Hmmm...more time wasting on Google required...
Printable View
Hmmm...more time wasting on Google required...
Joe Rogan is a stand-up comedian, former host of Fear Factor, UFC commentator, and hosts his own podcast. He is also someone that many on the left have been trying to cancel for the past few years. His biggest transgressions have been some of his views on trans rights, gender issues, and hosting a platform for personalities that some progressives disagree with and/or just don’t like. These include Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Tim Pool. Just to name a few. But his latest “crime” has been spreading misinformation when it comes to Covid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I occasionally watch clips of his show on You Tube and I don't always agree with his views. But I’m glad that Spotify is not caving into pressure and sticking by him. If you look at their statement, they have done their due diligence when it comes to removing content that is guilty of spreading misinformation. Rogan is on the air 5 days week for about 4 hours a day and he is not spending all that time talking about Covid.
If people don’t want to listen to his show that’s their right. If they want to cancel their subscriptions to Spotify, that’s the power a consumer has. If Neil Young and Joni Mitchell want to remove their music from Spotify, more power to them.
But I have never been a fan of the angry mob forming on social media and going after someone because that person said something stupid. Especially when an argument be made that the main reason for people’s dislike of Joe Rogan is that he got the Spotify deal to begin with.
Many thanks for this, Blackchubby. The background to my request is that I had heard of Spotify but didn't really know what it is until my Christmas-New Year vacation in Germany, where one of my hosts downloaded it onto my phone. At the time I assumed it was just pop music, so it was of no interest to me but I was told there is tons of classical music and I was surprised to find some obscure works that I searched for to see how comprehesive it is, and it is almost as good as YouTube, which I use most, though Spotify doesn't have the ads that make an intrusive nuisance in too many YT recordings.
I had no idea there was anything else, so I didn't quite understand this Joe Rogan situation, and he seems to be just another American idiot polluting the air-waves, of whom there are a plenitude, some of them on HA. I think the key response to your argument about censorship would be for me to agree, but with a reservation.
I can handle most of the drivel that Republicans and their fellow-travellers produce as arguments, we have a similar party of fools in the Conservatives here, and at other extremes, and I have complained in the threads in General Discussion that some of the trans activists in this country have taken their militant attitude into areas of personal abuse that undermines the cause, if the cause is to maintain, and extend to Trans people the rights that other citizens have. Cancel Culture, so called, is as common on the 'right' as well as the 'left', an obvious example being the use of 'Parental Choice' or 'Power' in schools in some US States to ban books -in one case, Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye. One notes the same cohort of strident parents bleating about morals have no shame in allowing their children to read a book full of tales of jealousy, robbery, violence, rape, hatred, spite, and a worrying amount of sexual depravity known as incest, and I refer of course to the Holy Bible.
The question is posed by JS Mill's definition of Liberty as a condition in which the behaviour of the citizen ought not to be interfered with, unless it causes harm to others. I have quoted the famous passage below.
In Rogan's case, then, does his podcast cause harm to others, actually or potentially if on his advice, some citizens either do not get vaccinated against Covid- at risk to themselves and others-, or use some drug that is not designed to deal with it and may in fact cause harm; or anything else that he says. I think the issue thus must decide what is merely his opinion, and what may cause harm to others even if he does not intend that to happen. I believe Spotify have added warnings to his podcast that may give listeners the means to question Rogan's views, so to some extent the issue of harm may have been dealt with through this act of admin.
Whether or not such limits should be placed on, say Tucker Carlson and his outrageous broadcasts I am not sure, as the only purpose Carlson's broadcasts serve, is to attract paying customers who want to listen in agreement or be shocked by the deliberately offensive, and often anti-Semitic rubbish that spews out of his mouth. The irony, if there is any, is that the person most harmed by this campaign of ignorance and hate, is Tucker Carlson himself, having as a consequence, no credibility as a source of intelligent debate on US or any other politics (eg, his risible attempt to explain the conflct between Ukraine and Russia). A similar fate has been visited on Alex Jones, whose aggressive attacks on some people has caused harm for which he has been justfly convicted in a court of law. That may be the best way to go, expensive and time-consuming as it is. The First Amendment does not allow the absolute expression of freedom, and, as Mill's arguments suggests, it was never intended to, and should not.
