring to AOC as a 'Radical Left' even 'Revolutionary Left [!]) -but who is the woman in white standing next to her?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/15/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-beating-republicans-trumpian-game/

[broncofan]

When I say that I sometimes see antisemitism in the Pro-Palestine movement I often feel like I'm saying something I shouldn't even though I'm certain of what I'm seeing. I don't think anything demonstrates it better than a greeting from a football club to Jews for Yom Kippur and nearly every comment being about Israel or a promise to unfollow the club. This is a kind of unrestrained hatred that has nothing to do with politics and belies people's insistence that they see a separation between support of Israel and Jewishness. Is there room for Jews in societies where this is the stock response to any Jewish holiday, to Holocaust Remembrance Day, or to any mention of Jewishness?

https://twitter.com/LFC/status/1438058647519744002

[broncofan]

When I say that I sometimes see antisemitism in the Pro-Palestine movement I often feel like I'm saying something I shouldn't even though I'm certain of what I'm seeing. I don't think anything demonstrates it better than a greeting from a football club to Jews for Yom Kippur and nearly every comment being about Israel or a promise to unfollow the club. This is a kind of unrestrained hatred that has nothing to do with politics and belies people's insistence that they see a separation between support of Israel and Jewishness. Is there room for Jews in societies where this is the stock response to any Jewish holiday, to Holocaust Remembrance Day, or to any mention of Jewishness?

https://twitter.com/LFC/status/1438058647519744002
In order to see replies you have to hit "show more replies" otherwise it just takes you to Liverpool's other tweets.

[blackchubby38]

When I say that I sometimes see antisemitism in the Pro-Palestine movement I often feel like I'm saying something I shouldn't even though I'm certain of what I'm seeing. I don't think anything demonstrates it better than a greeting from a football club to Jews for Yom Kippur and nearly every comment being about Israel or a promise to unfollow the club. This is a kind of unrestrained hatred that has nothing to do with politics and belies people's insistence that they see a separation between support of Israel and Jewishness. Is there room for Jews in societies where this is the stock response to any Jewish holiday, to Holocaust Remembrance Day, or to any mention of Jewishness?

https://twitter.com/LFC/status/1438058647519744002

You aren't saying something that you shouldn't. Because I recognize the antisemitism in the Pro-Palestine movement too.

[blackchubby38]

What is the 'Met Gala'? Every year I see photos of the well-known and to me, the unknown, mostly women dressed in designer frocks walking up some steps, or posing inside the lobby. What happens then? They go into a ballroom, stand around, gossip and drink white wine with canapés? Is that it? What is the news content?

As for AOC, I am amazed this appeared in the Telegraph (and so are the readers if the obnoxious comments are a guide, some referring to AOC as a 'Radical Left' even 'Revolutionary Left [!]) -but who is the woman in white standing next to her?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/15/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-beating-republicans-trumpian-game/

The woman who designed the dress.

[Stavros]

The woman who designed the dress.

Thanks for the confirmation -MJ Rodriguez was also at the Gala, though she didn't make it to the galleries I saw, even though she has been nominated for an Emmy -so much for the 'Woke' waffle we keep hearing about?

https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/eXLKhisEvx27CIlqNhkOTBtPBhw/fit-in/1024x1024/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2021/09/13/074/n/1922564/15ca808ea18b22b0_GettyImages-1340133838/i/mj-rodriguez-2021-met-gala-look.jpg

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/sep/16/pose-mj-rodriguez-emmy-trans-leading-actress

[Stavros]

So now we know what the basis is for the Texas abortion ban- blame the women.

I assume Miller believes marriage can only be the union of a man and a woman- as defined by him-, and the children the consequence of sexual intercourse -so maybe he should persuade Greg Abbot f the Bible and his legislators, to make it illegal for a man to ejaculate outside of sexual intercourse, to 'level it up' with the women who say no, which as a strategy doesn't work with rapists and grubby uncles.

Thomas Hobbes published Leviathan in 1651, in which Reason replaces Faith as the foundation of the State of Government Hobbes argued was preferable to a State of Nature. Here we are, 370 years later, and it seems the propostion has been reversed.

"The legal architect of the Texas abortion ban has argued in a supreme court brief (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185344/20210729162610813_Dobbs%20Amicus%20FINAL%20PDFA.pd f) that overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark decision which guarantees a right to abortion in the US, could cause women to practice abstinence from sexual intercourseas a way to “control their reproductive lives”.
“Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell wrote in the brief. “One can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to engage in unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sexual intercourse on the assumption that an abortion will be available to her later. But when this court announces the overruling of Roe, that individual can simply change their behavior in response to the court’s decision if she no longer wants to take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

[Stavros]

So, today, a question for the Americans here-

Are you a Legacy American, or are you an Obedient Immigrant?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-great-replacement-white-supremacy-1231248/

[sukumvit boy]

Reading about the emerging petrol crises in Britain reminds me of the one I lived through here in the US in 1973 (although caused by an actual 'gas' shortage in the US back then) .
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/world/europe/why-uk-fuel-shortage.html
I'm so glad that I decided to "kiss my gas goodbye" when I traded in my Cadillac and became the proud owner of an all electric 2020 Nissan Leaf SL Plus . And here in California 95% of our electric is from renewable sources . Admittedly I've got a lot of making up to do after 20 years of driving my Cadillac Eldorado.

[Stavros]

Reading about the emerging petrol crises in Britain reminds me of the one I lived through here in the US in 1973 (although caused by an actual 'gas' shortage in the US back then) .


I read in a book that at the time someone saw a sticker on the back of a car in the 'Sayuth' which read 'Drive 90, Kill a Yankee'...must have been Texas.

[Stavros]

Democracy on the choppng block...in Texas (again! Why don't they just declare independence and make Trump their President for Life?)

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/plot-against-democracy-texas-republicans-090047904.html

[sukumvit boy]

I read in a book that at the time someone saw a sticker on the back of a car in the 'Sayuth' which read 'Drive 90, Kill a Yankee'...must have been Texas.
What is 'Sayuth' I Googled it and still don't understand ? Although the sentiment was certainly common in the South back then in the days before 'political correctness' .

[sukumvit boy]

Democracy on the choppng block...in Texas (again! Why don't they just declare independence and make Trump their President for Life?)

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/plot-against-democracy-texas-republicans-090047904.html
Yes, 'gerrymandering' just smacks of rigging and corruption. I've intermittently read of moves to ban it over the years but nothing ever seems to change!

[sukumvit boy]

So, today, a question for the Americans here-

Are you a Legacy American, or are you an Obedient Immigrant?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-great-replacement-white-supremacy-1231248/
This boorish ass is a shining example of what the new low point in journalism has become.

[Stavros]

"Donald Trump (https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/donald-trump)’s former White House strategist Steve Bannon (https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/steve-bannon) on Saturday evoked a dystopian future when he called for “shock troops” to quickly “deconstruct” (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/bannon-fires-shock-troops-next-gop-white-house-n1280591) the state as soon as a Republican takes the Oval Office again."
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/steve-bannon-calls-shock-troops-005257088.html

-Why 'shock troops' rather than Storm Troopers or Black Shirts?

When are these people going to be arrested for sedition? And has Mikhail Fridman been given his US Citizenship yet? (His Alfa Bank part-funded Trump's 2016 campaign in violation of the law...and....)

[filghy2]

Sounds like Marx and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not surprisingly, Bannon has been quoted in the past as being an admirer of Lenin's methods.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/06/lenin-white-house-steve-bannon

It's disconcerting that after more than 8 months there is so little sign of any moves to prosecute Trump or his acolytes. It's as if Biden and Merrick Garland believe that if they keep playing by the old gentlemanly rules everything will go back to normal.

[Stavros]

It's disconcerting that after more than 8 months there is so little sign of any moves to prosecute Trump or his acolytes. It's as if Biden and Merrick Garland believe that if they keep playing by the old gentlemanly rules everything will go back to normal.

Bannon is known to admire Mussolini and the slogan 'Drain the Swamp' which originated with the Italian fool. The danger in all this is that the Gentlemen you refer to, have no practical way of preventing the US from breaking apart, which, according to the University of Virginia survey, is what most Republicans -and some Democrats- want-

"The results show a country at ideological war with itself: More than half of the surveyed Trump voters - approximately 52% - said the "situation is such that I would favor [Blue/Red] states seceding from the union to form their own separate country." Approximately 41% of Biden-voting respondents answered similarly."
https://news.yahoo.com/majority-trump-voters-believe-time-160443147.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIy9QW5CDG2V8ibT6G5k-8OveoOygdLEupQzvexopixmv8mwmG9Esvq7OLxd2Agc454CNn5 b4HGStOrg-9cYsSEJl-J7dEU4K3CKYCUNkBm6ebpfA-IAuga9uA8SRNBhrIpTBuGCX3nRoToy9-2OeKFggZapUoXWSdUNKujCN9qa

The battles ended, but the Confederate War Against the US never did, they just changed tactics. Thus the Black men who were elected to the Georgia House in the era of Reconsruction, had been sent back to the 'plantation' by the end of the century. As Trump manipulates his childish rage at losing an election into a sectarian battle that theatens to take the US down with it to defeat, the prospect for the US as 'one and indivisible Republic' now looks more uncertain than at any time since 1861 -and too many people don't care for the once unthinkable to happen...

[Stavros]

"Donald Trump (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/donald-trump) on Wednesday dismissed the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol as a "day of protesting" and said the "real insurrection" happened on November 3, the day of the 2020 election."
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-real-insurrection-happened-election-day-praises-pences-jan-6-comments-1636196

Is it possible for the American people in their millions to have participated in an insurrection -by votintg? If ever there was a Dictator expaining his claim to power, is this not it?

From a man, hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, who has referred to Americans as 'they're total scum, they are human scum'.

When is someone in authority going to put a stop to this?

[Stavros]

I know we have dafties in the UK, but when Americans go daft, they do it better than most others...

A Republican (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/republican) state legislative candidate in Virginia (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/virginia) is being mocked on Twitter for suggesting an unscientific potential solution to rising sea levels (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/sea-levels).
“I’m curious, do you think the sea level would lower, if we just took all the boats out of the water? Just a thought, not a statement," said Scott Pio, as he shared an image of the Pacific Ocean swarming with thousands of icons seemingly representing boats. The tweet has since been deleted.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/virginia-scott-pio-sea-levels-b1937355.html

The science, if you can handle it, is here-
https://what-if.xkcd.com/33/

Then this, today- Eminent Lawyer Lin Wood attaking Marjorie Taylor Greene-

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/GfUEsc7geVf53H7M8comSw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTI1MztjZj13ZWJw/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/rSP7.BoO9MvjYwMmA9ccYA--~B/aD0xNjk7dz02NDE7YXBwaWQ9eXRhY2h5b24-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/business_insider_articles_888/3b997c9d0ca79f9b936a98c03ba0b0ed


https://w7.pngwing.com/pngs/234/746/png-transparent-vladimir-lenin-sticker-telegram-soviet-union-revolutionary-others-miscellaneous-hand-sticker.png

[Stavros]

So the Lieutenant-Governor of North Carolina is in trouble. I think his trouble is with reality, if we can agree that Homosexuals, and Transgendered people are real (oh, and American). Maybe he should swap his words so they read like this:

“There is no reason anybody, anywhere in America should be telling any child about transgenderism, homosexuality or any of that filth,” Robinson said.

“There is no reason anybody, anywhere in America should be telling any child about Reality or any of that filth,” Robinson said.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/10/09/north-carolina-mark-robinson-resign-lgbt-filth/

What did Trump say of the American people? 'They're total scum, they are human scum'.

[filghy2]

Colin Powell recently become perhaps the highest-profile death from Covid-19 (unless there is somebody else I've missed).

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this man was doubly-screwed by the party he once served.

First, he lost his good reputation because he was forced to make the case for an invasion that he did not believe in.

Second, he lost his life to a virus whose spread has been enabled by his former party's cynical extremism.

And to add insult to injury, the leader of that party has posthumously trashed him, just as he did earlier with John McCain. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/19/trumps-post-mortem-roasting-of-powell-could-burn-him-in-the-end-516280

It's hard to believe that Powell was touted as a possible Republican presidential candidate in the late 1990s. I guess he realised that the party membership would not have been willing to embrace someone like him.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/20/sinema-democrat-tax-plan-corporations-516364. Not surprised at all that the Democrat In Name Only Krysten Sinema is opposed to raising the corporate tax rate,which is one of the ways to pay for the reconciliation bill,because she doesn't want to piss off her corporate donors and republican friends. And her constituents are feeling betrayed and fundraising money to find a candidate to primary her. Krysten Sinema is an attention seeker and obstructionist who would rather protect millionaires,billionaires and corporations,instead of working for the people who get her elected into office. IMO i don't think she will win reelection in 2024.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/president-joe-biden-will-attend-cnn-town-hall-baltimore-center-stage/38017085#. I am looking forward to seeing how President Joe Biden answers the following questions about why he and his democratic colleagues haven't passed the Freedom To Vote and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Acts,and why they backing away from the promises that they ran on like expanding medicare,free community college,climate change and raising the corporate tax rate. And eliminating the filibuster.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

"Donald Trump (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/donald-trump) on Wednesday dismissed the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol as a "day of protesting" and said the "real insurrection" happened on November 3, the day of the 2020 election."
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-real-insurrection-happened-election-day-praises-pences-jan-6-comments-1636196

Is it possible for the American people in their millions to have participated in an insurrection -by votintg? If ever there was a Dictator expaining his claim to power, is this not it?

From a man, hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, who has referred to Americans as 'they're total scum, they are human scum'.

When is someone in authority going to put a stop to this?Not surprised at all that the Demagouge And Malignant Narcissist and Domestic Terrorist Leader Donald Trump is whitewashing what really happened on Wednesday January 6th 2021. And his comments shows that he still bitter about losing the 2020 Presidential Election. The enablers in the US House of Representatives and US Senate aren't going to stand up to him and do what's right,because they are in lockstep with him and believe everything he says,and it will be up to the January 6 Select Committee and the democrats to hold him and his allies accountable for their dangerous and despicable actions.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=filghy2;1980557
And to add insult to injury, the leader of that party has posthumously trashed him, just as he did earlier with John McCain.
[/QUOTE]

i don't think Trump is dead, so he can't have done anything posthumously, though he might actually be brain dead....the point being that Trump never fails to attack people who are demostrably better than himself, even when the evidence is clear and undeniable -one man from New York City puts on the Uniform, serves his country and achieves the highest rank; the other takes the Uniform off, spends a life in debt with a long list of failing marriages and businesses and illegal relations with foreign governments, and uses these clear examples of failure to tout himself as 'your favourite President' so cruelly denied his second term in the White House. But when will the people who humour so dangerous a man, drop him before he drops them all into a trap from which they cannot escape?

So far, who has been charged with Sedition for their role in the anti-American battle on January 6th? What is Garland waiting for?

[Stavros]

Why have the American loonies become so fixated on Australia? Set aside the probability that most of these people could not find Australia on the map, what do they know about Scott Morrison's politics? Or anything else about Australia? Weird.

"Outspoken conservative political commentator Candace Owens has suggested the US military invade Australia in order to free its people “suffering under a totalitarian regime” while drawing comparisons to Hitler, Stalin and the Taliban."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/22/rightwing-pundit-candace-owens-suggests-us-invade-australia-to-free-an-oppressed-people

Maybe Australia should invade Montana to liberate its citizens from a State Government that seems determined to let disease run free-

"Montana, for instance, has seen some of the greatest restrictions (https://khn.org/news/article/over-half-of-states-have-rolled-back-public-health-powers-in-pandemic/), with limits on quarantine and isolation requirements, new control from elected officials over health boards, and a ban on requiring vaccinations in workplaces – even in health systems. The new laws make it harder to isolate or quarantine patients with the flu or measles, and they could contribute to the spread of many vaccine-preventable illnesses.
Montana is now experiencing one of the biggest surges of the pandemic, with the highest rate of new cases and the second-highest rates of hospitalizations and deaths at this time. Health systems across the state have enacted (https://montanafreepress.org/2021/09/17/montana-hospitals-enter-crisis-care/) crisis of care standards."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/22/us-public-health-crisis-covid-curbs-on-powers

[Stavros]

The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse is producing some astonishing permutations of reality, as if there were no empirical evidence that he murdered human beings -the point, resonating with the War on Nouns and Pronouns producing this bizarre decision in Court-

"The three men Kyle Rittenhouse shot during a protest against police brutality in Wisconsin can be labeled rioters, looters or arsonists if the teenager's defense team has evidence to support the characterizations — but they shouldn't be called victims, the judge in his murder trial ruled this week."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/men-shot-rittenhouse-can-t-be-called-victims-during-trial-n1282466

How about changing the language, thus:

"The three men Kyle Rittenhouse shot during a protest against police brutality in Wisconsin can be labeled Americans— but they shouldn't be called victims, the judge in his murder trial ruled this week."

Maybe in these times, all Americans are victims, of stupidity. Or maybe if he runs and is re-elected, Trump will give Rittenhouse the Congressional Medal of Freedom, or a newly invented, 'Patriot Medal'.

'Something is rotten in the State of Wisconsin' if not Denmark.

[Stavros]

Two parents disagreeing about the alleged impact of Critical Race Theory in Virginia schools -where it is not taught, though teachers may have had 'training' in it. Interviewed on Fox News by Martha MacCallum said

“Critical race theory sometimes is a little bit of a misnomer because what is happening is there’s sort of a reformed thinking and approach to history that teaches that the country was founded in racism,” the Fox News anchor said.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/virginia-parent-turns-tables-on-fox-news-anchor-martha-maccallum-over-critical-race-theory-obsession?source=articles&via=rss

Was the US founded in racism? Er, well it was part of the British Empire, but one wonders how many Americans know this. They might also like to look into Cecil Rhodes, whose devotion to the British Empire was not solely about money and trade-he once said-

I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives.

And, in one of his Wlls (he wrote six in all) he is candid about that former Colony of the British Empire and what he wants his endowed wealth to produce-

"To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity." (My emphasis in bold).
https://pages.uoregon.edu/kimball/Rhodes-Confession.htm

Hmmm..America, Race, Empire....who needs CRT when the facts are as easy to read as well, three letters...C..R..T...

[Stavros]

Further to the above post are the reactions to the defeat in the Virginia election for Governor, for while there were intriguing results elsewhere, eg in Boston, the divisions in US society do not just appear to be stark but irreconcilable. For all the waffle the critics have to say about CRT without knowing -or caring- what it is, if Race becomes the defining issue and Race in schools, the US is truly doomed, and another term of Trump will see the States go their separate ways. If Toni Morrison's Beloved is so unacceptable as reading material for schoolchildren, what purpose does education serve? These commentators in the link don't have a lot of positive things to say about Democrats, but this one is perhaps the death knell of the US-

"Democrats’ inability or unwillingness to address race will inevitably prevent them from accurately analyzing why McAuliffe lost, which in turn will lead to faulty strategies during the 2022 midterm elections. The shortsighted commentary has already begun, as some pundits are focusing more on the Democratic Congress’s failure to pass an infrastructure bill.

These explanations are reminiscent of the misguided analysis after the 2016 presidential election – analysis that focused on “white economic anxiety” rather than confronting evidence of white racial anxiety. If Democrats remain in denial about what they’re up against, and if they do not find a way to deal with the oncoming wave of CRT campaigning, they are guaranteed to lose their majorities in both chambers of Congress."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/03/what-does-democrats-losing-virginia-mean-biden-2022

[sukumvit boy]

Further to the above post are the reactions to the defeat in the Virginia election for Governor, for while there were intriguing results elsewhere, eg in Boston, the divisions in US society do not just appear to be stark but irreconcilable. For all the waffle the critics have to say about CRT without knowing -or caring- what it is, if Race becomes the defining issue and Race in schools, the US is truly doomed, and another term of Trump will see the States go their separate ways. If Toni Morrison's Beloved is so unacceptable as reading material for schoolchildren, what purpose does education serve? These commentators in the link don't have a lot of positive things to say about Democrats, but this one is perhaps the death knell of the US-

"Democrats’ inability or unwillingness to address race will inevitably prevent them from accurately analyzing why McAuliffe lost, which in turn will lead to faulty strategies during the 2022 midterm elections. The shortsighted commentary has already begun, as some pundits are focusing more on the Democratic Congress’s failure to pass an infrastructure bill.

These explanations are reminiscent of the misguided analysis after the 2016 presidential election – analysis that focused on “white economic anxiety” rather than confronting evidence of white racial anxiety. If Democrats remain in denial about what they’re up against, and if they do not find a way to deal with the oncoming wave of CRT campaigning, they are guaranteed to lose their majorities in both chambers of Congress."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/03/what-does-democrats-losing-virginia-mean-biden-2022
LOL, you know more about American politics than most Americans ,including myself.

[Stavros]

You flatter me, Sukumvit Boy. This I find more depressing given that education cynics here complain students leave school knowing only the fate of Henry VIII and his six wives, and the Nazis...

"Just over half of Britons did not know that 6 million Jewish people were murdered during the Holocaust (https://www.theguardian.com/world/holocaust), and less than a quarter thought that 2 million or fewer were killed, a new survey has found.

The study also found that 67% of UK respondents wrongly believed that the government allowed all or some Jewish immigration, when in fact the British government shut the door to Jewish immigration at the outbreak of the war.
When respondents were asked about the Kindertransport, an initiative set up between 1938 and 1939 to rescue nearly 10,000 Jewish child refugees and bring them to Britain, 76% said they did not know what the historic effort was."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/10/half-of-britons-do-not-know-6m-jews-were-murdered-in-holocaust

[Nick Danger]

You flatter me, Sukumvit Boy.
That's because he doesn't recognize the difference between "long-winded" and "knowledgeable."

[sukumvit boy]

That's because he doesn't recognize the difference between "long-winded" and "knowledgeable."
I find it sad that some posters find it so difficult to be kind and generous instead of always just be looking for an argument .

[Jericho]

You flatter me, Sukumvit Boy. This I find more depressing given that education cynics here complain students leave school knowing only the fate of Henry VIII and his six wives, and the Nazis...


They're such snobs.
Everyone knows the Romans beat the Nazis at the battle of Hadrians Wall in 1066! :hide-1:

[Nick Danger]

I find it sad that some posters find it so difficult to be kind and generous instead of always just be looking for an argument .

Really? Does that sadden you? I doubt it. What saddens me is Stavros' non-stop cookie-cutter liberal rhetoric. I get over it by verbally smashing him in the mouth now and then. Doesn't matter, he's literally terrified to reply to me, like a little girl. Also, he claims he doesn't read my posts, so I should theoretically be able to say anything to him and it shouldn't bother him. Or you.

[broncofan]

Really? Does that sadden you? I doubt it. What saddens me is Stavros' non-stop cookie-cutter liberal rhetoric. I get over it by verbally smashing him in the mouth now and then. Doesn't matter, he's literally terrified to reply to me, like a little girl. Also, he claims he doesn't read my posts, so I should theoretically be able to say anything to him and it shouldn't bother him. Or you.
I heard anti-vaxers who had to get the vaccine were trying all sorts of weird remedies to undo any dangerous (read imaginary) side effects from it.

I read if you shower daily, brush your teeth morning and night, and wear deodorant you can avoid most of these severe side effects. Just a rec;

[Nick Danger]

I heard anti-vaxers who had to get the vaccine were trying all sorts of weird remedies to undo any dangerous (read imaginary) side effects from it.

I read if you shower daily, brush your teeth morning and night, and wear deodorant you can avoid most of these severe side effects. Just a rec;

It will please you to learn that I continue to be immune to this virus, Bronco, no matter how far it mutates from its original path of destruction. I truly have the immune system of a god; but I am a benevolent deity so I am now a volunteer at my local hospital, emptying bedpans and generally cleaning up after the handful of Covid patients there for a few hours a week. That will end Dec. 5 when their vaccine mandate goes into effect, but for now, I am using my natural immunity in a positive way, brushing and flossing frequently if not twice daily, showering for effect, and investing $20-30 annually in some of the finest deodorants available on Amazon.

[Stavros]

Really? Does that sadden you? I doubt it. What saddens me is Stavros' non-stop cookie-cutter liberal rhetoric. I get over it by verbally smashing him in the mouth now and then. Doesn't matter, he's literally terrified to reply to me, like a little girl. Also, he claims he doesn't read my posts, so I should theoretically be able to say anything to him and it shouldn't bother him. Or you.

I offer anyone who is interested to read them, threads and posts which are not about me but the issues I think are important and interesting, and there is no obligation on anyone to reply to them. I have never blocked anyone's posts and yes, I do read them all because I believe in free speech and open debate. It doesn't mean I am obliged to reply to posts, and other than this one, I stopped replying to your posts because there was no point when you rejected the truth about the massacre at Sandy Hook to posture on your own verifiable rubbish heap of lies. If you cannot accept the facts in such an appalling act of violence, what is the point of engaging you in debate?

So yes, say whatever you like, but I would prefer it if you did not make it personal, as I am not the news -and neither are you.

PS, I am not a Liberal, but as an American I doubt you would understand the distinctions in political labels that we make in the UK.

[Nick Danger]

I offer anyone who is interested to read them, threads and posts which are not about me but the issues I think are important and interesting, and there is no obligation on anyone to reply to them. I have never blocked anyone's posts and yes, I do read them all because I believe in free speech and open debate. It doesn't mean I am obliged to reply to posts, and other than this one, I stopped replying to your posts because there was no point when you rejected the truth about the massacre at Sandy Hook to posture on your own verifiable rubbish heap of lies. If you cannot accept the facts in such an appalling act of violence, what is the point of engaging you in debate?

So yes, say whatever you like, but I would prefer it if you did not make it personal, as I am not the news -and neither are you.

PS, I am not a Liberal, but as an American I doubt you would understand the distinctions in political labels that we make in the UK.

You lost the Sandy Hook debate, Stavros, and you're a bad loser so YOU decided to make it personal. But that's okay, Stavros, I accept your apology.

I feel we can start our relationship anew on firmer footing, now that you have seen the utter economic ruin being delivered by the current liberal administration. Thankfully, they got their infrastructure bill passed, so that pretty much means the social spending bill, which would have left this country reeling for decades to come as we struggled to meet the needs of the lazy portion of the population, is dead in the water.

We can move on now. Biden and his team of sucker-punchers have done most of the damage they can do, short of continuing to push citizens in an even more anti-government direction with their incessant Covid politics. The mid-terms are a Republican lock, and no one is going to hand Biden 4 more years in 2024 - he's the boy who cried wolf. It's over. So now, we don't have to be at each other's throats anymore, Stavros, the Democrats have taken less than a year to go full Barney Fife, and I feel certain you're ready to acknowledge that.

Frankly it's a better scenario than I could have imagined short of a Trump win. We get the infrastructure bill, which the Republicans would never have created, then three full years of watching an instantly lame duck Democratic administration flounder around aimlessly. It's going to be Carter-tier comedy gold.

1352536

[Stavros]

An American woman convicted of Manslaughter in the First Degree because she had a miscarriage -and the claim her drug abuse caused the death opens so many questions without a coherent answer, as these two links suggest, and not just in the US but also in Central America. If drugs are the cause of death, why not tobacco smoke inhaled from someone in the street? And to give a foetus the same rights as a citizen is an absurdity -shoud the foetus have legal counsel in a court case? As to the difference between a person and a human, well an experienced psychologist once confessed 'we don't know how to define a person'...

Depressing reading, but important-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59214544

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/16/policing-pregnancy-miscarriage-corporate-drug-pushers-go-free

[Stavros]

How does one defend oneself from potential harm in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on a night of protest?

A) Drive 20 miles into the city, armed with a battlefield weapon the law says you cannot own, and shoot as many unarmed people as you can,

or

B) Stay at home.

[Nick Danger]

How does one defend oneself from potential harm in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on a night of protest?

A) Drive 20 miles into the city, armed with a battlefield weapon the law says you cannot own, and shoot as many unarmed people as you can,

or

B) Stay at home.

He never said he was trying to defend himself from harm, he said he was going to protect businesses, which, goddamn shame when a citizen has to take up arms and do what the police won't, but he did. Got off scot-free too and most of sane America is quite happy about that tonight. Does that bother you, Stavros? Even after seeing clearly on surprisingly high-quality video that he was being attacked by 3 people and was obviously defending himself from grave bodily harm? What's wrong with you, are you genuinely delusional or have you trapped yourself into this absurd line of reasoning with your constant echoing of far left media rhetoric?

[broncofan]

I saw the video. He was being attacked by three people. When he shot Rosenbaum, he was being chased by a guy who was looking to harm him. Then he got chased down the street by dozens of people. He shot Huber when Huber attacked him and he shot Grosskreutz who had a gun drawn and who then decided to charge at him after initially surrendering.

I DO think walking around with an AR-15 creates a danger for people, particularly in an already charged situation. I also don't buy that there is any call for him, a shmuck, to protect other peoples' businesses for which he would not have a privilege to use deadly force.

Now about the calibration of force. He was being attacked and I guess when you have a gun drawn the inference is that if you're overtaken your assailant will shoot you. I would not have been where he is doing what he was doing but I have to admit I am not sure he'd have gotten out of there alive without shooting those three. It doesn't please me to say it because I don't think he had any cause to patrol a protest with a weapon like that for reasons that had nothing to do with him.

[Nick Danger]

I saw the video. He was being attacked by three people. When he shot Rosenbaum, he was being chased by a guy who was looking to harm him. Then he got chased down the street by dozens of people. He shot Huber when Huber attacked him and he shot Grosskreutz who had a gun drawn and who then decided to charge at him after initially surrendering.

I DO think walking around with an AR-15 creates a danger for people, particularly in an already charged situation. I also don't buy that there is any call for him, a shmuck, to protect other peoples' businesses for which he would not have a privilege to use deadly force.

Now about the calibration of force. He was being attacked and I guess when you have a gun drawn the inference is that if you're overtaken your assailant will shoot you. I would not have been where he is doing what he was doing but I have to admit I am not sure he'd have gotten out of there alive without shooting those three. It doesn't please me to say it because I don't think he had any cause to patrol a protest with a weapon like that for reasons that had nothing to do with him.

Allow me to retort. Kenosha was essentially Kyle's hometown, he worked there and his father and best friend lived there and he lived one town over which just happened to be over a state line. You can't really say the thing had nothing to do with him, it's his town. I'll tell you right now, during those riots, there were a lot of people out on the streets armed and making sure the rioters steered clear of their residential neighborhoods. I can GUARANTEE you my old man was out on his porch every night with his shotgun in his lap. So yeah, people can make it their business to stop their town from being destroyed by a mob I think. No, Bronco, disagree?

[broncofan]

Allow me to retort. Kenosha was essentially Kyle's hometown, he worked there and his father and best friend lived there and he lived one town over which just happened to be over a state line. You can't really say the thing had nothing to do with him, it's his town. I'll tell you right now, during those riots, there were a lot of people out on the streets armed and making sure the rioters steered clear of their residential neighborhoods. I can GUARANTEE you my old man was out on his porch every night with his shotgun in his lap. So yeah, people can make it their business to stop their town from being destroyed by a mob I think. No, Bronco, disagree?
I already said that legally the fact that he's walking around with a military weapon probably does not factor into the analysis of whether he had the privilege of self-defense since the people he shot were assaulting him. At least that's what I was taught. The question is whether he had genuine (subjective) and reasonable (objective element) fear of being killed at the time he fired his weapon. I think probably he did.

I own a business. My office has been vandalized. I own a home. Both are insured. I think it's incredibly pointless to walk into the middle of a crowd of angry protesters, some of whom are law-abiding and some of whom are not, carrying a gun because you're looking to protect property.

You do not get to use a gun to protect someone else's business. It's possible you wouldn't get to use that kind of force to protect your own business. Your home? Yes. And the only thing an AR-15 can do is rip holes in people. I don't have to agree with your vigilante bullshit or that ar-15s should be legal. I don't think they should be. You guys really are addicted to guns.

And I doubt you'd be as honest and non-partisan as I'm being if a liberal were in the position he was in.

[Nick Danger]

I already said that legally the fact that he's walking around with a military weapon probably does not factor into the analysis of whether he had the privilege of self-defense since the people he shot were assaulting him. At least that's what I was taught. The question is whether he had genuine (subjective) and reasonable (objective element) fear of being killed at the time he fired his weapon. I think probably he did.

I own a business. My office has been vandalized. I own a home. Both are insured. I think it's incredibly pointless to walk into the middle of a crowd of angry protesters, some of whom are law-abiding and some of whom are not, carrying a gun because you're looking to protect property.

You do not get to use a gun to protect someone else's business. It's possible you wouldn't get to use that kind of force to protect your own business. Your home? Yes. And the only thing an AR-15 can do is rip holes in people. I don't have to agree with your vigilante bullshit or that ar-15s should be legal. I don't think they should be. You guys really are addicted to guns.

And I doubt you'd be as honest and non-partisan as I'm being if a liberal were in the position he was in.

Hey, that's not fair, Bronco, I'm non-partisan on some matters, not so non-partisan on others. When it comes to crime I don't care if a guy's a dipshit or a Republican when the facts are clear.

To be fair, if I had a son, I would not allow him to go protect other people's businesses from an angry mob, whatever the circumstances leading up to the mob becoming an angry one. Regarding young Kyle's motive, my guess is he did what he did to impress girls. Isn't that why all 17-year-old boys do anything they do?

Not for nothing, Bronco, but we don't have that kind of trouble in my area. It could relate to the fact that most people here legally own automatic weapons and hand grenades. Could relate to the fact that we have a world-class police force in a city of <200,000. Or it could relate to the fact that most people around here are conservatives. But I'm guessing it relates to one or more of those facts.

[Stavros]

I already said that legally the fact that he's walking around with a military weapon probably does not factor into the analysis of whether he had the privilege of self-defense since the people he shot were assaulting him. At least that's what I was taught. The question is whether he had genuine (subjective) and reasonable (objective element) fear of being killed at the time he fired his weapon. I think probably he did.


He had no legal right to possess the weapon, he had no legal right to police the streets of Kenosha wth the weapon 'locked and loaded', he had no legal right to kill two people and injure a third. If the policing of the streets of Kenosha is gong to be left to armed teenagers, then defund the police department.

The case offers an irrefutable fact: to defend himself against any and all threats in Kenosha, the boy needed only to stay at home.

By replacing this fundamental context with the subsequent events and the impact of means and opportunity, a reckless teenager is excused from committing a blatant crime. Had the Jury been asked to investigate who this little boy is, what he was committed to politically, his emotional condition on the night, and the evidence of his association with anti-American terrorists, would he have walked? Perhaps, but that might have more to do with the crisis of legitimacy in the US in which truth becomes lies, loyalty becomes treachery, and a murderer becomes a hero.

[Nick Danger]

He had no legal right to possess the weapon, he had no legal right to police the streets of Kenosha wth the weapon 'locked and loaded', he had no legal right to kill two people and injure a third. If the policing of the streets of Kenosha is gong to be left to armed teenagers, then defund the police department.

The case offers an irrefutable fact: to defend himself against any and all threats in Kenosha, the boy needed only to stay at home.

By replacing this fundamental context with the subsequent events and the impact of means and opportunity, a reckless teenager is excused from committing a blatant crime. Had the Jury been asked to investigate who this little boy is, what he was committed to politically, his emotional condition on the night, and the evidence of his association with anti-American terrorists, would he have walked? Perhaps, but that might have more to do with the crisis of legitimacy in the US in which truth becomes lies, loyalty becomes treachery, and a murderer becomes a hero.

1354235

[broncofan]

He had no legal right to possess the weapon, he had no legal right to police the streets of Kenosha wth the weapon 'locked and loaded', he had no legal right to kill two people and injure a third. .
The problem is how do we formulate your last conclusion into a legal rule that incorporates the first two points? If someone has committed an initial illegal act they can no longer use force even if they're chased down and attacked? I can think of a bunch of situations where someone should be able to defend themselves even if they first committed an illegal act. If someone's possession of an instrumentality is illegal that instrumentality cannot be used in an act of self-defense? You could always just charge them with possession of the illegal weapon. Then the question becomes whether at the time he fired the gun it was necessary to keep himself from being killed. Otherwise I think we risk sanctioning the idea that someone walking with the gun is provocative enough that attacks on him are inevitable.

Do you think he would have been killed by Rosenbaum if he didn't shoot Rosenbaum? I'm just curious.

[broncofan]

Had the Jury been asked to investigate who this little boy is, what he was committed to politically, his emotional condition on the night, and the evidence of his association with anti-American terrorists, would he have walked?
From looking at social media many of the people supporting him are the most despicable people in this country. That's for sure...

[Nick Danger]

From looking at social media many of the people supporting him are the most despicable people in this country. That's for sure...

The Deplorables! ;-)

Speaking of deplorable, let's do a quick rundown of Kyle Rittenhouse's victims:

Joseph Rosenbaum - convicted of molesting FIVE children, just out of mental hospital that very day, engaged in attempted murder and instigating a riot at time of death

Anthony Huber - twice convicted for domestic violence, charged with three felonies for strangling, kicking, and falsely imprisoning his own sister, engaged in attempted murder and instigating a riot at time of death

Gaige Grosskreutz - has at least one undisclosed expunged felony conviction, convicted of domestic violence against his own grandmother in 2010, charged with domestic violence and felony burglary in 2012, engaged in attempted murder, illegal possession of a handgun, and instigating a riot at time of death

But of course it wouldn't be fair to talk about what scumbags those 3 dipshits were without talking about the life of Kyle Rittenhouse, a high school student with no criminal past who also holds down a part-time job and is active in several local police organizations' cadet programs, with a stated goal of pursuing a career in law enforcement as an adult. Yeah, what an asshole.

[Nick Danger]

He had no legal right to possess the weapon, he had no legal right to police the streets of Kenosha wth the weapon 'locked and loaded', he had no legal right to kill two people and injure a third. If the policing of the streets of Kenosha is gong to be left to armed teenagers, then defund the police department.

The case offers an irrefutable fact: to defend himself against any and all threats in Kenosha, the boy needed only to stay at home.

By replacing this fundamental context with the subsequent events and the impact of means and opportunity, a reckless teenager is excused from committing a blatant crime. Had the Jury been asked to investigate who this little boy is, what he was committed to politically, his emotional condition on the night, and the evidence of his association with anti-American terrorists, would he have walked? Perhaps, but that might have more to do with the crisis of legitimacy in the US in which truth becomes lies, loyalty becomes treachery, and a murderer becomes a hero.

You're a genuinely shitty person, Stavros - wishing life in prison on an innocent 18-year-old. The facts of the case are EXCEEDINGLY AND ABUNDANTLY clear, the jury has spoken, the "victims" were actually the perpetrators, and Kyle Rittenhouse is actually a fine young man. Look in the mirror today, what have you become?

[Stavros]

The problem is how do we formulate your last conclusion into a legal rule that incorporates the first two points? If someone has committed an initial illegal act they can no longer use force even if they're chased down and attacked? I can think of a bunch of situations where someone should be able to defend themselves even if they first committed an illegal act. If someone's possession of an instrumentality is illegal that instrumentality cannot be used in an act of self-defense? You could always just charge them with possession of the illegal weapon. Then the question becomes whether at the time he fired the gun it was necessary to keep himself from being killed. Otherwise I think we risk sanctioning the idea that someone walking with the gun is provocative enough that attacks on him are inevitable.

Do you think he would have been killed by Rosenbaum if he didn't shoot Rosenbaum? I'm just curious.

So intent or motive has no force in law? The boy was safe at home, but chose to drive into a town, and into that part of town where he knew there was social unrest. He did not go unarmed, but armed, and not wth a stick, a knife or a pistol, but a battlefield weapon normally issued to trained soldiers -he only claimed self-defence after he was attacked by people he provoked by brandishing his locked and loaded weapon, a weapon he had no legal right to possess. It is the case that we cannot, and will never know if one of the men who allegedly attacked him intended to kill him, but we could reasonably assert that, faced with a reckless teenager with a battlefield weapon he was the citizen defending himself.

The evidence proves that there was only one person who killed and injured that night, and he was not even charged with illegal possession of the weapon that caused injury and murder!

Is there any wonder that your legal system has been turned inside out, that you have law enforcement officers who failed to arrest a teenager with a battlefield weapon, who to him had stood by while Kenosha was attacked? Again, and again, intent stands tall, waving a placard 'Guys, watch me do this!'. To leap over that and begin your case in the midde of a conflict which he created for himself, is to select those parts of the law most likely to get the kid off, rather than to punish illegal acts.

The same assumption you choose not to make, others make with regard to the alleged crimes of his victims, suggesting that armed teenagers -hell, anyone- should have the right to go into the 'bad parts of town' and shoot at will and shoot to kill because, hey, those Black kids on the corner are selling drugs and you don't need an assumption of innocence, evidence or any damn thing, just shoot the dipshits, and the law will say 'well done', now go to DC and intern for a loony who shares your love of violent cartoons!

The moment he left the safery of his home and went into a conflict zone with a weapon his intent was clear. Even Clint Eastwood's classics like Dirty Harry have their moments of ambiguity and moral doubt, but in a country where truth is a lie, compromise a failure, the rule of law an irrelevance, a teenage boy who cries without producing tears, who doesn't know the meaing of life and death, for some reason, this is an 'open and shut case' in which there was only one outcome, an interview with Tucker Carlson.

Now ask -what if that teenager in Kenosha that night was Black? He would not be a hero, he would never have had his day in court or an inteview on Fox News, a public congratulation from a former, twice impeached President, and gushing praise from Congressional representatives.

He be dead.

[Nick Danger]

So intent or motive has no force in law? The boy was safe at home, but chose to drive into a town, and into that part of town where he knew there was social unrest. He did not go unarmed, but armed, and not wth a stick, a knife or a pistol, but a battlefield weapon normally issued to trained soldiers -he only claimed self-defence after he was attacked by people he provoked by brandishing his locked and loaded weapon, a weapon he had no legal right to possess. It is the case that we cannot, and will never know if one of the men who allegedly attacked him intended to kill him, but we could reasonably assert that, faced with a reckless teenager with a battlefield weapon he was the citizen defending himself.

The evidence proves that there was only one person who killed and injured that night, and he was not even charged with illegal possession of the weapon that caused injury and murder!

Is there any wonder that your legal system has been turned inside out, that you have law enforcement officers who failed to arrest a teenager with a battlefield weapon, who to him had stood by while Kenosha was attacked? Again, and again, intent stands tall, waving a placard 'Guys, watch me do this!'. To leap over that and begin your case in the midde of a conflict which he created for himself, is to select those parts of the law most likely to get the kid off, rather than to punish illegal acts.

The same assumption you choose not to make, others make with regard to the alleged crimes of his victims, suggesting that armed teenagers -hell, anyone- should have the right to go into the 'bad parts of town' and shoot at will and shoot to kill because, hey, those Black kids on the corner are selling drugs and you don't need an assumption of innocence, evidence or any damn thing, just shoot the dipshits, and the law will say 'well done', now go to DC and intern for a loony who shares your love of violent cartoons!

The moment he left the safery of his home and went into a conflict zone with a weapon his intent was clear. Even Clint Eastwood's classics like Dirty Harry have their moments of ambiguity and moral doubt, but in a country where truth is a lie, compromise a failure, the rule of law an irrelevance, a teenage boy who cries without producing tears, who doesn't know the meaing of life and death, for some reason, this is an 'open and shut case' in which there was only one outcome, an interview with Tucker Carlson.

Now ask -what if that teenager in Kenosha that night was Black? He would not be a hero, he would never have had his day in court or an inteview on Fox News, a public congratulation from a former, twice impeached President, and gushing praise from Congressional representatives.

He be dead.

The jury should have consulted you, Stavros. Because see, THEY thought he didn't go into Kenosha to shoot anyone, after hearing ALL THE FACTS of the case and debating them for 3 days. Know why they thought that? Because he DIDN'T shoot anyone until his life was in imminent danger from a mentally ill child molester twice his age who had verbally threatened to kill him, as proved clearly by indisputable video and eyewitness testimony. Unfortunately the jury didn't have your keen insight into his repulsive motives to factor into their decision, and they also didn't realize he'd been "brandishing" his weapon, since there is zero evidence of that whatsoever and in fact it was never even brought up, and you are literally just making up your bullshit as you go along.

Also, no one in this story is black, Stavros. Does that bother you? Got a race card to play and can't find anywhere to lay it down?

[broncofan]

The Deplorables! ;-)

Speaking of deplorable, let's do a quick rundown of Kyle Rittenhouse's victims:

Joseph Rosenbaum - convicted of molesting FIVE children, just out of mental hospital that very day, engaged in attempted murder and instigating a riot at time of death

Anthony Huber - twice convicted for domestic violence, charged with three felonies for strangling, kicking, and falsely imprisoning his own sister, engaged in attempted murder and instigating a riot at time of death

Gaige Grosskreutz - has at least one undisclosed expunged felony conviction, convicted of domestic violence against his own grandmother in 2010, charged with domestic violence and felony burglary in 2012, engaged in attempted murder, illegal possession of a handgun, and instigating a riot at time of death

But of course it wouldn't be fair to talk about what scumbags those 3 dipshits were without talking about the life of Kyle Rittenhouse, a high school student with no criminal past who also holds down a part-time job and is active in several local police organizations' cadet programs, with a stated goal of pursuing a career in law enforcement as an adult. Yeah, what an asshole.
Kyle Rittenhouse-a 17 year old who was not convicted of punching a girl but was videotaped doing exactly that. A kid who posed with literal neo-nazis from the proud boys and flashed a white power sign in the photograph with them. Yes it's the okay sign but they use the okay sign to signify white power because of its supposed ambiguity (it's not ambiguous when you pose with the proud boys and flash it). His three victims had checkered pasts but he's not exactly off to a great start either. Didn't he also impersonate an emt? I didn't think it was especially relevant to the verdict, which is why I only said in a separate post that neo-nazis in your party were celebrating. Guys like mr. camp counselor at auschwitz from January 6th. Basement dwelling white people who dream of killing every minority in this country and think Rittenhouse's acquittal was a referendum on their plans.

They were called deplorables because they create twitter usernames like diejewdie (I received an email from twitter once that diejewdie hadn't broken their rules). Yes they are pieces of shit and I think Kyle, the dry heave cryer, might turn out the same way but I hope not.

Despite this I watched the video and think he was in danger at both points he started firing his gun.

Stavros, intent matters in criminal law, and motive can be used when there's a question as to the identity of the perpetrator to show the defendant was likely that person. But motive is not an essential element of a crime. Intent is more narrow and specifically refers to whether someone intended an action, a consequence, or was merely reckless. I could be wrong about the legal result but I was shocked when I saw the video of what occurred.