This is a well-known passage from Mill's On Liberty.
"...the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/m.../#LibPriCatApp
My view is that people have to avoid providing incentives for people who say harmful, disgraceful things and even need to find legal ways to disincentivize it. Rogan's misinformation is not a crime, nor could it be, but it's probably more harmful than most crimes committed in this country and has also probably caused a lot of death. If artists want to leave potential royalties and earnings on the table to avoid assisting this guy or even to pressure spotify to stop broadcasting him, more power to them. Some have argued that people don't go to Rogan for medical information, but that's not true. If they listened to their doctors they'd get vaccinated and it is charlatans like Rogan and the people he has on his podcast who have convinced a lot of people not to get the vaccine.
We protect the expression of horseshit like Rogan's from prosecution by the first amendment. We protect those who denounce him and who pressure companies not to do business with repugnant people like him in the same way. People who are afraid of the "mob" always seem to express that fear as a slippery slope argument before any unreasonable cancelling has been done. If someone who is very rich and will never have to work again wants to tell people to take horse dewormer for a pandemic that's killed millions of people and not get vaccinated, I'm not sure what decent people can do except try to discourage that view. It leads directly to death. It leads directly to a prolongation of the suffering. Rogan doesn't have any sort of entitlement to a forum (other than a public sidewalk) to express his views.
I doubt Joe Rogan cares if he did get pulled off Spotify, he's got several other platforms. Just another example of liberals going full Barney Fife and shooting themselves in the foot. Neil Young gets 10% of his income from Spotify. I doubt he'll miss it but the point is, Joe Rogan's not going to suffer at all out of this, Neil Young is. But then Neil's always been an asshole. He's also homophobic, not sure if you knew - “You go to a supermarket and you see a faggot behind the fuckin’ cash register, you don’t want him to handle your potatoes.” – Neil Young in Melody Maker, September 1985Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
And no, he never apologized or explained that comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I agree with this, but would ask if, in US law, any action can be taken if harm is caused from public statements, be it harm of a temporary nature, or even death. I assume intent would have to proven, that the speech act which caused it might not itself be the causal factor if the person making it can plausibly claim they meant no harm. Given the ease of transmission of Covid in 2020 and 2021, it seems a flimsy argument when multiple 'gatherings' in the US and elsewhere resulted in infection at great emotional and financial cost to the victims. From Murdoch's point of view, all publicity is good publicity if it gets people clicking, and the more outrageous it is, so much the better. But doesn't that mean his culture of vugarity and lies is creating the permissive envronment in which potentially harmful speech can take place? The Germans, for example, have laws that prohibit speech acts and other public acts which defend or promote National Socialism, and for good reason.
I guess the law is the pivot, and that it is hard to prosecute -did Trump's speech on Jan 6th encourage citizens to attack and invade the Capitol building with the seditious intention of halting the certification of the election? The language is sufficiently vague to make prosecution hard, even though the intent to stop the work of Congress was established almost as soon as the results were first announced and rejected by Trump in November 2020. And his entire campaign against that election has caused harm, including death and suicide -and even if it can't be proven in Court, I think the court of public opinion, other than a minority of fanatics, holds Trump responsible.
You do know the Ivermectin that Rogan was talking about wasn't the horse de-wormer, But the anti-parasite one.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin
Ivermectin (/ˌaɪvərˈmɛktɪn/, EYE-vər-MEK-tin) is an antiparasitic drug.[6] After its discovery in 1975,[7] its first uses were in veterinary medicine to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis.[8] Approved for human use in 1987,[9] today it is used to treat infestations including head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis and lymphatic filariasis.[10][11][8][12] It works through many mechanisms to kill the targeted parasites,[10] and can be taken orally, or applied to the skin for external infestations.[10][13] It belongs to the avermectin family of medications.[10]
William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discovery and applications.[14] It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines,[15] and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as an antiparasitic agent.[16] In 2018, it was the 420th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 100,000 prescriptions.[17] It is available as a generic medicine.[18][19]
Then there is this:
https://www.reuters.com/business/hea...al-2022-01-31/
I know what Ivermectin is as I posted about it when it first became a hot topic among cranks (it's a horse de-wormer and an anti-parasite-you do know worms are parasites?). In multiple human trials it has been shown to have no efficacy against Covid. Penicillin for instance saves millions of lives every year. If someone promoted it as a covid treatment they'd be a crank.