[broncofan]

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-s-not-guilty-verdict-symptom-bigger-sickness-n1284130

I don't often post editorials to speak for me but this is a decent summary I think. It has a hyperlink in it on the words "permissive law" that goes into further depth about the self-defense jury instruction. But I agree with most if not all of this article.

[Nick Danger]

Kyle Rittenhouse-a 17 year old who was not convicted of punching a girl but was videotaped doing exactly that. A kid who posed with literal neo-nazis from the proud boys and flashed a white power sign in the photograph with them. Yes it's the okay sign but they use the okay sign to signify white power because of its supposed ambiguity (it's not ambiguous when you pose with the proud boys and flash it). His three victims had checkered pasts but he's not exactly off to a great start either. Didn't he also impersonate an emt? I didn't think it was especially relevant to the verdict, which is why I only said in a separate post that neo-nazis in your party were celebrating. Guys like mr. camp counselor at auschwitz from January 6th. Basement dwelling white people who dream of killing every minority in this country and think Rittenhouse's acquittal was a referendum on their plans.

Pretty sure some of that information is highly questionable. I'm white and I for one have never been taught the hand signal for white power.

Serious question, Bronco, and I know you're only liberal-leaning and not a full-on retard but I'm sure you must have some negative opinion about Tucker Carlson. Do me a favor and ignore that for a moment. At a minimum we can agree that TC is highly-educated. He said Kyle Rittenhouse would be a fool not to sue President Biden for publicly calling him a white supremacist. Kyle's attorney came right out of the gate after the trial slamming Biden for the same thing, before he even thanked God and the Academy.

So there you have at least two well-informed guys who seem to think the evidence that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist is pretty weak - weak enough to take it to court. Yet you present it as fairly incontrovertible. I have no opinion on the matter, though I've read that the Proud Boys denounce white supremacy. And since all enemies of the Democratic Party's agenda to spend all of this country's money for the next 20 years while they have the reins of power are now demonized in the liberal media as "white supremacists," it wouldn't surprise me if that's true.

Legal opinion?

[broncofan]

Pretty sure some of that information is highly questionable. I'm white and I for one have never been taught the hand signal for white power.

Serious question, Bronco, and I know you're only liberal-leaning and not a full-on retard but I'm sure you must have some negative opinion about Tucker Carlson. Do me a favor and ignore that for a moment. At a minimum we can agree that TC is highly-educated. He said Kyle Rittenhouse would be a fool not to sue President Biden for publicly calling him a white supremacist. Kyle's attorney came right out of the gate after the trial slamming Biden for the same thing, before he even thanked God and the Academy.

So there you have at least two well-informed guys who seem to think the evidence that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist is pretty weak - weak enough to take it to court. Yet you present it as fairly incontrovertible. I have no opinion on the matter, though I've read that the Proud Boys denounce white supremacy. And since all enemies of the Democratic Party's agenda to spend all of this country's money for the next 20 years while they have the reins of power are now demonized in the liberal media as "white supremacists," it wouldn't surprise me if that's true.

Legal opinion?
I said he posed with the proud boys and gave an okay gesture which is used by them to signify white power. The reason they chose a gesture as mundane as the okay sign is because it gives them the opportunity to gaslight those who point it out. They can post pictures of other people using the okay sign to mean okay and then ask "is he a white supremacist?" But it's kind of weird to pose for pictures using it and the context makes it pretty clear what they're doing. https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-hand-gesture

I did not say Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist (maybe he didn't know what the gesture meant) but if he sues anyone for saying he is he better be careful because the discovery process is very thorough.

The proud boys are white supremacists. They claim they're not and they have one or two minority members but the theories they espouse are the underpinnings of white supremacy. I'm comfortable calling them that. Their members wear shirts that say six million isn't enough and I'm also comfortable calling them neo-nazis, who also will occasionally admit minority members for plausible deniability. You should really look them up. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boy-6mwe/

I know fact-checking sites are inherently liberal but here's what a fact-checking site has to say about the proud boys 6mwe meaning.

[Nick Danger]

I said he posed with the proud boys and gave an okay gesture which is used by them to signify white power. The reason they chose a gesture as mundane as the okay sign is because it gives them the opportunity to gaslight those who point it out. They can post pictures of other people using the okay sign to mean okay and then ask "is he a white supremacist?" But it's kind of weird to pose for pictures using it and the context makes it pretty clear what they're doing. https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-hand-gesture

I did not say Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist (maybe he didn't know what the gesture meant) but if he sues anyone for saying he is he better be careful because the discovery process is very thorough.

The proud boys are white supremacists. They claim they're not and they have one or two minority members but the theories they espouse are the underpinnings of white supremacy. I'm comfortable calling them that. Their members wear shirts that say six million isn't enough and I'm also comfortable calling them neo-nazis, who also will occasionally admit minority members for plausible deniability. You should really look them up. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boy-6mwe/

I know fact-checking sites are inherently liberal but here's what a fact-checking site has to say about the proud boys 6mwe meaning.

Okay I looked into a couple of things. Agreed, the Proud Boys are a fairly wretched bunch. I kinda get the impression the racism is just another excuse to get into a bit of the old ultra-violence, one pundit called them a "far right fight club," just a bunch of young thugs really.

I also, though, found an item in the New York Post that says that the OK hand signal is just a hoax perpetrated by 4chan and that it's not actually anything at all besides the OK hand signal - https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/10-debunked-heinous-lies-about-kyle-rittenhouse-devine/ - and I'm aware the NYP is a right-wing publication, yes.

In that same part of the article it says it was just a chance encounter in a bar with those guys as well, and he posed for photos with others. Also says the FBI searched his phone and nada - no white supremacy shit, only pro-police shit, which makes perfect sense for a kid who wants to be a police officer.

I think there will be a lawsuit. Against the President. I can't think of any other reason that would be the very first thing Kyle's attorney brought up after the trial. Kyle himself has nothing to lose and everything to gain, he's a footloose 18-year-old international celebrity now with only moderate PTSD from the look of it. Time to cash in.

[Stavros]

Despite this I watched the video and think he was in danger at both points he started firing his gun.

Stavros, intent matters in criminal law, and motive can be used when there's a question as to the identity of the perpetrator to show the defendant was likely that person. But motive is not an essential element of a crime. Intent is more narrow and specifically refers to whether someone intended an action, a consequence, or was merely reckless. I could be wrong about the legal result but I was shocked when I saw the video of what occurred.

Thanks for the legal difference between intent and motive, but I think you are missing a paradox in this case that has not been resolved. There had not been any deaths in Kenosha until the boy with his gun arrived, but why is it that he is the person claiming self-defence and not his three victims? Could it not be argued, from their perspective, that when they saw him on the street with heavy artillery it was they who acted in self-defence, and was it also not reasonable for them to assume he not only paraded his weapon in public, but did so with the intention of using it- on them?

From this perspective, it was KR who created the dynamics that led directly to two deaths and one injury.

In addition, you must surely factor in the depressing reality that you Americans allow citizens to carry lethal weapons such as firearms into public spaces, so you cannot then express any reasonable anxiety -or rerget- when they are used -and it is not a fact that for one segment of the American public, that KR had a battlefield weapon and used it is the cause for celebration?

Lastly, and I think this is a key issue, what KR did was not remove the bad buys from the street, but use what is claimed to be his 'Second Amendment Right' to deprive other Americans of their First Amendment right to demonstrate their opposition to the unreasonable conduct of law enforcement officers in Kenosha.

Thus
1) KR created the dynamics that led to injury and death
2) the 2nd Amendment has been used to arm civilians who use it for illegitimate 'law enforcement' regardless of the existence of legitimate and armed police officers at the scene- to support the former must by definition cancel the other = the law ceases to exist as a socially binding mechanism, selfish behaviour replaces it.
3) As I have argued elsewhere, that KR's actions are both illegal and celebrated by supporters in pubic office exposes the crisis of legitimacy that is undermining the Union of 50 States you call the 'US' -if Americans in public office and among the general public do not reclaim their counry for the rule of the law, the Constitution and the Separaton of Powers, you will lose it.

One day you will wake up and law enforcement is not the local police dept, but the Boogaloo Bois, the Oathkeepers, the Proud Boys, and the III Percenters, many of whom are already in the police service and even sew their embles onto their uniforms, so indifferent to terrorism are their commanders. Or maybe they support it?

[Stavros]

I don't know what is more bizarre in the US right now -Mark Meadows suggesting that if the party of Sedition, Sleaze and Lies wins a majority of seats in the House of Representatives in 2022, the twice-impeached liar who is hundreds of milions of dollars in debt will be asked to become Speeaker of the House; or that Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, will become a candidate for the Presidency of the United States in 2024.

Presumably in both cases, because Big Bird and Oprah are not available- ?

[filghy2]

The predictable outcome of the Rittenhouse trial is that every right-wing extremist in the country now thinks they have carte blanche to turn up at left-wing demonstrations and do the same thing. On the off chance they do get convicted, they will still have Tucker Carlson and others turn them into a martyr.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22792136/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-militia-violence-self-defense

[Nick Danger]

The predictable outcome of the Rittenhouse trial is that every right-wing extremist in the country now thinks they have carte blanche to turn up at left-wing demonstrations and do the same thing. On the off chance they do get convicted, they will still have Tucker Carlson and others turn them into a martyr.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22792136/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-militia-violence-self-defense

Does that bother you, Flighty? That the message seems to be, "rioting in the streets is not just fine?"

[Stavros]

As the article linked below complains, the attack on the US is not far off being a year old, yet Sedition as a fact has yet to land the anti-American, New Wave Fascists in Court, raising the question -can the US survive the attack as a Union of 50 States?

The Constitution is clear-

"The federal law against seditious conspiracy can be found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (which includes treason, rebellion, and similar offenses), specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2384 (https://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/115/2384). According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States:


To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or to level war against them;
To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; or
To take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof."
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/sedition.html


Why wasn't Trump taken in chains from Mar-a-Lago to the Courthouse? At what point are these people going to face the full force of the law?

This man is worried-

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/merrick-garland-doesn-t-charge-011410192.html

[broncofan]

Why wasn't Trump taken in chains from Mar-a-Lago to the Courthouse? At what point are these people going to face the full force of the law?

This man is worried-

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/merrick-garland-doesn-t-charge-011410192.html
I skimmed the article but it kind of makes Garland's hesitancy seem at least tied to his view of the role of the President and the President's official discretion. I wonder if he's just scared.

If Garland doesn't really go after the people who incited the capitol riots I will think it's because he doesn't have the courage. People can accuse you of partisanship all they want and in the Trump administration doing one's job was made political. But if we're ever to return to some normalcy the law has to be enforced. I'm not sure that will lead to the best outcome or whether it would bring about political chaos but the Attorney General should have a more narrow focus than that. He's a prosecutor. If crimes have been committed, it's his job to bring charges.

[Nick Danger]

As the article linked below complains, the attack on the US is not far off being a year old, yet Sedition as a fact has yet to land the anti-American, New Wave Fascists in Court, raising the question -can the US survive the attack as a Union of 50 States?

The Constitution is clear-

"The federal law against seditious conspiracy can be found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (which includes treason, rebellion, and similar offenses), specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2384 (https://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/115/2384). According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States:


To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or to level war against them;
To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; or
To take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof."
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/sedition.html


Why wasn't Trump taken in chains from Mar-a-Lago to the Courthouse? At what point are these people going to face the full force of the law?

This man is worried-

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/merrick-garland-doesn-t-charge-011410192.html

Garland's too busy playing Gestapo to Biden's Hitler to pursue any meaningful cases. Most of his agents are staking out school board meetings right now to ensure that the Democrats' false racism narrative isn't inconveniently interrupted by teaching anything worth knowing.

I don't think the Capitol rioters should be charged with anything. They undoubtedly assumed that rioting was now legal, since the Democrats had been doing it for months on end with no consequences whatsoever.

You're 100% a hypocrite, Stavros. Where's your "outrage" about the Democrats' MUCH MORE VIOLENT AND COSTLY RIOTING? It was all okay because a white cop killed a black man? What if the Capitol riot (singular) was because a black man killed a white cop, would that have been okay?

Truth is it wasn't much of a riot. Couple heart attacks, an overdose, one police shooting - I guess Republicans just aren't as good at rioting as Democrats.

You know, Stavros, for a guy who doesn't even live in the USA and I doubt has ever even visited here, you certainly have some strong opinions about what we ought to be doing. Drag Trump off in chains? For calling for a PEACEFUL protest? Oh the humanity.

[Stavros]

I skimmed the article but it kind of makes Garland's hesitancy seem at least tied to his view of the role of the President and the President's official discretion. I wonder if he's just scared.

If Garland doesn't really go after the people who incited the capitol riots I will think it's because he doesn't have the courage. People can accuse you of partisanship all they want and in the Trump administration doing one's job was made political. But if we're ever to return to some normalcy the law has to be enforced. I'm not sure that will lead to the best outcome or whether it would bring about political chaos but the Attorney General should have a more narrow focus than that. He's a prosecutor. If crimes have been committed, it's his job to bring charges.

Thanks, Broncofan, for your short but intelligent reply. As a lawyer, I think you can confirm that in the US as in the UK, prosecutors are reluctant to take a case to Court if they are not confident of a conviction. To that end, evidence must stack up, and that may be a cause of reasonable delay, so it might just be the language and the tone of the DoJ that is causing frustration. The prima facie evdence that Trump is a crook has often had to deal with the fact that there is a difference between a criminal act and a scam. Trump University was a scam, but was it illegal? So far, Trump has 'gotten away with it' in relation to numerous claims, though he or his officials in his business might have broken the law if they claimed a building was worth more or less than its actual value in order to avoid paying taxes, or whatever the detail is for each of the buildings concerned.

Scotland poses a similar problem. Some years ago I was told by a Scot that Scotland's law requires a precision not found in English law, and the wrangle over the use of the Proceeds of Crime Act of 2002 exposes the rift between those who are keen to force Unexpained Wealth Orders on Donald Trump with regard to his purchases of gold clubs in the country, and those that are more concerned with the precise application of the law. When he was First Minister, Alex Salmond enabled Trump to begin work on the renovaton of a golf cub at Menie north of Aberdeen, but they fell out soon after when Trump objected to the creation of a wind farm off the coast. As Salmond put it

"The former MP was also asked if he regretted courting the business tycoon. Mr Salmond responded: “If I’d have known then what I know now, yes.
He added: “I remember the Donald Trump of ten years ago. When I first met him, he was a registered Democrat, an opponent of the Iraq War and a donor to the Clinton Foundation.”
Speaking of Mr Trump’s investment at Balmedia, Mr Salmond said: “What was being promised was billions of dollars in investment and thousands of jobs.
“You can either say we should not have believed what Donald Trump or the Trump organisation said to the public inquiry, or alternatively you can blame the people who made the commitment and didn’t come through with it.”
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-i-wish-i-hadnt-befriended-donald-trump-2512058

The story of Trump's cash mountain and his promise to spend a billion in Scotland when he was allegedly short of money, plus his grubby behaviou toward the people of Scotland is detailed here and worth a read-
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/08/the-biggest-trump-financial-mystery-where-he-came-up-with-the-cash-for-his-scottish-resorts/

In a debate in the Scottish Parliament, this captures the essence of the problem for Trump-

"To turn to the substance of the debate, I of course agree that Scotland is a law-abiding country that stands against corruption, tax evasion, money-laundering and other financial illegalities. In Martyn McLaughlin’s article in
The Scotsman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scotsman) yesterday, he wrote that, since Mr Trump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Trump) incorporated his first company in Scotland 16 years ago, none of his companies has turned a profit, and publicly available accounts show that they have run up losses of £55 million and
“owe £157 million to US-based limited liability companies and trusts in Mr Trump’s name.”
Companies House (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies_House) records for Trump’s golf course resorts showed that neither has paid a penny in UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK) corporation tax. The Avaaz campaigning report on his transactions in Scotland makes for really interesting reading, and I encourage everyone who can to read it. A couple of paragraphs are really important because they show that, when Balmedie and the Turnberry resort were being purchased, there was misconduct in Mr Trump’s inner circle. As a result of the inquiry, Mr Trump’s former campaign manager has pled guilty to money laundering, his former deputy campaign manager has pled guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States, and his personal lawyer has pled guilty to eight criminal counts, including campaign finance violations and tax fraud."
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2021-02-03.20.0

Given the criminal convictions of his staff, including those related to the 2016 Election Campaign, how is that the man himself as so far escaped prosecution? We watch, and we wait.

[Stavros]

"The Auschwitz Memorial slammed the Fox Nation host Lara Logan after she compared White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci to the infamous Nazi doctor Josef Mengele.

Logan said during a Monday segment (https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-nation-lara-logan-anthony-fauci-nazi-doctor-josef-mengele-2021-11?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=yahoo.com) of "Fox News Primetime": "This is what people say to me, that he doesn't represent science to them. He represents Joseph Mengele, the Nazi doctor who did experiments on Jews during the Second World War and in the concentration camps. And I am talking about people all across the world are saying this."
The Auschwitz Memorial's official Twitter account wrote in response: "Exploiting the tragedy of people who became victims of criminal pseudo-medical experiments in Auschwitz in a debate about vaccines, pandemic, and people who fight for saving human lives is shameful."
"It is disrespectful to victims & a sad symptom of moral and intellectual decline."
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/auschwitz-memorial-slammed-fox-host-105918443.html

I support this condemnation of Murdoch's miserable mouthpiece, but what more can one expect from the supporters of Sedition, Sleaze and Lies? Not much more.

[Nick Danger]

Thanks, Broncofan, for your short but intelligent reply.

Where's my thank you, Stavros?


Given the criminal convictions of his staff, including those related to the 2016 Election Campaign, how is that the man himself as so far escaped prosecution? We watch, and we wait.

Not being American, Stavros, you wouldn't be aware that it is a longstanding tradition in this country to ignore any awkward messes left behind by one's predecessor. Prosecuting ex-Presidents is bad business for everyone, not the least of whom is yourself as the new President, who in this case is every bit as much a criminal as the last one if not moreso - https://nypost.com/2021/11/29/joe-biden-expected-10-percent-cut-in-deal-with-a-chinese-giant/. And I know that's a conservative link, but then again, the liberal media simply won't report on Hunter Biden's indisputable criminal dealings with China on behalf of "The Big Guy."

You don't run down the last President, it makes the entire country look bad. You don't waste time prosecuting the last guy's advisors either. Don't you have better things to do Mr. President?

Trump followed the tradition, you didn't see him flinging dirt at Obama did you? Did you think there wasn't any to fling? Don't be obtuse, being President of the USA means you WILL do some shady shit, and you WILL have meetings with senior advisors about plausible deniability. You didn't see Obama flinging dirt at George W. Bush, or GWB flinging dirt at Bill Clinton, or Bill Clinton flinging dirt at Bush Sr. Hell, even Nixon got a pardon. You don't fling that dirt unless you are the absolute worst President this country has ever had, which is exactly what Joe Biden is.

The only thing I can figure is that Biden is fairly confident that he'll be dead before the end of his Presidency (I know I'm pretty confident about that - brain-dead in any case). Because if he's not, the next administration - which might very well BE Trump - will absolutely CRUCIFY him for what he's trying to do. The endgame here is actually going to be Biden's ass on the line, and the man barely even has an ass.


"The Auschwitz Memorial slammed the Fox Nation host Lara Logan after she compared White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci to the infamous Nazi doctor Josef Mengele.

Logan said during a Monday segment (https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-nation-lara-logan-anthony-fauci-nazi-doctor-josef-mengele-2021-11?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=yahoo.com) of "Fox News Primetime": "This is what people say to me, that he doesn't represent science to them. He represents Joseph Mengele, the Nazi doctor who did experiments on Jews during the Second World War and in the concentration camps. And I am talking about people all across the world are saying this."
The Auschwitz Memorial's official Twitter account wrote in response: "Exploiting the tragedy of people who became victims of criminal pseudo-medical experiments in Auschwitz in a debate about vaccines, pandemic, and people who fight for saving human lives is shameful."
"It is disrespectful to victims & a sad symptom of moral and intellectual decline."
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/auschwitz-memorial-slammed-fox-host-105918443.html

I support this condemnation of Murdoch's miserable mouthpiece, but what more can one expect from the supporters of Sedition, Sleaze and Lies? Not much more.

Let's look at Fauci's track record as this country's "Covid Czar." First of all, he financed the gain-of-function research that created the virus in the first place, then lied to Congress about it. Secondly, 780,000 Americans have died of Covid despite all the lockdowns and ineffective vaccines and mask-wearing that Fauci has forced the decent citizens of this country through for nearly two years now. Is that a good number? A bad number? People say it's a bad number. So that means Fauci sucks at his job. Not to mention that he's a smug asshole millions of Americans would love to punch in the face.

Considering that Fauci is essentially responsible for the entire pandemic, I don't think the Mengele comparison is too far out of line. He wanted to make the bat coronavirus contagious to humans - https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/. God knows what his insidious reasons were, but he succeeded. Maybe he's not so incompetent as he portrays. In any case he's got quite a lot to answer for whenever we get a real government again.

1355301

[KnightHawk 2.0]

"The Auschwitz Memorial slammed the Fox Nation host Lara Logan after she compared White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci to the infamous Nazi doctor Josef Mengele.

Logan said during a Monday segment (https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-nation-lara-logan-anthony-fauci-nazi-doctor-josef-mengele-2021-11?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=yahoo.com) of "Fox News Primetime": "This is what people say to me, that he doesn't represent science to them. He represents Joseph Mengele, the Nazi doctor who did experiments on Jews during the Second World War and in the concentration camps. And I am talking about people all across the world are saying this."
The Auschwitz Memorial's official Twitter account wrote in response: "Exploiting the tragedy of people who became victims of criminal pseudo-medical experiments in Auschwitz in a debate about vaccines, pandemic, and people who fight for saving human lives is shameful."
"It is disrespectful to victims & a sad symptom of moral and intellectual decline."
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/auschwitz-memorial-slammed-fox-host-105918443.html

I support this condemnation of Murdoch's miserable mouthpiece, but what more can one expect from the supporters of Sedition, Sleaze and Lies? Not much more.Conspiracy Crackpot and Fox Propaganda Nation host Lara Logan deserved to get slammed by the Auschwitz Memorial for the idiotic and dangerous comment she made,And i also support the condemnation of Murdoch's despicable mouthpiece. Not much more because supporters of sedition,sleaze and lies are going to continue to believe the misinformation coming from the Fox Propaganda Nation.

[peejaye]

The only thing I can figure is that Biden is fairly confident that he'll be dead before the end of his Presidency (I know I'm pretty confident about that - brain-dead in any case). Because if he's not, the next administration - which might very well BE Trump - will absolutely CRUCIFY him for what he's trying to do. The endgame here is actually going to be Biden's ass on the line, and the man barely even has an ass.
1355301

Hey, WTFk have people done electing this fella? I watched something last weekend where Biden said he was looking forward to celebrating his upcoming 58th birthday? He's almost 80 isn't he? Is he an alcoholic? I can't understand anything he says? He doesn't seem to finish a sentence? Everytime he appears on our TV here, everyone laughs ? Is it true Trump got 8 million more votes than the last election he won? WTFk?
Keep up the good work Nick, I look on here sometimes just to see if you're on.

[broncofan]

Is it true Trump got 8 million more votes than the last election he won? WTFk?
Keep up the good work Nick, I look on here sometimes just to see if you're on.
Trump lost the popular vote by more than 7 million votes. Biden got millions more votes than Hillary because there was much more turnout in this election. I see the red brown alliance is alive and well.

This guy peejaye thinks moderate democrats are right wing. What do you think Nick's politics are?

[Nick Danger]

Hey, WTFk have people done electing this fella? I watched something last weekend where Biden said he was looking forward tPeo celebrating his upcoming 58th birthday? He's almost 80 isn't he? Is he an alcoholic? I can't understand anything he says? He doesn't seem to finish a sentence? Everytime he appears on our TV here, everyone laughs ? Is it true Trump got 8 million more votes than the last election he won? WTFk?
Keep up the good work Nick, I look on here sometimes just to see if you're on.

Thanks Peejaye. I enjoy coming here and bantering with this little group of containment-board liberals. They are very much UNaware that there actually is a silent majority of people who understand the value of fiscally conservative government.

His age is one of the few things Biden doesn't lie about. He can't lie about it, he's been a Washington bureaucrat for almost 50 years now, his birthday is definitely a matter of public record. He's currently 79 years old, one year older than my father - a man who has had 4 at-fault auto accidents this year (the most recent of which was a roll-over accident with no other vehicles involved) and still won't give up his driver's license.

So yeah, we've got a senile old man for a President now. But that's okay, the most important thing is that we give all our nation's money for the next 30 years to the lazy low-lifes threatening our statues.

[broncofan]

Thanks Peejaye. I enjoy coming here and bantering with this little group of containment-board liberals. They are very much UNaware that there actually is a silent majority of people who understand the value of fiscally conservative government.

But that's okay, the most important thing is that we give all our nation's money for the next 30 years to the lazy low-lifes threatening our statues.
Peejaye arrived on this board as a socialist; a supporter of former British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn. He insisted that everyone who wasn't George Galloway or Ken Livingstone was right wing. But he's truthfully about as much a socialist as you are a fiscal conservative. You both are people who cannot deal with the world as it is so you construct enemies, blind yourself to facts and think politics and cheerleading are the same thing (just a coincidence that the former GOP president was actually a cheerleader; the one who choked on a pretzel not the one who shit his pants on the golf course). Can you imagine genuine constitutional conservatives supporting insurrectionists? Not any more than I can imagine a real leftist who likes Trump.

The only thing his post indicates is that you both stand for nothing. He can't even discern your politics and cares as little about the issues as you do about accuracy. You have won the praise of a misanthrope who thinks calling someone right-wing is the worst insult he can lob at them. Well fuck, then what does he like about you unless you remind him of Jeremy Corbyn? Do you wear a beret, have a two day old beard, a corduroy jacket, and a son who looks like Frodo Baggins?

[filghy2]

This guy peejaye thinks moderate democrats are right wing. What do you think Nick's politics are?

I doubt he has any thought beyond 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. It's unlikely he is actually reading ND's alternative reality rants. Increasingly I don't bother reading them either. Underneath the embroidery of words it's mostly the same tediously predictable stuff. If anything, it's getting worse.

[broncofan]

Underneath the embroidery of words it's mostly the same tediously predictable stuff. If anything, it's getting worse.
True but I did learn his dad has had 4 at fault accidents in a year and won't give up his license. Sadly the moral of that story is somehow that Joe Biden is unfit to be President.

[filghy2]

Why oh why do you waste time on RUBBISH like this Nick? Check your PM box & hopefully we can suffocate these two fucking lunatics :praying:


Thanks Peejaye. I enjoy coming here and bantering with this little group of containment-board liberals. They are very much UNaware that there actually is a silent majority of people who understand the value of fiscally conservative government.


Don't encourage him, or he'll be sending you more PMs asking to join his secret society for the suppression of the right/left/whatever.

[broncofan]

Or moving to st George Utah and joining menudo. Nick I was watching jeopardy the other day and menudo was an answer so thanks for that. Not really a good anecdote but it made me think about this forum.

[Nick Danger]

Peejaye arrived on this board as a socialist; a supporter of former British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn. He insisted that everyone who wasn't George Galloway or Ken Livingstone was right wing. But he's truthfully about as much a socialist as you are a fiscal conservative. You both are people who cannot deal with the world as it is so you construct enemies, blind yourself to facts and think politics and cheerleading are the same thing (just a coincidence that the former GOP president was actually a cheerleader; the one who choked on a pretzel not the one who shit his pants on the golf course). Can you imagine genuine constitutional conservatives supporting insurrectionists? Not any more than I can imagine a real leftist who likes Trump.

The only thing his post indicates is that you both stand for nothing. He can't even discern your politics and cares as little about the issues as you do about accuracy. You have won the praise of a misanthrope who thinks calling someone right-wing is the worst insult he can lob at them. Well fuck, then what does he like about you unless you remind him of Jeremy Corbyn? Do you wear a beret, have a two day old beard, a corduroy jacket, and a son who looks like Frodo Baggins?

Well I can't speak for Peejaye, we've only just met. Perhaps the debacle that is the Biden administration is pushing him in a more conservative political direction.

I feel I've been quite clear about what I represent, Bronco, but maybe you've missed it resultant of all the asshattery on this board - personal responsibility as opposed to living off of other people's money.

That part ain't too complicated. What gets complicated is when Democrats and communists enter the picture and convince the stupid portion of the population that they're entitled to something for having been born. Under capitalism, you aren't entitled to shit except a hard way to go if you're too lazy to contribute to the economy. One would think the current under-employment situation in the USA would finally enlighten some of you smarter Democrats about the benefits of enforced personal financial responsibility. Give people free money and they stop working. The main problem we're having in this country is that employers can't find anyone to do the work, they're all sitting at home living off Biden Bucks - for NOW. It's a slow economic genocide of the middle class. Still can't see it, Bronco? Even when it's happening right in front of you?

Why do you think there are so many upper class Democrats, Bronco? Widespread altruism in the 1%? Or maybe they just don't give a shit what happens to their middle class brethren. They themselves will be fine when the government gibs run out and the middle class is shattered under the crushing weight of UK-tier taxation. THEIR money is in the fucking Bahamas.

Anyone in this country can accomplish anything they want, that's the beauty of the USA. Black, white, purple, male, female, trans, gay, straight, "non-binary" (whatever the fuck that means, I honestly don't know, is that just another word for bisexual?) - it doesn't matter, if you dream it, you can do it, all you need is the will and the drive; as long as conservatives maintain control of the economy.

Pretty sure we've had the conversation before, Bronco, that I am fine with the back-and-forth between Republicans and Democrats. We need the Republicans to keep the economy in order and we need the Democrats to advance us socially. What we DON'T need is a Democratic administration coming into power under the guise of social advancement and instead blowing the economy all to hell with their imbecilic programs for lazy people. The Biden administration is not only exceeding its mandate, it is threatening to destroy the very fabric of society.

What do you stand for anyway, Bronco? You buying into "The USA is systemically racist?" It's a lie and a distraction, a black man can be President if he makes the right choices. He can also end up on the business end of a jackboot if he makes the wrong ones - just like a white man.

[Stavros]

Broncofan, as an intelligent and perceptive American, can you confirm that there hasn't been a fiscally responsible Republican in the White House since Eisenhower?

And would you agree, that as a 'businessman' and (fake) Presdent, Donald Trump has an historic record of spending other people's money rather than his own? His addiction to debt may explain the constant expansion of the public debt when he was in the White House, and maybe his only true advice to the American people should be 'borrow as much money as you like and never pay it back, that's what I do'.

[filghy2]

What do you stand for anyway, Bronco? You buying into "The USA is systemically racist?" It's a lie and a distraction, a black man can be President if he makes the right choices. He can also end up on the business end of a jackboot if he makes the wrong ones - just like a white man.

Interesting choice of words, though not exactly surprising for a man who is well on the way to rationalising fascism as a legitimate response to democratic outcomes you don't like.

Has that whole 'birther' thing has been expunged from your memory like so much else, or was that another legitimate response like January 6?

[filghy2]

I don't think the Capitol rioters should be charged with anything. They undoubtedly assumed that rioting was now legal, since the Democrats had been doing it for months on end with no consequences whatsoever.

Just a bunch of guys getting a bit over-enthusiastic in their passion for fiscal conservatism huh?
1355355

[broncofan]

Broncofan, as an intelligent and perceptive American, can you confirm that there hasn't been a fiscally responsible Republican in the White House since Eisenhower?

And would you agree, that as a 'businessman' and (fake) Presdent, Donald Trump has an historic record of spending other people's money rather than his own? His addiction to debt may explain the constant expansion of the public debt when he was in the White House, and maybe his only true advice to the American people should be 'borrow as much money as you like and never pay it back, that's what I do'.
I would agree with you. At least I have not seen a Republican president who qualifies as fiscally conservative. Deregulation-maybe but they haven't really accomplished their so-called end of getting rid of cumbersome regulations that get in the way of commerce but have instead allowed businesses to externalize costs. Free Trade-except for the fact that their most recent President wanted to start a trade war with China based simply on his feelings about the Chinese. Balanced Budget-pretty sure it's just something they say during a Democratic administration when they oppose programs but they will happily support tax cuts that have no beneficial effect for the economy.

Donald Trump doesn't pay taxes. He claims it's because he is using the tax code effectively and not because he fails to make money. If the taxes he pays don't reflect his ability to pay who does that benefit? Only him. Would someone who has supposedly made billions of dollars only be in business if he's allowed to pay zero dollars in tax for decades? There is no useful purpose in having a system of taxation that allows someone to make billions of dollars through investment activity, plenty of it liquid and not pay tax.

I will get to Nick Danger's post later but I'm not sure how this is personal financial responsibility. It sounds like he has a limitless ability to borrow, never seems to service his debts or pay them down, and doesn't pay taxes. I understand that in commercial real estate investors want to be highly leveraged but don't banks ever look at his layers of debt and coverage ratios?

Wealthy people do not benefit as much from Democratic tax policies. So most wealthy Democrats at the very least are voting for politicians who will tax them more. I imagine they think it's a more fair system and the amount of additional tax they pay is not a huge personal burden to them. I reject the claim that conservatives are good for the economy. Conservatives are good at allowing cronyism (and corruption) and very low tax burdens for exorbitantly wealthy people. The former sometimes poses a grave risk to the economy.

[Nick Danger]

Broncofan, as an intelligent and perceptive American, can you confirm that there hasn't been a fiscally responsible Republican in the White House since Eisenhower?

Fiscal conservatism doesn't consist of not spending money, Stavros. The USA has plenty of money, and if we run out all we have to do is print more and dare anyone to do anything about it. Our debt ceiling is as high as we need it to be, we run this planet.

Fiscal conservatism defines how you spend the money you spend.

If we spend $15 billion on an aircraft carrier, okay, now we have a $15 billion boat. Net loss: 0 dollars.
If we spend $10 billion on a wall across the southern border, we have a $10 billion wall. Net loss: 0 dollars.
If we spend $28 billion flying to the moon, we have $28 billion worth of international dick-measuring. Net loss: 0 dollars.

BUT - if we spend $430 billion annually on welfare, food stamps, and section 8 housing (tip: we do) for people who simply refuse to get with the program, the net loss is incalculable. Not only have we given away the money, we've also given away $430 billion worth of reasons not to work for a living, $430 billion worth of reasons not to get an education, $430 billion worth of don't give a shit, and $430 billion worth of do it all again next year.

On a smaller scale, the difference between fiscal conservatism and liberal spending is the difference between a private citizen spending a million dollars on a house, or a million dollars on cocaine, whiskey, and hookers. Long-term home for your family? Or world's worst hangover and money just gone?

The conservative view is that people don't like to work, and must be motivated to do so. The liberal view is that people shouldn't have to work if they don't want to and should be supported by the government if that's their choice. Which view sounds more like a winning formula? Which sounds more like sound financial reasoning?

And which view sounds like a way to buy votes from poor people and line your own pockets at the expense of your country's future?

Democrats who actually understand what liberal fiscal policy means (meaning none of you guys) are truly scum of the earth. Luckily for the Democratic Party though, most of their constituents are mouth-breathing boneheads.


Interesting choice of words, though not exactly surprising for a man who is well on the way to rationalising fascism as a legitimate response to democratic outcomes you don't like.

Has that whole 'birther' thing has been expunged from your memory like so much else, or was that another legitimate response like January 6?

I'll play fascism. Can I be Il Duce?

Also, I never said Jan. 6 was a legitimate response, you just now said that for the first time it's been said ITT. I do happen to know a couple things about Jan. 6 that you don't know, since I had two close friends there. For example, I know that many of the people who ended up on the grounds of the Capitol itself were pushed there by the crowd - my friend Tony told me he ALMOST had no choice but to allow himself to be pulled up onto the steps of the Capitol, or fall to the ground. Luckily he managed to escape out the back of the crowd. I know that the two friends of mine who attended the rally went there with no intention whatsoever of rioting, that the rioting itself was a spontaneous event that seemed to arise from the movement and mood of the crowd. And I know that Trump said nothing whatsoever to encourage rioting - not from my friends but because I watched the speech, which you could do just as easily to assuage your doubts on the matter. The man called for a peaceful protest, quite clearly, there's no gray area, no conviction forthcoming, sorry.

[Stavros]

I would agree with you. At least I have not seen a Republican president who qualifies as fiscally conservative. Deregulation-maybe but they haven't really accomplished their so-called end of getting rid of cumbersome regulations that get in the way of commerce but have instead allowed businesses to externalize costs. Free Trade-except for the fact that their most recent President wanted to start a trade war with China based simply on his feelings about the Chinese. Balanced Budget-pretty sure it's just something they say during a Democratic administration when they oppose programs but they will happily support tax cuts that have no beneficial effect for the economy.


Thank you for this extension of views. I think that what the UK and the US have in common is an almost paranoid fear of debating taxation in public as a public policy in need of reform. The only discussion seems to be whether or not to raise or lower taxes, whereas we have complex layers of taxation, and it is in the detail that most people don't undestand that I think decisions are made which ought to be reconsidered. And as you used the word 'Fair' and I think it is Fairness that is rarely if ever brought into the discussion, and not just because 'Justice as Fairness' is a central feature of Rawls Theory, given that Rawls remains the most crucial thinker on these matters to set alongside Nozick, a debate that remains pertinent for all Liberal Democracies, not just the US.

I was once told by the senior executive of a well-known UK company 'we make all our profit on tax' which was actualy not true, but he meant that the company was able to claim so much money in tax rebates that the proportion of actual tax they paid was significantly short of the headline figure. In the US, Joseph Stiglitz has analysed the data to claim most of the top companies there rarely if ever pay more than 10% corporation tax, so the headline figure might be useful in Presidential debates when a candidate can promise to reduce corporation tax to make US companies more competitive, but its just noise.

What I don't know is whether or not when corporation tax was vastly higher in the 1950s companies could claw back tax in rebates. What astonishes me about Trump, is that he probably makes more money from tax rebates owing to business failure than he does profit derived from business success. This appears to be the case with his permanently failing golf clubs in Scotland, for which he is liable to pay tax in the US. This might not be fair, but Trump didn't propose changing tax law to relieve Americans from paying tax on business interests outside the country -because he actually makes money from faiure?

It seems that if a large company fails the taxpayer will compensate it to the tune of millions of $$, whereas if a married couple open a store on Main St but can't make a profit, they will be forced to shut it down and pay whatever they owe to the bank and any investors they had. I don't see why the taxpayer should ever reward failure, but it is also the case that many if not most of Trump's properties were developed using the taxpayer loans that Federal Governments intended to be used to promote new businesses, presumably for emerging entrepreneurs. One way and another, Trump has legally robbed the American people of their money, which may be why he treats US citizens as 'dopes and babies', insulting and abusing Americans as often as he can, just for the hell of it, and because he gets a kick out of belittling people he is convinced are inferior to himself.

We have similar loop-holes in our tax arrangements in the UK, and as far as I know they exist following negotiations between Govt and Business in which the latter effectively demands rebate allowances to maintain and stimulate commerce, just as the banks here became 'too big to fail' and the taxpayer forked out staggering sums to protect them from oblivion. Libertarians may make grandiloquent speeches in the Commons, or write chapters in provocative pamphlets, but one notes that the very same people who have promoted Brexit as an opportunity to abolish regulations have so far found business has more of them than before -because of Brexit-, and with the eye-watering sums of money spent on the Coronavirus in terms of health care and poverty relief, the romantic aim of abolishing taxes is not on the agenda -not even Value Added Tax, which we only have because it was part of the Treaty the UK signed in 1972 to become members of the European Economic Community.

There are many other aspects of this we could discuss- the role tax has played in social and political change, for example, as at one time protests over taxation were in this country a direct challenge to the authority of the Monarch, so have been viewed as radical protest aligned with a nascent socialism, whereas tax protests in the US led to a Liberal revolution. We know that Washington wanted to disband the Continental Army after the first Revolutionary War, because its evolution into an army of the US would require a tax to fund it. I think even today, there could be, may indeed be, a proposal to disband the US Army on the basis that the Continental US is not liable to invasion, but that as the 2nd Amendment refers to an 'armed militia', then such locally raised militia coud easily replace the US Army. Again, as underwater drones, and aerial drones could replace most of the US fleet and Air Force, significant levels of taxation could be saved with the modernizaton of the armed forces, though I doubt anyone in the two parties that govern the US has the courage to talk about military reform, given the near relgious status that the military has, setting aside Trump's snide remarks as the petulant, childish rubbish that they are.

The costs of the US military are surely unsustainable, given the simple economic fact that if you spend $1 billion on an aircraft carrier, not only does it lose a percentage of its asset value the moment it it launched, it then costs the taxpayer probably another $1 billion a year in personnel costs, maintainance, etc. A nuclear weapon must be the most ridiculous weapon ever invented -hundreds of millions of dollars for a piece of kit that is never going to be used, unless Putin and Lukashenko realize they can at last generate those sums to build up their arsenals, and cream off 5% along the way.

I don't see either Keir Starmer here, or Kamala Harris there opening a new debate on taxation, and I think they are missing an opportunity to generate a demand for change, because one thing that might have emerged from the Covid-19 experience is a re-evaluation of what matters, and I think the fat cats who have sponged trillions off the taxpayer in return for so little are vulnerable to a re-ordering of priorities, and that is time for everyone to pay a fair share of tax, and to use those taxes for the Common Good.

[Nick Danger]

blah blah blah blah taxes

There's an extremely simple reason corporations don't pay much in taxes, Stavros. If you tax them too much they will move to another country and you will get zero taxes and lose jobs. The Mom & Pop store on Main Street doesn't have that option.

Surprises me that you seem to be completely unaware of the current activities of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. They are working on a plan to implement a global corporate tax so this becomes less of a problem. 136 of the 140 sovereign nations on Planet Earth have already signed on to participate. Maybe they don't cover that topic in People magazine or wherever you usually get your information.

https://taxfoundation.org/global-tax-agreement/

[filghy2]

You know why Jan. 6 happened Flighty? Because people absolutely could not accept that their fellow countrymen were stupid enough to elect Joe Biden as President. Cognitive dissonance, it didn't seem viable.



I'll play fascism. Can I be Il Duce?

Also, I never said Jan. 6 was a legitimate response, you just now said that for the first time it's been said ITT.

You went pretty close. You have also supported extra-legal violence on the pretext of preserving order which is pretty much how the fascists started out in Italy and Germany.

[filghy2]

Fiscal conservatism defines how you spend the money you spend.

If we spend $15 billion on an aircraft carrier, okay, now we have a $15 billion boat. Net loss: 0 dollars.
If we spend $10 billion on a wall across the southern border, we have a $10 billion wall. Net loss: 0 dollars.
If we spend $28 billion flying to the moon, we have $28 billion worth of international dick-measuring. Net loss: 0 dollars.

BUT - if we spend $430 billion annually on welfare, food stamps, and section 8 housing (tip: we do) for people who simply refuse to get with the program, the net loss is incalculable. Not only have we given away the money, we've also given away $430 billion worth of reasons not to work for a living, $430 billion worth of reasons not to get an education, $430 billion worth of don't give a shit, and $430 billion worth of do it all again next year.

As usual, you've got the economics the wrong way around. If the government spends money on building something that does not serve a socially-productive purpose that is a waste of real resources which can't be used for something else. If the government makes a transfer payment that does not use up real resources - purchasing power is just transferred to someone else. You can argue about whether they are a deserving recipient, but that's a different issue.

Incidentally, why did you choose your profile picture?. It always seems unintentionally appropriate to me, because is basically screams "delusional idiot".

[filghy2]

I would agree with you. At least I have not seen a Republican president who qualifies as fiscally conservative.

It's also notable that the past 5 recessions in the US developed under Republican administrations, talking into account that there's a lag of a few months. It's amazing how myths about conservative governments being better on the economy persist regardless of evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

[filghy2]

True but I did learn his dad has had 4 at fault accidents in a year and won't give up his license. Sadly the moral of that story is somehow that Joe Biden is unfit to be President.

Personal anecdotes are definitely his 'go to' strategy. It's always a handy distraction when the overall evidence doesn't support your argument. As we know, people who compile inconvenient data are part of that giant left-wing conspiracy.

More generally, it's part of his 'flooding the zone with shit' strategy - put up such a blizzard of nonsense that people get tired of rebutting it. Then you can tell yourself that you are invincible in argument, which is probably his real objective.

[broncofan]

For example, I know that many of the people who ended up on the grounds of the Capitol itself were pushed there by the crowd - my friend Tony told me he ALMOST had no choice but to allow himself to be pulled up onto the steps of the Capitol, or fall to the ground. Luckily he managed to escape out the back of the crowd. I know that the two friends of mine who attended the rally went there with no intention whatsoever of rioting, that the rioting itself was a spontaneous event that seemed to arise from the movement and mood of the crowd. And I know that Trump said nothing whatsoever to encourage rioting - not from my friends but because I watched the speech, which you could do just as easily to assuage your doubts on the matter. The man called for a peaceful protest, quite clearly, there's no gray area, no conviction forthcoming, sorry.
Not everyone who was there is your friend Tony. Just like not every 79 year old is your dad. There were people there who wanted to attack lawmakers and had telegraphed their plans in advance. Anyone who was there to protest the election was a dishonest moron. There never was any evidence of widespread voter fraud and Trump could not even keep his story straight about how it took place. The spate of frivolous lawsuits his cohorts filed were enough to make me question their sanity.

Trump's phone call to Raffensperger was about as improper as any official phone call I've heard. He was threatening him with potential liability for certifying his loss in Georgia. He kept insisting there was fraud to the tune of tens of thousands of votes without specifying the basis of his knowledge or any other details. I know you operate in a fact free universe but this was someone who was operating with the intent to spread misinformation to overturn an election he lost fair and square. He was using the power of his office to threaten someone performing his constitutional duty. If his morally bankrupt actions violated laws he should be prosecuted.

You say you never said Jan. 6 was a legit response. Response to what? Votes count just like dead children count even if you cover your eyes and ears.

[broncofan]

Personal anecdotes are definitely his 'go to' strategy. It's always a handy distraction when the overall evidence doesn't support your argument. As we know, people who compile inconvenient data are part of that giant left-wing conspiracy.
It's kind of contagious as well. There have been a couple of times where I've thought of an anecdote that's on point and then I think "nah, that doesn't prove anything and it just sounds like I want to talk about myself." But sometimes the temptation wins:) My dad has an excellent driving record for instance.