Why do you think posting that Ivermectin is an essential drug is at all relevant? It's not a treatment for covid. Hydroxychloroquine is effective against malaria and is also effective to treat autoimmune disorders. You know what else? It's not a treatment for covid. Scientists also thought it showed some in vitro antiviral capacity but it didn't show efficacy in phase III trials.
Here's a quote from your second article "The original Reuters story misstated that ivermectin was "effective" against Omicron in Phase III clinical trials, which are conducted in humans." There have been multiple trials testing ivermectin as a treatment for covid and in meta-analysis it hasn't been shown to be effective.
You know who thinks ivermectin isn't a treatment against Covid? The CDC, the FDA, the EMA, the WHO. But by all means take advice from Joe Rogan.
Edit: From your wiki article- During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation has been widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[20][21] Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence.
There's also this:): https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...on-correction/
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I stand corrected about the second article.
As for the first thing that I posted, yes I do know that worms are parasites. I was just pointing out that they guy wasn't actually telling people to take horse dewormer. I saw also the second part of the Wikipedia article about the claims about it being an effective treatment for Covid.
I also would never take medical advice from the guy either or any media personality for that matter. I'm already vaccinated and boosted. I'm just not going to lose my shit if the guy is talking about it on his show.
You can see my comments from the first weeks of the pandemic. Chloroquine was also shown to be effective in test tubes but that does not mean it showed efficacy in placebo controlled trials. You know what has? Paxlovid. Joe Rogan has nothing to say about that though https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pres...tment-covid-19Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
If Ivermectin is effective then it should be demonstrated in a phase iii clinical trial.
I still believe in the clear and present danger precedent set by the Supreme Court when it comes to free speech. If the words, whether they're in the press, in a speech, or on a social media platform can lead to/leads to imminent death, serious physical harm and/or destruction of private/public property, than I have no problems about censoring a person and possibly holding them accountable in a court of law if the intent can proven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Two thoughts in response-
1) I think the problem, and it is not just one for the US legal system but ours too, is proving that a speech act has caused harm, particularly if this is emotional harm rather than, say, a physical injury. The UK, for example, has laws that limit what can be said about the Monarchy in public. Laws on Hate Crime are controversial, and we are currently agonising over comments made by Police officers about women, including during investigations some of which are derogatory to the point of being obscene by most definitions -but are such acts illegal?
https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-...e-you-22943239
Is beng offended the same as being harmed?
2) What puzzles me at first with people like Rogan, is why they query immunology when it is presented to them by professionals who have dedicated their lives to it -not the system so much as the message, and its recommendations of this drug rather than the other one. After all, how can Rogan know if Pfizer is more or less effective than Ivermectin?
It only makes sense if one sees it as politics trumping science, just as if the US Govt says the country is under threat from X, Rogan and people like him would query it and say, maybe it's Y. Being sceptical of Government is a good thing, but it doesn't mean everything politicians say has a hidden agenda and is a cover-up for something that secretly benefits them. Take Trump, who now openly admits his aim all along was the deny the American people the right to vote him out of office by halting that part of the process which confirmed Biden as President. No conspiracy here, an open attack on democracy -but something he announced way back in 2016.
It could be ignorance or a deliberate choice, but it doesn't take much effort to find simple explanations of vaccines and immunlogy as they have been developed over the years, so I find this vaccine controversy exposes its doubters as frankly plain stupid -and stupid enough to endanger the lives of others, and that is unacceptable, and plain wrong.