[Stavros]

There are some indications in the press that the Supreme Court is, in effect, going to 'return' the Abortion issue to the States and not make a definitive ruling. Literalists argue the Constitution makes no provision either way, and thus State's Rights must remain intact with no interference from the Court.

An intriguiging argument that I don't think Justice Kavanaugh dealt with, suggests that the Mississippi action is motivated not by law, but religion -I don't know, but is this in itself unConstitutional? Making laws that protect religion is one thing, imposing laws on women because of one religious claim surely cannot be legal? I ask because I don't know.

As for the actuality in how many cases would a reversal of Roe v Wade be summarised in three words: Rapists Have Rights. To be precise -having brutalized a woman through rape, the Rapist then demands that she bear his Rape-Baby, with the joyful approval of fake Christians like Mike Pence, who publicly declare the rights of the unborn child, deliberately not stating loud and clear that the unborn child has more Rights than the pregnant woman, who, on becoming pregnant ceases to be a Citizen of the United States, and instead becomes the vessel of violent Rapists and in other cases, Incestuous daddies.

Given that Donald Trump can legally marry a 12 year old girl in the US, that a father making his daughter pregnant can force her to bear the child without any regard for her needs or desires, and that Rapists Have Rights that must be respected, one wonders if the US has any moral creatures who can tell the difference between Right and Wrong, who can see quite clearly that if it is wrong to end a pregnancy through abortion on the basis that 'life is sacred', then it must also be wrong to abort the life of a prisoner on 'death row'.

The US is marching backwards, for if Mississippi can in effect reverse the legality of Roe v Wade, there is no reason why it should not go further and make same-sex marriage illegal, and, in time, restore the right of Legacy Americans to buy and sell Black people as their slaves, to labour in the fields, bow to Massa, and sing happy songs.

[filghy2]

And I know that Trump said nothing whatsoever to encourage rioting - not from my friends but because I watched the speech, which you could do just as easily to assuage your doubts on the matter. The man called for a peaceful protest, quite clearly, there's no gray area, no conviction forthcoming, sorry.

Your whole argument relies on focussing narrowly on a few words out of the context of the situation and ignoring everything else he did and said over the preceding months. If someone from the mafia came to your business and said "Nice place you have here: pity if something was to happen to it" would you interpret that as concern for your welfare?

If Trump is so innocent, why have he and his henchman gone to such lengths to block any investigation of what happened? Why did an unprecedented number of his own party members vote for his impeachment? Why did Mitch McConnell say this afterwards:
"There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him."

If Trump wanted only a peaceful demonstration then why does all the evidence we have indicate that he did nothing once he saw what was happening, apart from belatedly asking them to go home? If it's not true that he stonewalled the response and was actually pleased then why has he been blocking the evidence from coming out?

[Nick Danger]

You went pretty close. You have also supported extra-legal violence on the pretext of preserving order which is pretty much how the fascists started out in Italy and Germany.

It's interesting you reference the nazis (though of course any garden-variety liberal will eventually get around to using the n-word as he finds his other arguments shattering incessantly against the immovable wall of objective truth), because I was just thinking this morning as I was perusing some of the usual spooky "wokeness" haunting the liberal media these days, about how much Generation Z reminds me of the Hitler Youth. They have that same glassy-eyed stare, they're all repeating the same nonsensical mantra over and over again, they're 100% immune to logic or arguments of proportion, totally disengaged from any opinion on practical matters and unable to deviate from their hivemind defense of some surreal ideal they can't verbally define once the conversation extends beyond the usual party rhetoric. They're brainwashed, no question about it. By socialist educators. Children of the Corn anyone?

Ironically (for you), the current Democratic Party of the USA fits almost the EXACT dictionary definition of a fascist regime, minus the nationalism. Autocratic Government? Check. Dictatorial Leader? Check. Severe Economic and Social Regimentation? Check. Forcible Suppression of Opposition? Double Check.

If our current President ever displays even the slightest degree of patriotism or love of country, we may in future decades look up the word "fascist" in the dictionary and literally see a picture of Joe Biden.


As usual, you've got the economics the wrong way around. If the government spends money on building something that does not serve a socially-productive purpose that is a waste of real resources which can't be used for something else. If the government makes a transfer payment that does not use up real resources - purchasing power is just transferred to someone else. You can argue about whether they are a deserving recipient, but that's a different issue.

Incidentally, why did you choose your profile picture?. It always seems unintentionally appropriate to me, because is basically screams "delusional idiot".

Let me make sure I'm understanding you, Flighty. If we spend money on, let's say, a nuclear weapon, which I'm sure we can both agree serves no socially-productive purpose, that is categorically a waste of resources? What if it's the only thing keeping Russia or China from nuking us into oblivion? Wasteful? I'm not convinced of your economics expertise, Flighty. Convince me. And try to make your argument less Googly than usual.

Far as my profile picture, no particular meaning there. I liked the movie Mystery Men and realized that between the picture, the signature, and the description, I could create a Sphinx theme that might give someone a chuckle - me if no one else.


Personal anecdotes are definitely his 'go to' strategy. It's always a handy distraction when the overall evidence doesn't support your argument. As we know, people who compile inconvenient data are part of that giant left-wing conspiracy.

More generally, it's part of his 'flooding the zone with shit' strategy - put up such a blizzard of nonsense that people get tired of rebutting it. Then you can tell yourself that you are invincible in argument, which is probably his real objective.

In this case my argument was that Joe Biden is senile. Do you REALLY think I can't make that case without personal anecdotes? If so, just say the word and step back from your computer.

[Nick Danger]

Not everyone who was there is your friend Tony. Just like not every 79 year old is your dad. There were people there who wanted to attack lawmakers and had telegraphed their plans in advance. Anyone who was there to protest the election was a dishonest moron. There never was any evidence of widespread voter fraud and Trump could not even keep his story straight about how it took place. The spate of frivolous lawsuits his cohorts filed were enough to make me question their sanity.

Trump's phone call to Raffensperger was about as improper as any official phone call I've heard. He was threatening him with potential liability for certifying his loss in Georgia. He kept insisting there was fraud to the tune of tens of thousands of votes without specifying the basis of his knowledge or any other details. I know you operate in a fact free universe but this was someone who was operating with the intent to spread misinformation to overturn an election he lost fair and square. He was using the power of his office to threaten someone performing his constitutional duty. If his morally bankrupt actions violated laws he should be prosecuted.

You say you never said Jan. 6 was a legit response. Response to what? Votes count just like dead children count even if you cover your eyes and ears.

I'm gonna tell you what I honestly think about Jan. 6, Bronco, and I'm going to try real hard as I do so to remain non-partisan.

First of all I don't think Trump is very smart. I think he's a great leader BECAUSE he's not very smart. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" That's the kind of leadership I personally respond to.

Reason I bring that up is that I really don't think an argument can be made that Trump is smart enough to know how to start a riot. I don't think he's even smart enough to realize that he has the ability to start a riot. But he's got a huge ego, and it was hurt by the election loss. He wanted to stir people up. He wanted to make a scene. He wanted to stand there and soak in that energy from a crowd of his dutiful admirers. And he wanted it to be LOUD.

But a riot? First of all let's look at the subtext here - do you honestly think the people rioting were trying to take over the government? Do you think they thought that by taking over a building, they would suddenly be running the country and have the ability to alter the election results? Do you think Trump thought that? Of course not. Even the stupidest American is at least peripherally aware that government doesn't emanate from a building.

I think it was very much a spontaneous crowd response to an untenable level of emotion - both hero worship, and anger. When Democrats lose they cry. When Republicans lose they get angry.

And whether or not Trump is a very stable genius, he was at least smart enough not to say anything incriminating on that day, or before that day, or after that day - not one single thing that can be legally construed as inciting a riot. Beyond that, I genuinely don't think that was his intention. He was just feeling the love of the crowd and he wanted more, and more, and more, until it became too much. That's what I really think.

[Jericho]

But a riot? First of all let's look at the subtext here - do you honestly think the people rioting were trying to take over the government? Do you think they thought that by taking over a building, they would suddenly be running the country and have the ability to alter the election results? Do you think Trump thought that? Of course not. Even the stupidest American is at least peripherally aware that government doesn't emanate from a building.


Having seen a clip from a Trump rally on a previous thread, yeah.

[Laphroaig]

First of all I don't think Trump is very smart. I think he's a great leader BECAUSE he's not very smart. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" That's the kind of leadership I personally respond to.


"I like stupid people in charge" is quite the take...:dead::dead::dead:

[Nick Danger]

"I like stupid people in charge" is quite the take...:dead::dead::dead:

President not need smart. President need strong. Advisors need smart.

[filghy2]

President not need smart. President need strong. Advisors need smart.

You somehow missed the fact that Trump didn't listen to any advice that went against his impulses, at least not for very long. Everyone who tried to tell him what he didn't want to hear got sacked, and in the end he was surrounded by yes people.

[filghy2]

But a riot? First of all let's look at the subtext here - do you honestly think the people rioting were trying to take over the government? Do you think they thought that by taking over a building, they would suddenly be running the country and have the ability to alter the election results? Do you think Trump thought that? Of course not. Even the stupidest American is at least peripherally aware that government doesn't emanate from a building.

You are overlooking one obvious key point. Trump clearly believed that Mike Pence could and should have used his position to refuse to certify the state election results. In that case I understand it would have come down to a state-by-state vote in Congress, which would have given Republicans a small majority. So there was a possible quasi-legal route to overturn the election outcome if all Republicans had gone along with it.

Trump clearly wanted to fire up his supporters to put pressure on Pence and other Republicans in Congress. As he's a sociopath I doubt he cared how it was done. As you say, he knows enough to say the right words to create a veneer of deniability, but he also knows how to make the signal clear to those attuned to it.

Your argument that it was a spontaneous riot is a risible piece of revisionism that requires us to ignore all the people who turned up with various weapons and other suitable gear, as well as all the internet chatter before the event. Again, if it's true then why are the Trumpists so desperate to block any investigation?

[filghy2]

"I like stupid people in charge" is quite the take...:dead::dead::dead:

Some folks like their elected representatives to be just like them.

[broncofan]

As you say, he knows enough to say the right words to create a veneer of deniability, but he also knows how to make the signal clear to those attuned to it.
I agree with what you're saying but I'm not even sure "to those attuned to it" is necessary because he can be very clumsy and obvious. The average person makes an excuse like that and doesn't get a break. People who say "copyright infringement not intended" or who draft contracts with disclaimers like "none of this should be construed to mean x" and the rest of the contract goes into detail about how it does actually mean x, should be understood as x, and is undeniably x generally aren't as clever as they think they are.

The question most honest people ask is what does he want, what does he mean, and what is he trying to accomplish. There's also this trick slippery people use which you pointed out above which to use words of negation that are contradicted by everything else they are saying. These laws don't tend to talk about "net" incitement of violence....I'm waiting for a courtroom drama about a killer who points his gun at someone and says "I am not acting volitionally nor with malice aforethought, furthermore I would fail the M'Naghten test bc I don't know the character and wrongulness of my actions" then pulls the trigger.

[broncofan]

President not need smart. President need strong. Advisors need smart.
One of his advisers was Jared Kushner, a nepotism case at both Harvard and NYU Law who wasn't even smart enough to keep his mouth shut in class. I know someone who went to NYU Law with Jared and at the time said Jared was the dumbest student in his class. Yes this is an anecdote but my friend could be one of several hundred people who thought the same thing. His attorney is Rudy Giuliani who wears shoe polish on his sideburns.

But why do you think Trump is strong? Not physically. Not by determination, work ethic, character or anything else. He's an asswipe with poor judgment.

Nothing you said about Joe Biden being a dictator made sense. Trump was the person trying to overturn an election he lost. Trump tried to use the DOJ to settle scores and let his friends off the hook. What is it you think autocracy is?

[filghy2]

I agree with what you're saying but I'm not even sure "to those attuned to it" is necessary because he can be very clumsy and obvious.

You are right. The real issue is that most Republicans are so willing to rationalise and minimise what he says and does, which is what enables him. All the 'respectable' Republicans want is a few words to give them an out, no matter how clumsy or inconsistent with the rest of the message. "See, he wasn't encouraging a riot because he said the word peaceful once." "He told the Proud Boys to stand down." "He's not encouraging white supremacists because he criticised both sides at Charlottesville." "He's not a racist because he said so and he's friends with Kanye West."

[filghy2]

But why do you think Trump is strong? Not physically. Not by determination, work ethic, character or anything else. He's an asswipe with poor judgment.

He was acting out the cartoon version of the strong leader, which is all the people like Nick want. Look at the counter-examples. He was obviously the beta dog with Putin. He made a soft deal with the Taliban just to get out of Afghanistan. He let Kim Jong Un play him like a violin for the sake of a meaningless photo op. He never met a dictator he didn't praise admiringly.

[Nick Danger]

You somehow missed the fact that Trump didn't listen to any advice that went against his impulses, at least not for very long. Everyone who tried to tell him what he didn't want to hear got sacked, and in the end he was surrounded by yes people.

Trump's impulses are awesome. Grabbing the liberal media by the pussy, insulting nicknames for his political opponents, shamelessly stacking the SCOTUS with hard right assholes, hourly tweets watching Fox News, all done on the fly. Space Force? The Wall? Doing nothing about Covid? He had to have pulled those right out of his ass. Glorious.


You are overlooking one obvious key point. Trump clearly believed that Mike Pence could and should have used his position to refuse to certify the state election results. In that case I understand it would have come down to a state-by-state vote in Congress, which would have given Republicans a small majority. So there was a possible quasi-legal route to overturn the election outcome if all Republicans had gone along with it.

Trump clearly wanted to fire up his supporters to put pressure on Pence and other Republicans in Congress. As he's a sociopath I doubt he cared how it was done. As you say, he knows enough to say the right words to create a veneer of deniability, but he also knows how to make the signal clear to those attuned to it.

Your argument that it was a spontaneous riot is a risible piece of revisionism that requires us to ignore all the people who turned up with various weapons and other suitable gear, as well as all the internet chatter before the event. Again, if it's true then why are the Trumpists so desperate to block any investigation?

Hey Flighty, just because I don't believe the election was fraudulent doesn't mean I don't believe Trump believes the election was fraudulent. He believes it, and acted accordingly. And what liberals don't understand about Trump supporters is, it's not a cult of personality. It's a cult of people who hate progressives with every fiber. That's the real tie that binds. You can't blame Trump because your people are so obnoxiously retarded that Trump's people want to literally kill them and obliterate their taint from the gene pool. I know you live in your liberal echo chamber and don't know what the adults talk about, but I'll enlighten you that most of my friends think any support for the progressive agenda qualifies for death by chainsaw. And they all want to be the one holding the saw.

Blocking (i.e., "prolonging until we get Congress back in exactly 14 months") the investigation is a no-brainer. The investigation can't be trusted, it's a political witch hunt.


One of his advisers was Jared Kushner, a nepotism case at both Harvard and NYU Law who wasn't even smart enough to keep his mouth shut in class. I know someone who went to NYU Law with Jared and at the time said Jared was the dumbest student in his class. Yes this is an anecdote but my friend could be one of several hundred people who thought the same thing. His attorney is Rudy Giuliani who wears shoe polish on his sideburns.

But why do you think Trump is strong? Not physically. Not by determination, work ethic, character or anything else. He's an asswipe with poor judgment.

Nothing you said about Joe Biden being a dictator made sense. Trump was the person trying to overturn an election he lost. Trump tried to use the DOJ to settle scores and let his friends off the hook. What is it you think autocracy is?

You don't really believe Trump took advice from his 30-something son-in-law do you Bronco? I mean, sure, give the kid a living, but Jesus man, no, just no.

Corey Lewandowski was the secret weapon behind the successful 2016 campaign. Paul Manafort is no dummy and neither is Roger Stone. Sam Clovis and Steve Bannon, both very savvy. George Papadapoulos is fantastic on foreign policy and Keith Kellogg is a military genius.

As for why I think Trump is strong, I guess it goes to different interpretations of what comprises leadership. Nobody's got all or even most of the answers, but you sit a handful of politically-savvy guys down in a room, and you can work out the best solution to a problem. Who's going to pull the trigger though? Then who's going to bask in the glory if it goes right, or take the heat if it goes wrong?

Say what you want to about Donald Trump but the man is an absolute prodigy when it comes to being the business end of a policy decision. He WILL get your attention - I mean hell, he's still got yours, Bronco, and Flighty's, and I'm starting to think Stavros has an actual man-crush on the dude. And he hasn't been President in nearly a year. Put him on a podium and people can't take their eyes off of him - EVEN IF ONLY BECAUSE THEY'RE ANTICIPATING A TRAINWRECK. That's strong. That's leadership.

Oh yeah, autocracy. Autocracy = Vaccine Mandate, FBI vs Parents, and shitting on the will of the majority in favor of your party's agenda to line their own pockets with tax dollars.


He was acting out the cartoon version of the strong leader, which is all the people like Nick want. Look at the counter-examples. He was obviously the beta dog with Putin. He made a soft deal with the Taliban just to get out of Afghanistan. He let Kim Jong Un play him like a violin for the sake of a meaningless photo op. He never met a dictator he didn't praise admiringly.

Goddamn I wish Putin was an American, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. Then we'd never have to vote again. :)

[Stavros]

He was acting out the cartoon version of the strong leader, which is all the people like Nick want. Look at the counter-examples. He was obviously the beta dog with Putin. He made a soft deal with the Taliban just to get out of Afghanistan. He let Kim Jong Un play him like a violin for the sake of a meaningless photo op. He never met a dictator he didn't praise admiringly.


I am not sure Trump can be described as a 'strong leader', mainly because he did not know how to lead, and never did. I have no particular interest in the man, as there is nothing there, but consider his importance to lie in the extent to which people with their own agenda -for the most part opposed to Liberal Democracy, the Constitution and the Separation of Powers- saw Trump as the tool they needed to break up a country they have come to detest. Trump is so naturally incompetent it was always clear he had no idea what a President does, or should do, and as a man with zero curiosity about the world in which he lives, he was never going to learn on the job. Moreover, because he is incapable of believing anyone is more intelligent than himself, he chose as advisers people who owed their position to their willingness to agree with him on everything -just as those who did not did not last long before being sacked.

One of the most noticable aspects of Trump's personality, is his cowardice. Incapable of summoning the courage to tell a member of staff they are fired, he usually waited until they were out of the office, even better out of DC before sacking them by tweet. If you add in John Bolton's description of the crisis with Iran that followed the assassination of Qasem Sulaimani and the murder of American troops in Iraq, Trump's cowardice makes him incapable of being Commander-in-Chief, just one more reason to describe him as the weakest, and most ineffective President since Gerald Ford, which is not much of a judgment on Ford who was on a hiding to nothing when he took over from Nixon for two miserable years.

It is because Trump's supporters are so determined to transform the US, in some of its parts, into a One-Party Dictatorship that one can predict the end of the USA if this corrupt, mendacious credit is again selected for power by the Electoral College.

Archie Brown has looked at this issue in depth and is always a good read.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/03/myth-strong-leader-political-leadership-modern-age-archie-brown-review

[Stavros]

"this corrupt, mendacious credit"...obviously I meant to use the word Cretin. I was doing two things at once hence the error.

[Nick Danger]

I was doing two things at once hence the error.

Talking about Trump makes you horny, Stavros, why won't you just admit it?

[filghy2]

Trump's impulses are awesome. Grabbing the liberal media by the pussy, insulting nicknames for his political opponents, shamelessly stacking the SCOTUS with hard right assholes, hourly tweets watching Fox News, all done on the fly. Space Force? The Wall? Doing nothing about Covid? He had to have pulled those right out of his ass. Glorious.

I don't deny he has a great instinct for what appeals to ignorant arseholes, which is his only real talent. Did you get a hard-on when he made that speech about Latino immigrants being criminals and rapists?

[filghy2]

And what liberals don't understand about Trump supporters is, it's not a cult of personality. It's a cult of people who hate progressives with every fiber. That's the real tie that binds. You can't blame Trump because your people are so obnoxiously retarded that Trump's people want to literally kill them and obliterate their taint from the gene pool.

Sounds exactly like Nazism. Do you actually think about what you write, or do you just upload your stream of consciousness unfiltered?

[filghy2]

I am not sure Trump can be described as a 'strong leader', mainly because he did not know how to lead, and never did.

Teddy Roosevelt's motto was "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Trump's must have been the opposite. Everything he did internationally was big talk with not much follow up. All he really wanted was get some kind of deal he could spin as a great win, regardless of the substance.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=filghy2;2042126 All he really wanted was get some kind of deal he could spin as a great win, regardless of the substance.[/QUOTE]

With dollars attached -for example, did he get a 'bonus' when 'transferring' intelligence on nuclear energy to the Kingdom of 9/11?

Is it not the case that he made more money playing golf in four years than Tiger Woods made in 20?

And is it not the case that he has made more than $100 million from a SuperPac which he uses as a personal piggy bank rather than dip into his own (alleged) $3 billion?

And that he doesn't declare his candidacy for 2024 because he would then have to provide accounts showing how that money is being spent on the Campaign rather than his hair products, Diet Coke and Escorts?

Can you believe Kayley Mac has been advertising a $10k dinner in which you get to stand next to 'the Man' for a photo-? Shouldn't it be the other way round?

In view of the fact he was such a failure, I think the Americans should ask for their money back -neither the Russians nor the Saudis need to do that, as they know which side of the fence their lad is pissing into. The American side.

[filghy2]

Oh yeah, autocracy. Autocracy = Vaccine Mandate, FBI vs Parents, and shitting on the will of the majority in favor of your party's agenda to line their own pockets with tax dollars.

What exactly is this "will of the majority" based on when Trump received less than 47% of the vote? In fact, your party has won the popular vote only once since 1988. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_po pular_vote_margin

And who is the target audience you think you can convince with these "big lies"? Is it just you and your ego?

The claim of a popular will that is independent of actual election results is a common fascist theme, by the way.

[filghy2]

PS: I think it's increasingly clear that what Nick means by "strong" is actually authoritarian.

Of course, in his definition only democratically-elected governments that stop him doing what he likes are authoritarian. Governments that let him to what he wants and target only people he doesn't like are never authoritarian, no matter what they do.

[filghy2]

Courtesy of Jonathon Freedland, here's a couple of articles that support my point about Trump's support being based on a psychological disposition toward authoritarianism.
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
https://morningconsult.com/2021/06/28/global-right-wing-authoritarian-test/

These passages sum up the key point:

According to Stenner's theory, there is a certain subset of people who hold latent authoritarian tendencies.

Authoritarians prioritize social order and hierarchies, which bring a sense of control to a chaotic world. Challenges to that order — diversity, influx of outsiders, breakdown of the old order — are experienced as personally threatening because they risk upending the status quo order they equate with basic security.

When they face physical threats or threats to the status quo, authoritarians support policies that seem to offer protection against those fears. They favor forceful, decisive action against things they perceive as threats. And they flock to political leaders who they believe will bring this action.

[Nick Danger]

I don't deny he has a great instinct for what appeals to ignorant arseholes, which is his only real talent. Did you get a hard-on when he made that speech about Latino immigrants being criminals and rapists?

I like Mexicans, Flighty. I go to Mexico somewhat regularly. But just like any other group of people, there are rapists and criminals among them, and those types will generally be found more among the poverty-stricken portion of the population - i.e., the exact type of Mexican who's most likely to try to sneak across our border and live here illegally. Again, it's classism and not racism. We have a statue that says give us your poor and hungry blah blah blah. We stopped meaning that a long time ago.