This brief overview should help the doubters (not much in evidence here, thankfully) -but note the comment on Measles ought to be tempered with caution as the danger of a resurgence is possible if more children are not vaccinated against it.
https://www.immune.org.nz/vaccines/v...ry-vaccination
This is a bit more technical but is also a useful summary
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151719/
It's the alignment of financial incentives, ego and (anti-government) political inclinations. This guy is making big money ($100 million from Spotify) by appealing to a certain audience segment. Would anyone be interested in him if he was agreeing with the scientific consensus? As the old saying goes, it's hard to convince a person of something when their income depends on not believing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Someone help me understand this -'Don't Say the Gay' -in Florida? Isn't Florida one of the Gayest States in the Union? I have never been there, but it strikes me that this latest Repubican ruse is, shall we say, 'Misplaced'?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-desantis.html
A new twist in the UK on the issues of Free speech, where it is not so much harm to others that is at issue, but the definition of 'Hate Speech', the law, and an attempt to use it to criminalize speech acts.
The issue has arisen because of a line in 'Comedian' (don't be fooled, he is just an ignorant little prick) Jimmy Carr's act, which you can read in the link, I don't intend to repeat it here.
Nadine Dorries, who as is recorded in the link, in 2017 tweeted “leftwing snowflakes are killing comedy”, is now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and in response to Carr's 'joke' has said “We are looking at legislation via the media bill, which would bring into scope those comments from other video-on-demand streaming outlets like Netflix.”
I doubt most non-UK people here have heard of either Jimmy Carr, or Nadine Dorries -who once absconded from her job as an MP to take part in a game-show called I'm a Celebrity -Get Me Out of Here! I would struggle to define Carr as left-wing, if he has any politics it appears to be sexual politics of the kind that would dive Kate Millet barmy; he is just not funny, as his tv shows demonstrate with miserable regularity, for which, like so many people on TV these days, he is paid a fortune (and for some time in an offshore account too).
But I think the route to law Dorries -a devoted servant of Boris- is taking, is a dangerous one. The real question is why Carr or anyone else thinks the Holocaust can be mined for jokes, and while this is not new, it doesn't make it any more acceptable. But to criminalize other peope's ignorance and stupidity is itself pretty stupid, and where does one draw the line about what is or is not acceptable in the public domain? Hate speech might become part of the vernacular, but for whom? Carr's routine is not going to harm anyone more than himself, but even with a 'trigger warning' before his show, what does he think is prime material for his routine?
And is it not curious how this Government, which has trumpeted Brexit as a new era of freedom, reducing the presence of the State in our lives, is extending it, or proposing to extent it into our living rooms, and in a sense, our thoughts too?
You can read the details here-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...immy-carr-joke
If Jan 6th was 'Legitimate Discourse', does that mean 'Hang Mike Pence' was not an illegal incitement to murder?
The Republican National Committee is full of shit when they said that the Insurrection on Wednesday January 6th 2021 was legitimate discourse,which it wasn't. It was an attempted coup by the Domestic Terrorist Leader, his enablers in congress and senate and his delusional supporters to overthrow the government and change the results of the 2020 Presidental Election. And Trump Supporters chanting Hang Mike Pence is an illegal incitement to murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Because I have watched MMA for about 10 years I am very familiar with Joe Rogan. I even listened to an occasional podcast interview when he would have a respectable guest on (read: not Gavin McInnes or Charles Johnson or someone of that ilk). He is someone who is able to listen to absurd views and rational views and not discriminate between them. In other words he's a moron who some people think is bright. He knows a lot about martial arts but I've heard him say really stupid things even about a subject he knows a lot about. I could give examples but it's not the main point.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
The things he's done that are controversial involve lots of casual racism, lots of providing platforms for racists while not having the moral backbone to even push back against their views, and generalized covid stupidity syndrome. The first tweet on his timeline is an example of his stupidity. It is a tweet using an op-ed about the potential for psychotropics to improve public morality to try to make people believe there is an active conspiracy by the government to brainwash people and take away their freedom.
I don't support the criminalization of racism or making stupid public pronouncements even if their less proximate consequences are very harmful. I just don't think people should want to interact with him because he's loathsome. But what does this mean? It doesn't mean he can't get loans or is in some way disenfranchised. It would simply mean that he is no longer a personality that companies can build their brands around and have broad-based support. He can be a niche figure but there is no entitlement to large platforms, large contracts, or public support.