Sounds exactly like Nazism. Do you actually think about what you write, or do you just upload your stream of consciousness unfiltered?

No, I don't filter what I say, Flighty. The time for filtering is over. If you need conservative thinking filtered for you, I suggest you withdraw deeper into your echo chamber because at this point we're only interested in stamping out progressivism, not coddling it. Biden's betrayal of his mandate has made this war.


What exactly is this "will of the majority" based on when Trump received less than 47% of the vote? In fact, your party has won the popular vote only once since 1988. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_po pular_vote_margin

And who is the target audience you think you can convince with these "big lies"? Is it just you and your ego?

The claim of a popular will that is independent of actual election results is a common fascist theme, by the way.

Lot of conservatives and fence-sitters voted for Biden out of fear based on the Democrat-controlled street violence. Some voted because they thought Biden was going to address some social issues that they'd like to see addressed, economy be damned for now. But now that Biden's gone full Bernie Sanders on everyone out of the blue, the majority would no longer vote for him. His Build Back Better bill is scaring the fuck out of everyone, even a lot of moderate Democrats. But he fully intends to try to ram it down our throats anyway. If you don't believe this is true, why do you think his approval ratings are historically low?

[broncofan]

I consider someone to have authoritarian tendencies if they politicize the investigation of criminal trials and undermine the rule of law by interfering with investigations; if they don't accept democratic outcomes and try to get the results they want by breaking the law or stoking violence; and do not respect the independence of our judiciary. Donald Trump wanted to use his office to go after enemies and violate institutional safeguards. His supporters, more motivated by their angst towards enemies than any positive vision of America felt that victory could be measured by satisfying his every whim, even when that did nothing for them or the country. They are worried about communism but their cult of personality could be described as total self-abnegation for the purpose of satisfying the ego of a "strongman." That's weak and pathetic.

Speaking of anecdotes: someone who I work with (not in person) is an antivaxxer. She watched her brother die and her sister in law survive a serious case of covid and she still believes the vaccine is a graver threat to her safety than covid. The phantom threats Nick writes about are not anywhere near as concerning as the mass delusion that it takes to hold her view.

Nick you never seem to provide any details about the things you're afraid of. What is it you think is dangerous about the vaccines (please don't say you just don't like the idea of mandates; you must think there's some potential harm)? What about mandates by private employers? Do employers have the prerogative to fire people for no reason or any reason? Or is this an exception to that rule? And what part of the bbb are you concerned about?

[Nick Danger]

I consider someone to have authoritarian tendencies if they politicize the investigation of criminal trials and undermine the rule of law by interfering with investigations; if they don't accept democratic outcomes and try to get the results they want by breaking the law or stoking violence; and do not respect the independence of our judiciary. Donald Trump wanted to use his office to go after enemies and violate institutional safeguards. His supporters, more motivated by their angst towards enemies than any positive vision of America felt that victory could be measured by satisfying his every whim, even when that did nothing for them or the country. They are worried about communism but their cult of personality could be described as total self-abnegation for the purpose of satisfying the ego of a "strongman." That's weak and pathetic.

Speaking of anecdotes: someone who I work with (not in person) is an antivaxxer. She watched her brother die and her sister in law survive a serious case of covid and she still believes the vaccine is a graver threat to her safety than covid. The phantom threats Nick writes about are not anywhere near as concerning as the mass delusion that it takes to hold her view.

Nick you never seem to provide any details about the things you're afraid of. What is it you think is dangerous about the vaccines (please don't say you just don't like the idea of mandates; you must think there's some potential harm)? What about mandates by private employers? Do employers have the prerogative to fire people for no reason or any reason? Or is this an exception to that rule? And what part of the bbb are you concerned about?

I never said I was an anti-vaxxer, Bronco, I said I wasn't going to get it because I don't need it, I'm immune to the virus and practically everything else, it's a gift. I have a VERY aggressive immune system and I don't want to take any chances on fucking it up by letting them inject me with some experimental vaccine I don't need. I may get it anyway, being unvaccinated is starting to interfere with my travel plans, and I'm not more scared of what the vaccine might do to my immune system than I am disappointed that I won't get to travel to Germany in February to reunite with an old Air Force friend and go catch a Wolf Alice show unless I get the damn thing.

Far as vaccines for everyone else, I mean, good luck with that. Seems like every time some high-profile Covid case hits the news these days it's someone who was fully vaccinated, so I'm not really seeing it as effective, and I'm also not convinced the vaccine itself isn't what's pushing the virus into so many different mutations. I mean if it weren't encountering resistance why would it mutate?

I can hire or fire anyone I want but that's because I live in Utah which is an at-will employment state - meaning the employment contract can be broken by either party at any time for any reason, or no reason, without repercussions. Tennessee likewise. Can't speak for any other states because I've never owned businesses there.

I'm gonna leave the BBB for another time, maybe later today or maybe tomorrow, I'm heading outdoors this afternoon and there's so much horseshit in that bill it's a project to parse it all out. But yes I certainly think it bears a good hard look and a post of its own.

[Stavros]

Mark Meadows wants to claim 'Executive Privilege' to avoid giving evidence to the House Committee investigating the attack on the US on Jan 6th, yet has written a book which discusses those very same things, and many others which he might claim are covered by 'Executive Privilege' -does this mean he is, in the words of his Boss- "fucking stupid" -?

[filghy2]

Far as vaccines for everyone else, I mean, good luck with that. Seems like every time some high-profile Covid case hits the news these days it's someone who was fully vaccinated, so I'm not really seeing it as effective, and I'm also not convinced the vaccine itself isn't what's pushing the virus into so many different mutations. I mean if it weren't encountering resistance why would it mutate?

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology

Mutations are just random variations in the genetic code that occur when it is replicated. The mutations that prosper are the ones that offer some advantage in survival and reproduction. The more the virus is spreading, the more mutations will occur, and the more the likelihood that some will be harmful. That is why the problematic mutations are originating from poor countries where vaccination rates are low (the latest one from Southern Africa). If your hypothesis was correct, they would be originating mainly from countries with high vaccination rates.

As for your other claim, the latest data show that unvaccinated people are nearly 6 times more likely to be infected than fully-vaccinated people, and 14 times more likely to die.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

But why look anything up when you can just invent some shit in your own mind. You really are a determined idiot.

[filghy2]

If you don't believe this is true, why do you think his approval ratings are historically low?

Actually, Biden's net approval rating is still well above Trump's at the same stage of his Presidency, and better than what Trump got over most of his term.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

[broncofan]

Good post about mutation risk and mortality v. infection numbers. I want to add that I can only assume his observation that so many vaccinated people have died is confirmation bias. If there is a 90% reduction in risk that vaccinated people die and there are more vaccinated than unvaccinated people and thousands dying every day, plenty of vaccinated people WILL die. As we discussed in another thread, a higher proportion of the vaccinated are already in a higher risk age category which can confound direct comparison.

I would tell Nick that the emergence of new variants are hypothesized to be more likely to occur in cases of immunosuppressed people waging long battles against the disease. I shudder to think of what his solution would be ....bc we know he's against training their immune systems to recognize the virus by being vaccinated.

[Nick Danger]

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology

Mutations are just random variations in the genetic code that occur when it is replicated. The mutations that prosper are the ones that offer some advantage in survival and reproduction. The more the virus is spreading, the more mutations will occur, and the more the likelihood that some will be harmful. That is why the problematic mutations are originating from poor countries where vaccination rates are low (the latest one from Southern Africa). If your hypothesis was correct, they would be originating mainly from countries with high vaccination rates.

As for your other claim, the latest data show that unvaccinated people are nearly 6 times more likely to be infected than fully-vaccinated people, and 14 times more likely to die.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

But why look anything up when you can just invent some shit in your own mind. You really are a determined idiot.

Showing your age with that song reference Flighty.

Let's get something straight - YOU'RE saying I'm an anti-vaxxer, I never said it. Nor have I ever claimed to be a biologist or some kind of virus expert, nor even a person who has done all the reading. The virus isn't part of my life until other people make it part of my life. If there's a vaccine and you think it might help you, you should definitely get it.

What I am is anti-lockdown. Anti-mask, anti-travel restriction, anti-mandate. I don't care if millions of people die, hell, I don't care if BILLIONS of people die. There are 8 billion people on the planet, half of that would be objectively better. We've identified the at-risk demographic. They should be in quarantine and taking personal responsibility for their survival, letting the rest of us get on with life, it's their problem.

But just as is inherent to all other aspects of liberal society, the answer is to pull those without the problem back down to the level of those with the problem instead of forcing those with the problem to fucking deal with it.

Biden's mandate is a slippery slope. If you don't believe me, believe the decisions of the courts who keep shooting them down as unconstitutional. Biden doesn't give a shit if his orders are constitutionally sound or not, he left the Constitution in his wake long ago and he's come right out and said as much. Somebody really ought to be keeping an eye on this character.


Good post about mutation risk and mortality v. infection numbers. I want to add that I can only assume his observation that so many vaccinated people have died is confirmation bias. If there is a 90% reduction in risk that vaccinated people die and there are more vaccinated than unvaccinated people and thousands dying every day, plenty of vaccinated people WILL die. As we discussed in another thread, a higher proportion of the vaccinated are already in a higher risk age category which can confound direct comparison.

I would tell Nick that the emergence of new variants are hypothesized to be more likely to occur in cases of immunosuppressed people waging long battles against the disease. I shudder to think of what his solution would be ....bc we know he's against training their immune systems to recognize the virus by being vaccinated.

You're getting as bad as Flighty at putting words in my mouth. I didn't "observe" that so many vaccinated people have DIED. I observed that when I've seen high-profile Covid cases in the news lately they have been in fully-vaccinated people. Keira Knightley is the most recent one I remember.

You guys are really arguing with the wrong person about this. I think every single person should do every damn thing he can do to make sure that he personally survives this virus. Just don't even TRY to tell me what to do about it.

[filghy2]

Let's get something straight - YOU'RE saying I'm an anti-vaxxer, I never said it. Nor have I ever claimed to be a biologist or some kind of virus expert, nor even a person who has done all the reading.

I said no such thing - I simply refuted your ill-informed speculations. I'm not a biologist or virus expert, either - it's just takes a bit of basic logic and research.

This is another example of your straw man habit.
You dispute with my false claims about vaccines? You are saying I'm an antivaxxer.
You don't like me expressing crude derogatory stereotypes about other cultures? You want to make me change my way of life.
You think that police often unfairly target black people? You want to let criminals run free.

When other people show that you've got something wrong why not have the personal integrity to concede? You don't have to say sorry you were wrong. Just let it go, ffs, rather than trying to hide behind a smokescreen of bluster.

[filghy2]

I never said I was an anti-vaxxer, Bronco, I said I wasn't going to get it because I don't need it, I'm immune to the virus and practically everything else, it's a gift. I have a VERY aggressive immune system and I don't want to take any chances on fucking it up by letting them inject me with some experimental vaccine I don't need.


The virus isn't part of my life until other people make it part of my life. I don't care if millions of people die, hell, I don't care if BILLIONS of people die. There are 8 billion people on the planet, half of that would be objectively better. We've identified the at-risk demographic. They should be in quarantine and taking personal responsibility for their survival, letting the rest of us get on with life, it's their problem.

Have you heard of natural selection? It's nature's way of limiting the numbers of people who refuse to assess risks and take appropriate action to avoid them. It works only gradually over a long period, but if we are entering a new era of pandemics there might be time.

From what you've told us about your age group I'm pretty sure the risk for you is not trivial. Have you even looked into this? If the virus keeps spreading there is a high probability you will get it eventually.

[filghy2]

Here's the data on risk by age group. The risk of death for someone 50-64, for example, is 25 times that of a young adult. It's not as if it affects only a small segment of the population and there's no risk for everyone else.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html

[Nick Danger]

Have you heard of natural selection? It's nature's way of limiting the numbers of people who refuse to assess risks and take appropriate action to avoid them. It works only gradually over a long period, but if we are entering a new era of pandemics there might be time.

From what you've told us about your age group I'm pretty sure the risk for you is not trivial. Have you even looked into this? If the virus keeps spreading there is a high probability you will get it eventually.

To quote the great Mel Brooks, tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die. Again, this virus is not my problem, I'm immune to it.

[Nick Danger]

I said no such thing - I simply refuted your ill-informed speculations. I'm not a biologist or virus expert, either - it's just takes a bit of basic logic and research.

This is another example of your straw man habit.
You dispute with my false claims about vaccines? You are saying I'm an antivaxxer.
You don't like me expressing crude derogatory stereotypes about other cultures? You want to make me change my way of life.
You think that police often unfairly target black people? You want to let criminals run free.

When other people show that you've got something wrong why not have the personal integrity to concede? You don't have to say sorry you were wrong. Just let it go, ffs, rather than trying to hide behind a smokescreen of bluster.

"You are saying I'm an antivaxxer." Bronco said it.
"You want to make me change my way of life." You do want me to change my way of life.
"You want to let criminals run free." You do want to let criminals run free.

What are we arguing about? Whether or not I'm allowed to have a personal opinion on the virus? Tip: I am. My opinion is, it's not that dangerous, and we need to stop acting like it is. But there's no getting past the political narrative on this thing, it's just going to have to play itself out. Under our current administration, God only knows how many more children we're going to damage before we finally allow the least vulnerable group of all to take off their goddamn surgical masks and be children again.

[filghy2]

What are we arguing about? Whether or not I'm allowed to have a personal opinion on the virus? Tip: I am.

I suppose you are. We're just pointing out that your opinion is not based on any evidence, and you seem to resent that. The idea that you have some personal immunity is just plain stupid.

I assume you had the usual vaccinations for various things as a child and never gave it any further thought. The only difference with this disease is that your political tribe has decided to make a point of not taking it seriously. The real reason you resist getting vaccinated is that supposed liberals tell you you should. If you are prepared to do so for a short overseas trip then your claimed reservations can't have amounted to much.

You remind me of a child throwing a tantrum because it can't have dessert until it eats its vegetables.

[Nick Danger]

I suppose you are. We're just pointing out that your opinion is not based on any evidence, and you seem to resent that. The idea that you have some personal immunity is just plain stupid.

I assume you had the usual vaccinations for various things as a child and never gave it any further thought. The only difference with this disease is that your political tribe has decided to make a point of not taking it seriously. The real reason you resist getting vaccinated is that supposed liberals tell you you should. If you are prepared to do so for a short overseas trip then your claimed reservations can't have amounted to much.

You remind me of a child throwing a tantrum because it can't have dessert until it eats its vegetables.

I told you my reservations didn’t amount to much and that I was probably going to end up getting it anyway. You remind me of a child who can’t read gud.

You think there’s something you know about the virus that I don’t? We’ve drawn different conclusions from the same data set, if your processor wasn’t all mucked up by propaganda you’d realize that and save your breath.

[filghy2]

I never said I was an anti-vaxxer, Bronco, I said I wasn't going to get it because I don't need it, I'm immune to the virus and practically everything else, it's a gift. I have a VERY aggressive immune system and I don't want to take any chances on fucking it up by letting them inject me with some experimental vaccine I don't need. I may get it anyway, being unvaccinated is starting to interfere with my travel plans, and I'm not more scared of what the vaccine might do to my immune system than I am disappointed that I won't get to travel to Germany in February to reunite with an old Air Force friend and go catch a Wolf Alice show unless I get the damn thing.

Far as vaccines for everyone else, I mean, good luck with that. Seems like every time some high-profile Covid case hits the news these days it's someone who was fully vaccinated, so I'm not really seeing it as effective, and I'm also not convinced the vaccine itself isn't what's pushing the virus into so many different mutations. I mean if it weren't encountering resistance why would it mutate?


As for your other claim, the latest data show that unvaccinated people are nearly 6 times more likely to be infected than fully-vaccinated people, and 14 times more likely to die.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status


I told you my reservations didn’t amount to much and that I was probably going to end up getting it anyway. You remind me of a child who can’t read gud.

You think there’s something you know about the virus that I don’t? We’ve drawn different conclusions from the same data set, if your processor wasn’t all mucked up by propaganda you’d realize that and save your breath.

Both those claims are clearly incorrect

[Nick Danger]

Both those claims are clearly incorrect

I don't even know which claims or WTF you're talking about, Flighty, that's how strong your argument is.

[filghy2]

I thought highlighting them in bold would be idiot-proof, but apparently not.

[Nick Danger]

I thought highlighting them in bold would be idiot-proof, but apparently not.

Even in that context I still can’t clock your implication or question or whatever that is. What are you, some 10/10 supermodel who just goes “Pfft” and lets everyone else figure out what her problem is? Just say whatever you’re trying to say, Miss Congeniality.

[Laphroaig]

President not need smart. President need strong. Advisors need smart.

Strong, Bunker Boy?

1355943

[filghy2]

It's been interesting to read about the messages sent to Mark Meadows by various Trump cheerleaders on January 6 imploring him to get Trump to address the situation. Apart from the gap between their public and private statements, it's striking that they all assumed the insurrection would be disastrous politically for the Trumpist movement. Evidently they underestimated the willingness of most Republican voters to rationalise away what happened.

[Nick Danger]

My name is Flighty. I'm this many years old. I have to wear a helmet but I'm not allowed to ride a bike, I don't understand.

It's because you're retarded.

[broncofan]

It's because you're retarded.
With this and the rent boy comment I think you've "spit the dummy" as some Australians say. I've only heard one or two say it tbf.

It's interesting bc this is the third time I've seen someone completely lose it on filghy in debate which must mean he's hitting a nerve even though he is just trying to address the points under discussion.

In your world where facts don't win a debate, and conclusions can be drawn arbitrarily, isn't this how someone wins a debate? I think you've been bested or as they say in Louisiana, he whupped the hide off ya.

[Nick Danger]

With this and the rent boy comment I think you've "spit the dummy" as some Australians say. I've only heard one or two say it tbf.

It's interesting bc this is the third time I've seen someone completely lose it on filghy in debate which must mean he's hitting a nerve even though he is just trying to address the points under discussion.

In your world where facts don't win a debate, and conclusions can be drawn arbitrarily, isn't this how someone wins a debate? I think you've been bested or as they say in Louisiana, he whupped the hide off ya.

Flighty? Nah, I'm 95% sure he's the dumbest of the 3 vocal liberals on this board, and that's saying quite a lot because that puts him below Stavros. I don't recall the last time I read a post from Flighty that wasn't some kind of small-minded attack on me personally, or my writing style, or my post length. That's the problem with armchair liberalism, there really aren't any valid arguments to make so it becomes a cringe fest of repressed anger. But I play along. I'd be surprised if he ever speaks to me again honestly, pretty sure Retardo Montalban already knows what kind of reply he's going to get on the heels of his latest micro-aggression.

[filghy2]

With this and the rent boy comment I think you've "spit the dummy" as some Australians say.

He certainly has a glass jaw. It looks like he needs another of his long breaks to nurse those hurt feelings.

It looks like the only alternative to rambling dissertations on the same few points is puerile trolling, so we won't be missing much.

[Nick Danger]

He certainly has a glass jaw. It looks like he needs another of his long breaks to nurse those hurt feelings.

It looks like the only alternative to rambling dissertations on the same few points is puerile trolling, so we won't be missing much.

Do you guys also celebrate premature ejaculation on your timeline Flighty? You must be doing a real victory dance behind your senile overlord’s abject failure to pass his signature legislation.

[broncofan]

Do you guys also celebrate premature ejaculation on your timeline Flighty? You must be doing a real victory dance behind your senile overlord’s abject failure to pass his signature legislation.
I suppose we can talk about any subject we want including Joe's cognitive ability. Just because he has a stutter doesn't mean he hasn't also lost mental acuity. Anyone who is 79 will have but as someone who stutters it's probably difficult for him to mask it.

Trump showed an enormous number of signs of cognitive impairment. He would say things that didn't make sense, he was unable to speak in complete sentences, he'd engage in obvious bluster to hide the fact that he didn't know what he was talking about. But to fool the average Republican one only needs to speak with confidence and Trump's willingness to brazenly lie kept him from having to think about what he was saying.

Trump was pleased that he was able to remember five words in sequence. Trump, Palin, Bush, and Reagan lowered the bar so much that being able to speak clearly like Obama was seen as elitist. If we want intelligent leaders in this country, the Republican talent pool is pretty shallow.

[Nick Danger]

I suppose we can talk about any subject we want including Joe's cognitive ability. Just because he has a stutter doesn't mean he hasn't also lost mental acuity. Anyone who is 79 will have but as someone who stutters it's probably difficult for him to mask it.

Trump showed an enormous number of signs of cognitive impairment. He would say things that didn't make sense, he was unable to speak in complete sentences, he'd engage in obvious bluster to hide the fact that he didn't know what he was talking about. But to fool the average Republican one only needs to speak with confidence and Trump's willingness to brazenly lie kept him from having to think about what he was saying.

Trump was pleased that he was able to remember five words in sequence. Trump, Palin, Bush, and Reagan lowered the bar so much that being able to speak clearly like Obama was seen as elitist. If we want intelligent leaders in this country, the Republican talent pool is pretty shallow.

I honestly don't think Trump's lost a step, he's always been blustery like that, I think I may have mentioned my family is based in NYC, so I have a long history of watching The Donald in action. I think he very often launches into a statement having no idea where it's going to end, he just knows he has to say something, he knows what general message he wants to portray, so he opens his pie-hole and hopes today is one of the days he catches a groove. Has nothing to do with age, it's just casual narcissism and a laissez faire attitude toward fucking up.

Biden on the other hand is definitely losing it. I mean I could link a video of Biden gaffes if you want but pretty sure we've all seen them. Suddenly drawing a blank mid-sentence, telling the same (false) story over and over - you know the one I'm talking about, the famous Amtrak story. Saying inappropriate things completely by accident; as opposed to Trump who did it on purpose. These are all real signs of what we commonly call senility. I can definitely visualize Biden sitting in a meeting with Putin and just rattling off some top secret shit then saying, "Oh, I shouldn't have told you that!" while smiling an impish grin.

It's not going to get any better. But it's definitely going to get worse.

[Nick Danger]

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/12/21/california-redistricting-midterms-525815

That’s for you, Stavros. My thought for the day is that it’s time you opened your eyes to the fact that your beloved Democrats are rutting around in the same gerrymandering mud as Republicans.

As you peruse the article, which I pulled directly from a Democrat-controlled source for your maximum enjoyment, note the varied opportunities for corruption of the “independent” process and the fact that the buck stops at Nancy Pelosi.

I know you’re allegedly hibernating but you’re lurking. No reply is required, Merry Christmas, Stavros.

[filghy2]

As you peruse the article, which I pulled directly from a Democrat-controlled source for your maximum enjoyment, note the varied opportunities for corruption of the “independent” process and the fact that the buck stops at Nancy Pelosi.

Except that nothing in the article says any such thing. That is pure invention by you. The changes were approved unanimously by a panel of 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans. The only mention of Nancy Pelosi was some Republican complaining that it would help her keep her majority.

You are a pathetic clown, Merry Xmas.

[filghy2]

You must be doing a real victory dance behind your senile overlord’s abject failure to pass his signature legislation.