This is the kind of thinking that puzzles me, along with the claims made by those currently enforcing the 'Siege of Ottawa' against the wishes of the people who live there.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
First, one wonders if they know what freedom is, when they are blaring their horns all day and most of the night. If they tried this in China or Moscow, they would be in a prison van within five minutes. If they tried it in Damascus, they would be in a van, then prison for maybe six months, and for some, this might be the start of torture, and the end of their lives. I understand that things are relative, but even in Canada, there is no assault on anyone's freedom through the vaccine mandate, given that most of Canada's population has now been vaccinated, and truckers too -I think something like 90% of them. This is a co-ordinated campaign by some Canadians and some, perhaps a lot of Americans who have tired of Democracy and want something more direct, which, without any irony, would mean the kind of Government against which they are protesting.
Lastly, what in fact is the problem wth the State? When Hobbes pubished Leviathan in 1651, it was in the aftermath of a bloody civil war where, again, issues of 'freedom' were supposedly a key demand. What Hobbes did was propose a State of Nature be replaced with a State of Government; a lawless state shaped by human emotions, replaced with an organized State shaped by Reason. One could also argue it was Reason replacing Faith, and that though Hobbes was not allowed to say it, there should be a separation of the State from Religion.
The citizen thus trades a degree of personal liberty for the protection of the State, and yes, this has led the State using taxation and government central and local, to extend its reach -but does this mean Government and the State is inherently wicked, and permanently seeking ways to 'control' the people?
The same people today who support Trump, have attacked previous and current Republicans, as if those 'Rinos' were Big Government advocates when they are not. And the State, more perhaps in Europe than the US, does provide services which we, the people want them to.
Fringe theories have become mainstream because it pays to generate clicks out of idle curiosity for most people, but which then engages some in the conviction that we are all being had. Yet in the UK this last month, the people have been made to look like fools by the very powers we are told by some seek to control us -it is Boris Johnson who has lost control of the agenda, and undermined public trust with the revelation there was one rule for us, another for them. No conspiracy here, just managerial incompetence.
When you look at the idiots in Ottawa, read the praise from people such as Trump and Rafael Cruz, you wonder why people support the very people who had power, then lost it, whose policies have led to more deaths and suffering than was necessary during this pandemic, and whose opposition to the flawed political systems we have, would replace it with something worse. They are banning books in schools, not extending the people's right to read what they choose -as schoolchildren themselves want to choose-just as they are controlling women's bodies in States like Texas where Rapists Have Rights should be the Lone Star Motto.
But I guess these people will only truly cherish their freedom when they have lost it.
Leave Canada alone! It has enough problems to deal with.
This is the key point. His defenders would say that he is just questioning accepted wisdom and that's healthy because accepted wisdom is sometimes wrong. The problem is that it's a meaningless exercise without some criteria for determining truth. Rejecting all accepted wisdom because it comes from "the establishment" is not scepticism; it is nihilism. When people like Galileo challenged the accepted wisdom of their time they didn't do so by rejecting science, but by demonstrating that their alternative views were better science.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
We have our own version as well, though so far on a smaller scale and less disruptive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-...rans/100809408
I've always thought that the thing that would stop countries like Canada and Australia from going down the US route is that we have better political institutions, so mainstream parties would be less likely to pander to extremists because they need to win over the majority of people. But it looks like the Canadian opposition Conservative party is tempted to pander to the protestors. It will be interesting to see how public opinion plays out.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...sters-00007272
Looks like Canada and the US may need a new bridge...how easy it has been to strangle production...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-canada-bridge
Americans terrified, soup sales collapse...
https://www.acozykitchen.com/wp-cont...-1-600x730.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/02...4455214503.jpg
Well said. There are bright people who can hold views with internal contradictions but they are aware of it. What is that Whitman line: to paraphrase.. very well I contradict myself. I contain multitudes. Some people contain multitudes of bullshit though. They are sucked in by the last thing they hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I agree it is the instinct to think the established wisdom is wrong. Believing in conspiracy theories is how a simpleton feels like they have an information edge. They don't "do their own research" which is painstaking. They arrive at their viewpoint by rejecting voluminous evidence they don't really understand. They always take a snippet of information and then claim it suggests something it plainly doesn't.