Memory quiz: What was the main Republican legislative priority in 2017, and how did that go?
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/other/352587-timeline-the-gop-effort-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare

[filghy2]

According to this article, gerrymandering has given the Republicans a 16-17 seat advantage in the House Of Reps (out of 435) over the past decade. The worst cases of gerrymandering bias are in Republican- controlled states. Both sides have done it, but not to the same degree.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained

[filghy2]

I can definitely visualize Biden sitting in a meeting with Putin and just rattling off some top secret shit then saying, "Oh, I shouldn't have told you that!" while smiling an impish grin.

Of course the Donald would never reveal top secret info to the Russians. Here's another memory refresher for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_informa tion

[broncofan]

Of course the Donald would never reveal top secret info to the Russians. Here's another memory refresher for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_informa tion
This had gone down the memory hole for me. Thanks for this. It showed an appalling lack of discretion, intelligence, judgment, common sense, aptitude, and competence. And no I did not consult a thesaurus for this last sentence though there may be some redundancy there.

Yes Joe is not a public speaker but Donald Trump is the king of having a prefrontal cortex that looks like swiss cheese. In fact Trump's brain leaked the recipe for swiss cheese to the Swiss.

[Nick Danger]

Except that nothing in the article says any such thing. That is pure invention by you. The changes were approved unanimously by a panel of 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans. The only mention of Nancy Pelosi was some Republican complaining that it would help her keep her majority.

You are a pathetic clown, Merry Xmas.

High blood pressure, Flighty. It gets them all in the end and it will get you too. Those veins standing out on the sides of your forehead are not for keeping flies out of your face.

Once again your reading comprehension skills embarrass you when it came to something as simple as reading a news article carefully. There are also 4 Independents on that commission. Who controls the Independents controls the vote. There's a price for everything in America. No one is actually independent at that level of politics. They may be unaffiliated with a political party but that's just the equivalent of a hooker who operates without a pimp. You think you know what's what over there in your little backwoods country where the stakes are nothing, but we're trying to run the biggest economy in the world here and people want their cut.

Here's some more recent gerrymandering news for you - this time it's the redistricting delegates themselves zoning districts just so they can run in them and likely win. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/22/redistricting-state-lawmakers-525960. You remind me of Meatwad on Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Flighty - proactively gullible.


Memory quiz: What was the main Republican legislative priority in 2017, and how did that go?
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/other/352587-timeline-the-gop-effort-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare

2017? SRSLY? That's literally almost half a decade ago. You've missed the bus, Flighty, I'm pro-Obamacare now.


According to this article, gerrymandering has given the Republicans a 16-17 seat advantage in the House Of Reps (out of 435) over the past decade. The worst cases of gerrymandering bias are in Republican- controlled states. Both sides have done it, but not to the same degree.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained

So Democrats are inept at gerrymandering but they still do it. This is your contention in support of what argument?


Of course the Donald would never reveal top secret info to the Russians. Here's another memory refresher for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_informa tion

Trump disclosed that information to throw the KGB off the scent of our man inside the Kremlin, who was planting a bug in Putin's sex chair during the meeting. Or hell, maybe he disclosed it because he wanted to act like a big shot. But whatever the reason, he didn't do it because he's senile, he had a reason, valid or not.

If he were senile do you think he would have thought of stealing a huge chunk of Mark Zuckerberg's market share from conservatives who are sick of being censored on Facebook? The man is a goddamn prodigy, I bet he makes billions off of Trump Media & Technology Group - enough to finance Don Jr.'s 2028 run, you can bet on that. You know what, wouldn't surprise me at all to see a Trump/Trump ticket in 2024. :cheers:

[broncofan]

If he were senile do you think he would have thought of stealing a huge chunk of Mark Zuckerberg's market share from conservatives who are sick of being censored on Facebook? The man is a goddamn prodigy, I bet he makes billions off of Trump Media & Technology Group - enough to finance Don Jr.'s 2028 run, you can bet on that.
I don't understand this hero worship. You say you want to invest like Warren Buffett who actually is a genius at valuing businesses but then idolize someone who has been very lucky. I thought to myself during his 2020 run that he'd have to be an idiot not to be able to cash in on his populism. His entire campaign message was that insofar as the media disagrees with him they can't be trusted. Even fox news is untrustworthy when they say there's no evidence of election fraud. Of course he should be able to parlay that into money.

He is not the only billionaire in this country but for years he's exaggerated his wealth and railed against people richer than him. You clone Warren Buffett and Donald Trump and put them in families of average means and Warren Buffett's chance of getting rich is probably greater than 90% while Trump's is probably less than 5%.

[Nick Danger]

I don't understand this hero worship. You say you want to invest like Warren Buffett who actually is a genius at valuing businesses but then idolize someone who has been very lucky. I thought to myself during his 2020 run that he'd have to be an idiot not to be able to cash in on his populism. His entire campaign message was that insofar as the media disagrees with him they can't be trusted. Even fox news is untrustworthy when they say there's no evidence of election fraud. Of course he should be able to parlay that into money.

He is not the only billionaire in this country but for years he's exaggerated his wealth and railed against people richer than him. You clone Warren Buffett and Donald Trump and put them in families of average means and Warren Buffett's chance of getting rich is probably greater than 90% while Trump's is probably less than 5%.

You're the one saying I'm idolizing Trump, Bronco, I never said it. If you're referring to my "Trump/Trump 2024" comment that was just to get under Flighty's skin. I would be more than willing to sit through another 4 years of Trump, don't get me wrong. But I'd rather see a more conventional Republican administration that shuts the door on all the progressive whining. Shove Trump down the leftist media's throat again and it's 4 more years of non-stop crying. Give them DeSantis or even Ted Cruz and they might STFU long enough for us to put this country back on course for success. And yes, even chinless Ted Cruz can win in 2024, anyone the Republicans run will win, Biden is a dead duck. We can afford to be selective about who we put in the White House and Trump is not the best govern-er we can put in there. Nonetheless it's looking more and more like he wants the nomination and if he wants it he will get it.

Far as Buffett, yeah, he's a guy to follow on investing. I'm not what you would call a serious investor, though I do have most of my money in stocks - but blue chips. There's no such thing as a sure thing but I stay as close to that realm of investing as possible. I'm a very conservative investor who reaps very conservative profits. Now that I'm retiring I'll probably start spending more time studying the matter, maybe take more risks.

[Nick Danger]

I'll tell you what will be an interesting scenario, Bronco. What if Trump's social media platform takes off? All indications are it will, there are a lot of people who like the utility of Facebook and Twitter but not the politics - one might even say Trump stands to gain half the users of these sites if he can get up and running and offer a quality product. And then...he's President again. So now you've got a President of the United States who also happens to own a giant social media platform. That would be unprecedented to say the least.

[broncofan]

Far as Buffett, yeah, he's a guy to follow on investing. I'm not what you would call a serious investor, though I do have most of my money in stocks - but blue chips. There's no such thing as a sure thing but I stay as close to that realm of investing as possible. I'm a very conservative investor who reaps very conservative profits. Now that I'm retiring I'll probably start spending more time studying the matter, maybe take more risks.
Conservative is the way to go with stocks. I DO kind of idolize Warren Buffett. Or at least a decade ago I was super interested in reading about his investment strategy and his annual shareholder letters. It didn't help me pick stocks but it was fascinating to watch one person just consistently identify companies he thought were undervalued and be right over and over again. He lives a very humble life in Nebraska....a friend of mine took me to Buffett's favorite steakhouse in Omaha and it wasn't anything to write home about. Putting politics aside and not as a slight to Trump, I recommend reading about Buffett. I was disappointed I couldn't put his strategy to use (but no surprise it requires one in a million talent probably) but his annual newsletters and virtually anything written about him is fun to read.

[broncofan]

So now you've got a President of the United States who also happens to own a giant social media platform. That would be unprecedented to say the least.
One step closer to ending the American experiment. Seriously, you can see the dystopian shades there can't you?

[Nick Danger]

One step closer to ending the American experiment. Seriously, you can see the dystopian shades there can't you?

I see some shades all right, and some ramifications. One timeline that might develop is the social media platform itself becomes a tool of governance. I think if Trump had his way the first time around he'd have just stayed at the White House or Mar-a Lago and governed via Twitter, so he certainly has the mindset to transform government into more of an online presence than a manifest institution. That's probably inevitable anyway. There may come a day when the Facebook endorsement determines the DNC nominee and likewise with Trump's new conservative platform and the Republicans. Full-on technocracy.

[broncofan]

I'll tell you what will be an interesting scenario, Bronco. What if Trump's social media platform takes off? All indications are it will, there are a lot of people who like the utility of Facebook and Twitter but not the politics - .
The appeal of facebook is that you can connect with virtually anyone you've ever met in your life. The drawback of facebook is exactly the same. I don't know if twitter would be as fun without antagonism. You create an echo chamber and it will draw some hardcore right-wingers but it is not going to be the same experience of having celebrities, foreign leaders, self-appointed experts on subjects they know nothing about, and wingnuts all in the same place.

But would such a venture do well financially? I think so.

I am going to push back obviously against the claim that facebook and twitter are political. They have combatted misinformation when it's obvious and its effects are dangerous. Who are they to decide? They're private companies making judgments about what content they are willing to host. It's hard for me to believe the conservative viewpoint is now vaccine and disease misinformation. Or misinformation about election fraud. Or flagrant incitement of violence. The risk that the views they deleted are actually true is very remote. Are we going to live in a world where pure fantasy has to be treated as legitimate?

[Laphroaig]

I'll tell you what will be an interesting scenario, Bronco. What if Trump's social media platform takes off? All indications are it will, there are a lot of people who like the utility of Facebook and Twitter but not the politics - one might even say Trump stands to gain half the users of these sites if he can get up and running and offer a quality product. And then...he's President again. So now you've got a President of the United States who also happens to own a giant social media platform. That would be unprecedented to say the least.

All the Trump supporters and right wing nutters were going to disappear off to Parler a while back. That went well...

Besides, Trump is doing a great job of alienating half his fanbase...:dead:

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1474024520721866789

[Nick Danger]

All the Trump supporters and right wing nutters were going to disappear off to Parler a while back. That went well...

Besides, Trump is doing a great job of alienating half his fanbase...:dead:

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1474024520721866789

What is Parler? The fact that I've never heard of it and I'm a right wing nutter should tell you that no, that was never going to happen. Then again I'm not really hep to all the latest interweb gadgetry.

Also, you seem to be of the impression that Trump's base are a huge group of anti-vaxxers. There may be some anti-vaxxers among them, but for the most part what Trump's supporters are is merely anti-mandate, like me. Why should I give a shit if you get the vaccine or not, Laphro? I don't, though I would miss your quarterly insult on this forum if you died of the Darwin Flu. But if I did care, I guess I would be an anti-vaxxer, right, that's an anti-vaxxer? Someone who thinks there's something underhanded about the vaccine, some kind of mind-control or sterilization angle, yes? That's not me, or Trump's base. That's a tiny faction of outliers, and they're probably quite vocal - vocal enough for the liberal media to act as if "Republicans-General" are angry at Trump because he's spoken in favor of getting vaccinated.

If you honestly think Trump has alienated half his base, act accordingly, Laphro. That kind of math should put the next two election cycles in the bag for the Democrats, may as well run Hillary again.

[Nick Danger]

My thought for the day is that, as 2021 draws to a close, a year in which we have observed the unprecedented destruction of the Democratic Party's harmful and racist agenda, I am reminded of a whore.

A huge, tattooed BBW whore with her legs spread wide, a look of gleeful anticipation on her face as she massages her mammoth boobs with both hands. Her name is America. Walking toward her is Joe Biden, her latest john. He walks with a hunch, bent over and wanking his half-flaccid penis furiously as he approaches the bed, muttering to himself, "Oh I'm gonna fuck you so hard, oh yeah baby you're about to know you've been fucked by the best, they don't call me 'The Big Guy' for nothing, oh yeah I'm gonna stick it to you all right baby..."

As he slides his wrinkled body across the bed toward her, he is aroused even further by the aroma of her vagine, the smell of abject poverty and great riches all at once, oppression and freedom mingled freely, the smell of...victory. "Oh yeah baby get ready for Big Daddy Sleepy Joe!" But just as he approaches her flowering womanhood with his fully-erect, liver-spotted member, a single drop of semen suddenly trickles forth from the tip of his manhood and drips down the inside of America's supple but substantial thigh.

"Doh!" says Joe Biden as his 5 inches of flesh torpedo quickly contracts to the size of a sewing thimble. "You loser," says America, disappointed and disgusted, as she rolls off the bed, takes his money off the nightstand, and heads to the shower. "Find your own way out," she says as she closes the bathroom door behind her.

[broncofan]

The anti-mandate people are selling soft serve antivax propaganda. I'm safer than someone who isn't vaccinated but we're both less protected than we'd be if we were both vaccinated. Society functions because people protect themselves and others against communicable diseases.

Republicans are also confused about the role of private businesses. On the one hand they think private businesses should be able to do whatever they want but on the other hand they shouldn't be able to require their employees or customers get vaccinated. The government is engaged in tyranny if they tell businesses what to do but if businesses make a decision they don't like it's also tyranny.

I love the creative writing but this sounds like classic projection. Stormy Daniels described Trump's dick as a tiny mushroom surrounded by yeti hair. His supporters describe him as the epitome of manhood yet he's obese, paints his skin orange, and is hung like a hamster.

[Nick Danger]

The anti-mandate people are selling soft serve antivax propaganda. I'm safer than someone who isn't vaccinated but we're both less protected than we'd be if we were both vaccinated. Society functions because people protect themselves and others against communicable diseases.

Republicans are also confused about the role of private businesses. On the one hand they think private businesses should be able to do whatever they want but on the other hand they shouldn't be able to require their employees or customers get vaccinated. The government is engaged in tyranny if they tell businesses what to do but if businesses make a decision they don't like it's also tyranny.

I love the creative writing but this sounds like classic projection. Stormy Daniels described Trump's dick as a tiny mushroom surrounded by yeti hair. His supporters describe him as the epitome of manhood yet he's obese, paints his skin orange, and is hung like a hamster.

1358089
Pretty sure this is to scale.

[Nick Danger]

The anti-mandate people are selling soft serve antivax propaganda. I'm safer than someone who isn't vaccinated but we're both less protected than we'd be if we were both vaccinated. Society functions because people protect themselves and others against communicable diseases.

Republicans are also confused about the role of private businesses. On the one hand they think private businesses should be able to do whatever they want but on the other hand they shouldn't be able to require their employees or customers get vaccinated. The government is engaged in tyranny if they tell businesses what to do but if businesses make a decision they don't like it's also tyranny.

The anti-mandate people, which would include me, aren't selling anything. They just want to be left alone to make their own medical decisions. "Slippery Slope" is an argument that's used so often it's lost its teeth but it certainly applies here. If there's one thing you can count on from the U.S. Government, it's that they will 100% abuse any power they are given. Let them have no-knock warrants to fight drug cartels and the mafia, next thing you know they are using no-knock warrants on your neighborhood pot dealer and gunning down his baby sister. Let them have access to cellphone records to enable the fight against terrorism, next thing you know they're reading your texts. Give them control of the internet and they will make every effort to watch you jack off, it's a given. Give them piss and they'll ask for blood.

And on this vaccine, it'd be different if it was a good vaccine. It's not, it sucks. From what I've read recently, the only thing the vaccine is good for when it comes to the Omicron variant is reducing symptoms, it doesn't stop you from catching it and it doesn't stop you from spreading it. So we have truly reached a plateau at which MY vaccination status doesn't affect your chances of catching the virus, and YOUR vaccination status only affects your chances of surviving. Which were already EXTREMELY good anyway, we never talk about that, Omicron is the least deadly mutation so far and none of them have a kill rate of better than .05%, basically half of what we were initially warned which didn't seem so awful in the first place.

Bottom line, the vaccine fascists are starting to sound more and more like the kids who missed the bus. No, we're not coming back for you, go home.

[Laphroaig]

What is Parler? The fact that I've never heard of it and I'm a right wing nutter should tell you that no, that was never going to happen. Then again I'm not really hep to all the latest interweb gadgetry.

Also, you seem to be of the impression that Trump's base are a huge group of anti-vaxxers. There may be some anti-vaxxers among them, but for the most part what Trump's supporters are is merely anti-mandate, like me. Why should I give a shit if you get the vaccine or not, Laphro? I don't, though I would miss your quarterly insult on this forum if you died of the Darwin Flu. But if I did care, I guess I would be an anti-vaxxer, right, that's an anti-vaxxer? Someone who thinks there's something underhanded about the vaccine, some kind of mind-control or sterilization angle, yes? That's not me, or Trump's base. That's a tiny faction of outliers, and they're probably quite vocal - vocal enough for the liberal media to act as if "Republicans-General" are angry at Trump because he's spoken in favor of getting vaccinated.

If you honestly think Trump has alienated half his base, act accordingly, Laphro. That kind of math should put the next two election cycles in the bag for the Democrats, may as well run Hillary again.

So you're "not really hep to all the latest interweb gadgetry" but claim to be sufficiently knowledgeable about trump's yet to be released social media platform to declare it an almost certain success. Which is it?

[Nick Danger]

So you're "not really hep to all the latest interweb gadgetry" but claim to be sufficiently knowledgeable about trump's yet to be released social media platform to declare it an almost certain success. Which is it?

Doesn't take a data scientist to know that a lot of conservatives are fed up with Facebook's blatant censoring of conservative views, but aren't willing to give up the utility of being able to find out instantly whether the children of their 3rd-grade bully were born with birth defects in accordance with the voodoo curse they placed on his locker. Problem is, how to get all those conservatives to migrate to another platform; conservatives are smarter than liberals and aren't going to waste a lot of time setting up a whole new profile on some johnny-come-lately platform. Trump embodies the answer to that problem and the desire to make a profit off that problem all in one man, this is a totally organic progression. A lot of conservatives would follow Trump's razor-sharp buttocks straight through the gates of hell. Not nearly as much for love of Trump though, as for hatred of progressives, and hatred for Big Tech censors.

[broncofan]

Which were already EXTREMELY good anyway, we never talk about that, Omicron is the least deadly mutation so far and none of them have a kill rate of better than .05%, basically half of what we were initially warned which didn't seem so awful in the first place.

Bottom line, the vaccine fascists are starting to sound more and more like the kids who missed the bus. No, we're not coming back for you, go home.
Nearly everything you said here is wrong. Let's start with the case fatality rate. In the U.S., there have been 56 million diagnosed cases and 846,000 deaths. That's a case fatality rate of 1.5%, blended for all variants, and including some deaths in people who had some immunity, either through vaccination or infection. You also have to consider the fact that anyone who has been diagnosed in the last two weeks has not had a chance to die yet since that trails at least three weeks.

Given the fact that not every case is diagnosed some people like to point to the infection fatality rate (ifr). The ifr is estimated either from groups that have all been tested like on a cruise ship or from serology studies. The original virus out of Wuhan was estimated to have an infection fatality rate of .75%. This was the median estimate and was the most consistent with data from places with lots of infections. Delta was believed to be more virulent than the original virus and omicron is now believed to be less virulent. We still don't have numbers for omicron. Omicron is not the only variant in circulation as there is still plenty of delta out there and one reason the numbers are so much better is that population immunity increases over time, especially in those with three shots. Another reason is that it appears omicron doesn't cause much lung damage, which is a good thing obviously.

If you can tell me how you got to the number .05% I'd appreciate it. I think I have some idea but I don't want to rebut a ridiculous point you haven't made yet. But just to cut it off: would you say ebola has a kill rate of 0% because nobody in the U.S. has died from it? If it were spreading all over the place would you say that?

Second of all, in those who are boosted the pfizer shot has a 75% efficacy in preventing omicron infection. Moderna is likely better and J&J much worse. So you're once again just making shit up. The mrna vaccines were more than 90% effective at preventing infection in every other variant.

If you asked me 5 years ago whether an anti-vaxer was more likely to be Republican or Democrat I would have had difficulty answering. If you ask any honest person today the data unequivocally says very likely to be a Republican and it's almost a mainstream position in the Republican party.

[blackchubby38]

I never thought I would agree with something that Andy Cohen ever said. But as someone who has seen their neighborhood slowly deteriorate over the past 4 years, all I have to say is Good fucking riddance to Mayor De Blasio.

[blackchubby38]

If you asked me 5 years ago whether an anti-vaxer was more likely to be Republican or Democrat I would have had difficulty answering. If you ask any honest person today the data unequivocally says very likely to be a Republican and it's almost a mainstream position in the Republican party.

Before Covid 19, I would say that both parties had voters that would have considered themselves them anti-vaxers. The belief that childhood immunizations cause autism is one that has no political ideology. Then there were the people who would refuse to get a flu shot. I know some conservatives and liberals that fall into that category. Finally, there are people who object to vaccines because of religious beliefs (Orthodox Jews come to mind) and who don't like the idea of putting unnatural things in their body. I think its safe to assume that the former vote Republican, while the latter vote Democrat.

With the Covid vaccines, I think there are 3-4 categories people fall under.

Anti-Covid vaccine.
Anti-Mandate.
Vaccine Hesitant
Vaccine Skeptic.

Now I have said before that the Trump/Republican voter/supporter were the loudest anti-vaccine people in the room. But they weren't the only ones who had issues with taking the Covid vaccine. Hence that's why the term "Vaccine Hesitant" was created when the media and government officials started realizing there were a lot of people who you wouldn't consider to be a Republican coming out and saying that they weren't going to take the vaccine.

As I have also previously stated, there are a good portion of people that are hesitant to get the vaccine for various reasons. Some of them legitimate. Some of them are based in paranoia and misinformation. I also think that vaccine hesitancy isn't strictly isolated to the United States. I have read articles about it being an issue in other countries as well. Especially the poorer ones.

When it comes to vaccine skeptics, I believe those come from all shades of the political spectrum. Would you call either Aaron Rodgers, Kyrie Irving, or Lebron James a Republican voter/supporter. I think the reason for the vaccine skepticism is varied. Once again, some of it is based on mistrust of the government. But I also think there is the person who is mindful of what they put into their bodies and are worried about the long term ramifications of taking a vaccine that was developed in under a year.

Finally, there is the anti-vaccine mandate person. Out of all the reasons for a person not wanting to get the Covid vaccine, this is the one that is the most understandable. I'm fully vaccinated (3 shots because we know sooner or later that's going to be the definition) and even I have an issue with some of the mandates. So depending on how vocal or consistent a person is when it comes to similar other issues I'm willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt when they say they're anti-vaccine mandate.

[Nick Danger]

Nearly everything you said here is wrong. Let's start with the case fatality rate. In the U.S., there have been 56 million diagnosed cases and 846,000 deaths. That's a case fatality rate of 1.5%, blended for all variants, and including some deaths in people who had some immunity, either through vaccination or infection. You also have to consider the fact that anyone who has been diagnosed in the last two weeks has not had a chance to die yet since that trails at least three weeks.

Given the fact that not every case is diagnosed some people like to point to the infection fatality rate (ifr). The ifr is estimated either from groups that have all been tested like on a cruise ship or from serology studies. The original virus out of Wuhan was estimated to have an infection fatality rate of .75%. This was the median estimate and was the most consistent with data from places with lots of infections. Delta was believed to be more virulent than the original virus and omicron is now believed to be less virulent. We still don't have numbers for omicron. Omicron is not the only variant in circulation as there is still plenty of delta out there and one reason the numbers are so much better is that population immunity increases over time, especially in those with three shots. Another reason is that it appears omicron doesn't cause much lung damage, which is a good thing obviously.