Like "Hey did you know the melting point of steel is yada yada and jet fuel burns at less than yada yada." And everyone's like "hey fella, did you know nobody claimed the world trade center actually melted into a molten blob." Did they think the building could only lose structural integrity if it was liquefied?
I want to point out how mind-boggling Rogan's view is. Paxlovid, the pfizer drug that was designed to treat rna viruses, reduced severe disease by about 88% in a clinical trial. He's promoting Ivermectin, an antiparasitic that would be repurposed and it's unclear whether it's better than placebo. Vaccines-more than 90% effective in preventing death. They don't simply fail to be bright. They're not even competent.
Misinformation and extremism is crossing borders faster than ever. I don't understand what they are protesting against. I go to work every day. I go to the store. I eat outside at restaurants by choice but they have indoor seating. I don't even understand what's so difficult about wearing a fucking mask. I'm going through your politico article as I write this though. It's upsetting how nuts people have gotten. Oh okay workplace mandates are the sticking point. They don't have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Are you thinking of Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
That's a good one from Emerson. I found the quote although I hope I got Whitman's intended meaning right.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
https://poets.org/poem/song-myself-51
In the covid thread I made a dumb joke about Eliot Spitzer's 2008 sex scandal. I then looked it up to jog my memory about it and it turns out what he did and has done since is a lot worse than I remembered so I regret that a bit. It seems he doesn't just see escorts, which I don't have a problem with morally, but that he is also an abusive person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Don't worry, Broncofan, I have never heard of Spitzer.
Is it just me, or do Republicans have an abnormal obsession with the Clintons? The extent of Trump's obsession with Hillary is approaching a form of psycho-social stalking, but it occurs to me that the wider Republican loathing of the Clintons goes all the way back to the 1990s. I am not defending the Clintons, but there seems to me to be something pathological about the campaigns against them, from Newton Gingrich to today. Am I missing something, or are the Clintons cursed?
I guess bein' white ain't all its, er, cracked up to be....unless you live in Texas...
"the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American War specifically stipulated that Hispanics who became citizens be considered white, as Texas was a state where it was legal to enslave Black people. Growing up, my right-wing Ronald Reagan-loving dad used to tell me about the old saying, “if you’re white you’re all right, if you’re brown, stick around. If you’re Black, you go back,” which I took as only apocryphal until I heard a song by the bluesman Big Bill Broonzy that had the exact phrase." "
Keep on Tuckin' -!
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/voices-lat...212317955.html
This tweet contains quotations from a recent Trump interview. This is why Trump was an existential threat to the US. He's a moron but he's also the most despicable person I've seen in American public life.
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1496221147729481732
I won't both sides this since Trump was President and what he's done is worse but prolific tweeter AOC has tweeted nothing about this conflict and apparently hasn't tweeted the word Russia since 2019. She's an idiot.
Tulsi Gabbard? I'm not sure her political affiliation. Bernie said something negative about Russia and has now been called a "neo-liberal centrist" by many of his fans with large followings.
Tulsi Gabbard is a Democrat and one time was accused by Hillary Clinton of being groomed as a Russian asset. Outside looking in, I just think she is someone who is going to question United States foreign policy whenever she gets the chance. Especially if its going to lead to United States armed forces going into combat.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
As for Bernie, its amazing how quickly one's followers can turn on them if they say something that goes against their beliefs.
AOC probably stop tweeting about Russia around the same time the Mueller report didn't lead to Trump being impeached.
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Not sure why you are upset that AOC doesn't tweet about Russia, must she tweet about everything? Has she tweeted anything on Boris Johnson? He was born in her city, and if he revives his US citizenship in the future, he can run for the Presidency. From what little we get here, she seems to be good at some things, maybe lacking in others. Or, she is best known for being the target of some odious drivel from Trump and his supporters, which may explain her popularity. If Tucker Carlson spends so much time attacking her, she is clearly important to him.