If you can tell me how you got to the number .05% I'd appreciate it. I think I have some idea but I don't want to rebut a ridiculous point you haven't made yet. But just to cut it off: would you say ebola has a kill rate of 0% because nobody in the U.S. has died from it? If it were spreading all over the place would you say that?

Second of all, in those who are boosted the pfizer shot has a 75% efficacy in preventing omicron infection. Moderna is likely better and J&J much worse. So you're once again just making shit up. The mrna vaccines were more than 90% effective at preventing infection in every other variant.

If you asked me 5 years ago whether an anti-vaxer was more likely to be Republican or Democrat I would have had difficulty answering. If you ask any honest person today the data unequivocally says very likely to be a Republican and it's almost a mainstream position in the Republican party.

Okay, first of all, I meant to say ".5%" not ".05%," I told you I hate math; but that should clear that up.

Otherwise, again, I don't understand why you're preaching at me over this, Bronco, I told you I'm getting the vaccine, I'm going to set up an appointment this week in fact. I have to or I can't go to Germany in February. And as I've said many, many times in this forum, I am not scared of your vaccine, I simply don't need it.

You should consider looking at the virus from my perspective, Bronco. It's not a problem for me in any way whatsoever, I'm completely immune to it, and even though I haven't been exposed to this Omicron variant yet, I'd bet big money that I'm immune to that too. I've just got this fucking sick immune system man, I can't explain it to you but it's true. When friends or family of mine get sick, they call me, because they know I'll bring them whatever they need and won't catch whatever they've got. I spent 44 hours in a Covid ward doing janitorial work, no Covid. So good for me right?

No, not good for me. Nothing can be good for anyone in Liberal America, everyone has to be dragged kicking and screaming into everyone else's problems, like crabs trying to escape a trap and constantly getting dragged back down by the weaker crabs.

So again though, looking at the virus from my perspective, Bronco, what the fuck? It's barely killing people anymore and it was never that dangerous to begin with. Get over it, it's been YEARS! People are ready to get on with life but the rest of you keep pulling us back into the trap. I'm ALMOST prepared to be defiant about it publicly. People are already getting into fistfights, stewardesses are getting knocked the fuck out, people are fed up with the non-stop fearmongering. It's over. Time to move on, and if we have to curb-stomp a few weak crabs to get there then so be it.

[Nick Danger]

With the Covid vaccines, I think there are 3-4 categories people fall under.

Anti-Covid vaccine.
Anti-Mandate.
Vaccine Hesitant
Vaccine Skeptic.

That's a very thoughtful and bi-partisan post, Chubster. But I have a 5th category for you - Vaccine Fatigue.

I wouldn't say I strictly fall into this category but it's certainly where my heart is. A lot of people are just tired of all the lockdowns and travel restrictions and prepping for surgery every time they go to the grocery store. It's too much and it's been going on for too long. I don't know many people who've had Covid and the ones I have known are just fine now. I am genuinely curious why I should get a vaccination against something, when you already have the exact vaccination you're inflicting on me but don't feel protected enough to shut the fuck up about vaccinations (not directed at you, Chubster).

People are starting to feel manipulated and lied to and abused, and a lot of them are ready to fight over it. You see all this shit happening on airplanes now, passengers going ballistic on in-flight mask nazis, formerly known as stewardesses. That's case in point right there, a lot of people are at critical mass, you add that tiny little extra bit of stress that comes from someone who's maybe a little scared of flying, and you've got violence.

And for what? It's the goddamn flu.

Anyway yeah, a lot of people will never get that vaccine for no better reason than that they're angry as hell. I can tell you right now that everyone who is going to get it has gotten it. If Biden's large employer mandate holds up in court, more will, yes, but only because they can't afford to lose their jobs. Others will take the job loss and live in poverty, further damaging a society that's already reeling from the fact that politicians and the media simply CANNOT LET THIS THING GO.

It's over as far as I'm concerned. I signed up for "Two weeks to flatten the curve." One day soon I'm gonna be that guy in the news who punched out someone getting a little too familiar with me over their mask problem. I am REALLY tired of hearing about it.

1358686

[Nick Danger]

My kind of guy here: https://nypost.com/2022/01/02/australian-man-self-immolates-after-ranting-against-covid-vaccines/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=pasteboard_app

There’s only one truly honorable way to end it all and that’s self-immolation. There’s no arguing with a guy who’s just set himself on fire.

Get ready for more of this. So worth it though, doesn’t matter if we drive a large percentage of the population to mental illness and the world economy into the basement, it’s totally worth it to save a handful of lungers from dying 6 months earlier than they would have. To me anyway.

[broncofan]

The categories listed above by blackchubby are conceptually distinct but are often smokescreens for one another in practice. Do I think there's a difference between someone who is "vaccine hesitant" and someone who is an anti-vaxxer? Possibly. In practice I think most people who call themselves vaccine hesitant are anti-vaxxers. That is, they believe nonsense about the covid vaccine because they have been fooled by charlatans which I elaborate on below.

What about someone who just doesn't want to take the covid vaccine? Again, it's possible there is something unique about this vaccine but we are stuck with the fact that the clinical trials showed a very mild side effect profile and significant efficacy for all endpoints. Anti-vaxxers believe that vaccines can have side effects that show up years later and manifest in neurodevelopmental disorders like autism, but scientists have said there's no evidence of that. If someone believes that shots that have been given to tens of millions of people have latent side effects that will show up years later they have been misled. What do they think a shot that exposes them to one protein of the virus will cause that being exposed to the entire infectious version of the virus will not expose them to?

Finally, of course there is a distinction between opposing mandates and being an anti-vaxxer. Some people who oppose mandates are vaccinated. Do I think they have a legitimate point? No. Employers are typically able to set workplace safety standards and whether people are vaccinated against circulating diseases definitely has an impact on the workplace. But we will see what happens with the litigation on the subject. I definitely think any private employer should be able to set that condition on employment and while I think public employers should too, we'll see what the Supreme Court says.

Finally, yes I am aware of Lebron and Kyrie Irving and a bunch of other people who are probably not Republicans refusing the vaccine. It's not that I don't think there are any Democrats it's that the evidence I've seen is that three times as many Republicans as Democrats refuse the vaccine. And there is a huge difference between the GOP House Judiciary Committee spreading anti-vax propaganda and an athlete. The former makes it an institutional problem within the GOP.

[Nick Danger]

The categories listed above by blackchubby are conceptually distinct but are often smokescreens for one another in practice. Do I think there's a difference between someone who is "vaccine hesitant" and someone who is an anti-vaxxer? Possibly. In practice I think most people who call themselves vaccine hesitant are anti-vaxxers. That is, they believe nonsense about the covid vaccine because they have been fooled by charlatans which I elaborate on below.

What about someone who just doesn't want to take the covid vaccine? Again, it's possible there is something unique about this vaccine but we are stuck with the fact that the clinical trials showed a very mild side effect profile and significant efficacy for all endpoints. Anti-vaxxers believe that vaccines can have side effects that show up years later and manifest in neurodevelopmental disorders like autism, but scientists have said there's no evidence of that. If someone believes that shots that have been given to tens of millions of people have latent side effects that will show up years later they have been misled. What do they think a shot that exposes them to one protein of the virus will cause that being exposed to the entire infectious version of the virus will not expose them to?

Finally, of course there is a distinction between opposing mandates and being an anti-vaxxer. Some people who oppose mandates are vaccinated. Do I think they have a legitimate point? No. Employers are typically able to set workplace safety standards and whether people are vaccinated against circulating diseases definitely has an impact on the workplace. But we will see what happens with the litigation on the subject. I definitely think any private employer should be able to set that condition on employment and while I think public employers should too, we'll see what the Supreme Court says.

Finally, yes I am aware of Lebron and Kyrie Irving and a bunch of other people who are probably not Republicans refusing the vaccine. It's not that I don't think there are any Democrats it's that the evidence I've seen is that three times as many Republicans as Democrats refuse the vaccine. And there is a huge difference between the GOP House Judiciary Committee spreading anti-vax propaganda and an athlete. The former makes it an institutional problem within the GOP.

You're an interesting guy, Bronco. I bet you and me could meet at a bar, talk man-talk over beers for a couple hours, and never know we totally disagree with each other about practically everything.

What you're failing to take into account regarding the predominance of Republicans refusing the vaccine mandate is that Republicans are WAY more independent than Democrats, financially and otherwise. The simple fact of being a Republican is basically agreeing that people should be self-sufficient, yourself included. Republicans are naturally inclined to resist mandates of any kind, smaller government is the core curriculum.

Private employers can do whatever they want, Bronco - they can mandate the vaccine for employees if they want to , there's nothing stopping them. So why don't they? Because it's bad for business. There's a core group of people in this country who are never going to get that vaccine. I hesitate to make a binding guess but I'm gonna say it's like 20%, who are NEVER going to get it no matter what threats are made. So if Biden's mandate isn't shot down by the courts - which, I believe it will be, there's no real question that it's unconstitutional, even Biden (absentmindedly) admitted that much - but if it isn't, employers all across the nation are going to lose a LOT of employees all at once.

This vaccine mandate is not a joke to some people. I know a guy, good friend of mine, retired and somewhat wealthy, who will definitely never get that vaccine. He probably would have if they'd SUGGESTED it instead of mandated it, he's not particularly against the vaccine. But he absolutely will not be government-mandated to do anything, ever. He's about to be a grandfather for the first time, any day now actually, she was due 12/28. His daughter, being a highly-educated zoomer, is an idiot of course. She's been very adamant that Rob would have to be vaccinated in order to see his grandson. And this is a big deal to Rob, he's only got the one daughter. But he's been equally adamant that he won't get it. It's been this huge back and forth thing, I even got involved for the length of a phone call, I've known his daughter since she was born. But he drew the line and I know Rob, he will never back down, no matter what the stakes are. His daughter knows him too. That's why her CHRISTMAS PRESENT to him was to tell him he only has to be tested to be around the grandson.

And I tell that story to let you know these people are out there and they aren't outliers. Rob is a very successful, intelligent, well-respected guy. We have an inside joke between us, there have been a couple times he's been hanging out with me at work, and someone has walked in and immediately assumed he was the boss and started talking to him instead of me. So I call him "Boss" sometimes, and he's got that air about him. But he is NOT going to get that vaccine. He's already given up traveling over the matter.

I'm a little more practical than Rob. I can be told what to do if there's an implied quid pro quo. But if I didn't have some traveling to do, Biden would be waiting a long, long time to see me vaccinated - much longer than he has left on this mortal plane. If I didn't have my own reason to get it, they would have to knock me unconscious and strap me to a gurney to make me take the thing, I am not even slightly interested in Joe Biden's opinion about what I should and shouldn't do for my own health. Or anyone else's opinion for that matter, I can read.

But I'd think a little harder about your approach, Bronco. If your real goal is to talk people into getting vaccinated, and not just bashing on people who disagree with you, you better lighten up. All the people who could be intimidated into getting this vaccine have already been intimidated. There's no one left but the real hardasses. If someone asks them nicely, they might listen, but these are not the kind of people who can be harassed into doing anything, and all the threats have already been played. One thing you absolutely can NOT do in the USA is mandate vaccines for everyone. You can tell them they can't go to restaurants, can't travel, can't go to a concert or a ballgame, but you can't tell them to stick a needle in their arm or else.

On the other hand, I'm really starting to question whether this is really a vaccine issue for a lot of people. They certainly aren't doing a goddamn thing that's going to convince anyone to get vaccinated, so I'm inclined toward believing this is all about dick size.

[peejaye]

I'll tell you what will be an interesting scenario, Bronco. What if Trump's social media platform takes off? All indications are it will, there are a lot of people who like the utility of Facebook and Twitter but not the politics - one might even say Trump stands to gain half the users of these sites if he can get up and running and offer a quality product. And then...he's President again. So now you've got a President of the United States who also happens to own a giant social media platform. That would be unprecedented to say the least.

Hey Nick, is it the GETTR website? I'm already on it, a lot of us were worried about being removed from twitter because of our views LOL

[Nick Danger]

Hey Nick, is it the GETTR website? I'm already on it, a lot of us were worried about being removed from twitter because of our views LOL

That's not Trump's, I think that's a Chinese site that's becoming a thing for conservatives because Joe Rogan joined it. His expressed reason for joining it is the same reason that's on every conservative's mind right now - how can we defeat toxic progressivism if Big Tech won't let us? Much as the fact of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit censoring virtually all conservative viewpoints OUGHT to be an antitrust matter for the government to address, it obviously won't be until the Republicans re-take Congress - which will be in almost exactly one year.

Trump's social media platform will be a whole new thing from what I've read. The last thing I'd heard about it was they had raised $1.1 billion and hired some developers. If the GETTR site gets a lot of conservative traffic, I'd guess that the Trump project will end up buying it, the same way the other Big Tech companies buy up all their competitors.

Edit: Also, if you have any Facebook stock, I'd sell it soon. Young people have already left Facebook. When all the conservative adults leave it, there won't be anyone left on there but middle-aged liberals, i.e. housewives and retards.

[Nick Danger]

Hey Nick, is it the GETTR website? I'm already on it, a lot of us were worried about being removed from twitter because of our views LOL

https://nypost.com/2022/01/07/donald-trumps-truth-social-set-to-launch-presidents-day/

Aaaaand the countdown begins. Looks like it's going to be called Truth Social and launch Feb. 21.

Stupid name IMHO. They need to change it to something less political and presumptuous, more generic.

[Laphroaig]

https://nypost.com/2022/01/07/donald-trumps-truth-social-set-to-launch-presidents-day/

Aaaaand the countdown begins. Looks like it's going to be called Truth Social and launch Feb. 21.

Stupid name IMHO. They need to change it to something less political and presumptuous, more generic.

Might be the first thing I've agreed with you on...:dead-1:

Different reasons though, Trump wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on his prodigious arse.

1359440

[filghy2]

That's not Trump's, I think that's a Chinese site that's becoming a thing for conservatives because Joe Rogan joined it. His expressed reason for joining it is the same reason that's on every conservative's mind right now - how can we defeat toxic progressivism if Big Tech won't let us?

I hate to interrupt your fantasies about making converts, but your wannabe friend here is definitely not a conservative. He's just a guy who loves to bear grudges.


Hi Jeri. The BBC as two main objectives; No.1 is to STOP Brexit & No.2 is to destroy, as they call it "Jeremy Corbyns Labour Party", not The Labour Party.
Personally; I said good riddance to those right wing Liberals, we need rid of the rest now like Hilary Benn, Rachel Reeves etc and replace them with good honest human beings who care about social issues, not Big Business, Billionaires and Banks! The BBC as been using those cunts to beat "JC" with a stick since the day he took charge.


This is probably my last post apparently. Just to clear it up; I am NOT a Trump fan, I just like irritating you Political right wing Liberals(UK) & Democrats(US) with your head so far up your own backsides.

[filghy2]

The categories listed above by blackchubby are conceptually distinct but are often smokescreens for one another in practice. Do I think there's a difference between someone who is "vaccine hesitant" and someone who is an anti-vaxxer? Possibly. In practice I think most people who call themselves vaccine hesitant are anti-vaxxers. That is, they believe nonsense about the covid vaccine because they have been fooled by charlatans which I elaborate on below.

"Vaccine hesitant" seems a misnomer when people have already had the opportunity to be vaccinated for the best part of a year. Hesitancy implies that people are unsure and looking for more information. What exactly is the further information these people are looking for that would change their mind? If people are unable to state what would reasonably satisfy their concerns they are anti-vax, not hesitant or sceptical.

Another piece of evidence that tells you something odd has been happening in the US is that vaccination rates are now much lower than in other developed countries after starting out higher. We know that Americans are prolific consumers of prescription drugs, so the explanation cannot be that they are sceptical about Big Pharma. Vaccine resistance has clearly been manufactured rather than naturally occurring.

We'll never know, but a fascinating counterfactual is what would have happened had Trump been re-elected, given he was claiming credit for the vaccine program. Now even he gets booed for encouraging people to get vaccinated.

[Nick Danger]

I hate to interrupt your fantasies about making converts, but your wannabe friend here is definitely not a conservative. He's just a guy who loves to bear grudges.

Peejaye's just finding his way toward the right side of The Force. Political opinions change with time and life experience. Peejaye might very well be smarter than you, Flighty, at least he's opened his mind to non-toxic ideas.

[filghy2]

Peejaye's just finding his way toward the right side of The Force. Political opinions change with time and life experience. Peejaye might very well be smarter than you, Flighty, at least he's opened his mind to non-toxic ideas.

If you grow tired of debating with us perhaps you can have deep and meaningful discussions with him on the merits of fiscal conservatism. Good luck with that.

[broncofan]

If you grow tired of debating with us perhaps you can have deep and meaningful discussions with him on the merits of fiscal conservatism. Good luck with that.
:-) I was having trouble finding a laughing emoji so this is the best I can do.

I know you think peejaye is more motivated by his animosity than whatever faux leftism he was touting but the possibilities are exciting. I find the potential for a Donald Trump George Galloway 2024 campaign appealing. I'm tired so I only have the first minute of a Trump Galloway strategy session:

Galloway: Joe Biden is a two bit senile warmongering popinjay driving the US imperialist apparatus.

Trump: No George, he's simply a loser.

Galloway: Well you certainly have a way with words. I admire your indefatigability sir.

Trump: I like you George but if you call me fat I'll kick your ass.

[broncofan]

Peejaye's just finding his way toward the right side of The Force. Political opinions change with time and life experience. Peejaye might very well be smarter than you, Flighty, at least he's opened his mind to non-toxic ideas.
If you're a real friend you'll help him set up an ebay account so he can sell his che guevara tshirts and hats along with his Ken Livingstone posters and custom made berets. Or cash them in for shirts that say "abortion is murder", "forced vaccination is like Auschwitz", or "Obama founded Isis" or something pithy like that.

[Nick Danger]

If you're a real friend you'll help him set up an ebay account so he can sell his che guevara tshirts and hats along with his Ken Livingstone posters and custom made berets. Or cash them in for shirts that say "abortion is murder", "forced vaccination is like Auschwitz", or "Obama founded Isis" or something pithy like that.

Obviously you guys have a history with Peejaye. I don't. He's been quite reasonable from my perspective. Have you considered the possibility that his political beliefs have sincerely evolved? Or do you just hate the guy too much to give him a break?

[broncofan]

Obviously you guys have a history with Peejaye. I don't. He's been quite reasonable from my perspective. Have you considered the possibility that his political beliefs have sincerely evolved? Or do you just hate the guy too much to give him a break?
I was never really sure what his political beliefs were to begin with. He told us what politicians he liked and then which ones he didn't like. The reason he provided for not liking the ones he didn't like was that they were right wing. And if he didn't like someone's posts he would become verbally abusive and he eventually got around to nearly everyone who disagreed with him.

The evolution of his political beliefs would be analogous to a single-celled organism evolving into another single-celled organism.

[Nick Danger]

The evolution of his political beliefs would be analogous to a single-celled organism evolving into another single-celled organism.

This made me snort a french fry out of my nose.

[filghy2]

Obviously you guys have a history with Peejaye. I don't. He's been quite reasonable from my perspective. Have you considered the possibility that his political beliefs have sincerely evolved? Or do you just hate the guy too much to give him a break?

You know you don't have to speculate on what he really thinks. He obviously comes here regularly and talks to you (I think he's blocked the rest of us). What's stopping you from asking him what he thinks about fiscal conservatism? Go on, we need some entertainment.

[filghy2]

I was never really sure what his political beliefs were to begin with. He told us what politicians he liked and then which ones he didn't like. The reason he provided for not liking the ones he didn't like was that they were right wing. And if he didn't like someone's posts he would become verbally abusive and he eventually got around to nearly everyone who disagreed with him.

Actually, he didn't like those who were moderate left or centrist either - possibly hated them as much as the Conservatives.

His grudge-holding has been through three distinct stages over the past few years:
1. Verbal abuse of people disagreeing with him (favourite word c**t).
2. Mass down-voting of their posts.
3. Sucking up to any right-winger who showed up here to disagree with us (eg Mr Fanti, CD Sasha).

[Nick Danger]

You know you don't have to speculate on what he really thinks. He obviously comes here regularly and talks to you (I think he's blocked the rest of us). What's stopping you from asking him what he thinks about fiscal conservatism? Go on, we need some entertainment.

Not sure what you think you've seen, Flighty, but Peejaye and I have had a total of two interactions in this life, and you have been here to witness both of them. Surely with your bibliophilic approach to this forum, you know the extent of what's been said. If you guys have some big problem with Peejaye, it's, uh, not my problem. Besides, you're quite entertaining enough for me.

[filghy2]

Actually, there's been three interactions, though the previous one was 4 years ago. Not only did you spurn the poor man's request to be his pen pal, but you can't even remember doing so. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?107629-Revoking-Transgender-Civil-Rights&p=1859123#post1859123


Why oh why do you waste time on RUBBISH like this Nick? Check your PM box & hopefully we can suffocate these two fucking lunatics :praying:

America first, as it should be for all Americans.


I don't think of this as a waste of time, PJ. This board is an echo chamber when it comes to politics. There are a few conservatives here but none who care to peel their eyes away from all the ass long enough to pose a counter-argument to...well, pretty much everyone else on the board. I can't even remember the last time someone replied to me in agreement, or if it's ever happened at all. No surprise.

My experience tells me, though, that sometimes people will go out of their way to read what I write, even if they don't agree with me, because I try to say things with a little flair and I'm no fool. And these are the people I want to talk to about the problems with liberalism. T-girls are my favorite girls. I'm hoping some of them will realize that there are more important things than which bathroom they use, or whether they're welcome to join the Army they never wanted to join in the first place. The prosperity of the USA affects everyone here much more than minor considerations about civil rights. My message is basically yes, Republicans are assholes. But they're professional assholes, and you need professional assholes in charge of your country whether you realize it or not. Apply some perspective to your vote.

I like Stavros and Flighty. They will NEVER admit that they are wrong about something, and I respect that, I really do. A man isn't a man if he doesn't hold firm on his beliefs. Hell, I drop logic bombs on them non-stop, but they're immune. In this very thread, I had to straighten out Stavros for calling me a liar about Obama increasing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Showed him the articles and everything. He weaseled out of the call-out by fudging the meaning of my original statement a bit, and yeah I could have called him out again. But I let it slide, because backing Stavros into a corner is not what I'm here for. I'm here because I believe very firmly that we need a big Republican win in the mid-terms. Then 4 more years of Trump. After that I'm content to let the Democrats take over for a term or two, give the non-self-reliant and sympathy-driven citizens what they want for a few years. The ebb and flow is important, you can't keep social progress on the back-burner for too long (nor can you shove it down people's throats too hastily).

Anyway, thanks for joining the conversation, PJ.

I take it you are not very confident about him really being a convert.

[Nick Danger]

Actually, there's been three interactions, though the previous one was 4 years ago. Not only did you spurn the poor man's request to be his pen pal, but you can't even remember doing so. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?107629-Revoking-Transgender-Civil-Rights&p=1859123#post1859123 I take it you are not very confident about him really being a convert.

Well, I can certainly visualize a scenario in which someone might pop onto this board and start expressing unpopular opinions and get tag-team verbal raped by you lot. If I had the inclination I suppose I could go back and study the dynamics of the relationship between you guys and Peejaye, take sides, get involved, spend many hours discussing it. But, uh, I'm not going to do that. If Peejaye wants to have a presence in this forum he's going to have to make himself present.