As for Tulsi Gabbbard, is she important?
No but this is not the type of thing a U.S Rep should be silent about in my view. It strikes me as concern that if she condemns Russia she will get backlash from certain segments of the left who view condemnation of Russia or China as inherently suspicious. That bothers me. I don't think she has been silent because she has not considered the issue but is actually concerned that if she supports sanctions on Russia she will be called a warmonger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Russia is trying to claim regions of Ukraine and is on the verge of an assault that could kill thousands of people. The right wing is trying to justify this act. Certain segments of the left are fiddling with the idea that NATO and the right share culpability. When I say certain segments of the left I mean a lot of the people who previously supported Bernie Sanders and some who supported Tulsi Gabbard. I don't think Tulsi is incredibly important but she is an example of someone who really defies easy categorization politically and has developed a cult following.
I certainly don't want U.S. troops to fight. But I am certain I support the sanctions against Russia that Biden is levying.
As an addendum to the last post in case this goes to the next page I agree with Bernie Sanders' statement on this. This is not brinksmanship or incitement but multilateralism in action. The comments show that a lot of his supporters view this as a betrayal. Why?
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/statu...25554588213248
I am puzzled, why woud the 'left' want to restrain themselves from criticising a regime of the kind Putin presides over? He might have been a member of the Communist Party at one time, I suspect if he was it was because of his membership of the KGB and it made sense in career terms, I doubt he ever cared one way or another for Marxism-Leninism. Moreover, of this 'left' of which you speak is anti-war, by definiton they must condemn Putin's actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Plus, approx. 14,000 have already been killed since the Russians annexed eastern Ukraine, including the passengers on the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for whom nobody has yet been held responsible.
Broncofan, can you clarify a legal point please? It relates to this report on Rudolph Giuliani giving evidence to the Jan 6 Committee, but only if it does not violate 'Attorney-Client' confidentiality.
This is the passage I refer to-
"...the former president’s attorney has indicated that he will assist the select committee only if his appearance is not pursuant to his subpoena, and does not have to give records or discuss his contacts with Trump over executive and attorney-client privilege concerns.
Giuliani is prepared to make exceptions in instances where the panel can demonstrate that meetings with Trump that would have otherwise been subject to those protections might have been broken, and that the protections should not apply."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ry-6-committee
1) Can you clarify this -am I right in saying that Trump must formally instruct, or for this evidence, have formally instructed Giuliani to act as his Attorney with an agreed fee, and that this must be documented? In other words, neither could just say 'He is my lawyer'? Is it also the case that a lawyer cannot work without charging a fee? I seem to recall there was speculation that Giuliani said he was Trump's lawyer when he was in the Ukraine when he might not have been formally instructed to act for Trump who was President at the time.
2) Is Attorney-Client 'privilege' a legal means whereby a criminal can reveal his crimes to a lawyer, knowing the lawyer will never present the evidence of crimes, or confessions to crimes to a court of law? When if ever can a lawyer be compelled to reveal to a Court what he knows a client has done, or has said.
Stavros I can answer a couple of the questions off the top of my head. Other aspects of it I might have to look up.
I don't think there needs to be a contract or a fee paid for the privilege to attach (there are a few reasons for this, though a fee or contract would definitely help establish the relationship). I think what you're getting at is that someone should not be able to claim privilege from communications with a co-conspirator simply because that person happens to be an attorney.
The question is whether that person was seeking the counsel of the attorney in a professional capacity and on that subject matter. Did the attorney simply provide legal advice (and nothing more) and was he engaged by Trump as an attorney for that matter?
The attorney client privilege is waived for communications in which third parties are present. So even if they can claim some communications were privileged between them, it would not apply to anything in which a non-privileged party was in the room for.
There are exceptions to the attorney client privilege where compelled disclosure may be permitted. One is the crime fraud exception. If the attorney's services are used to conceal the commission of a crime the privilege does not apply. This would be that the attorney did not merely offer advice about what is legal or illegal but perhaps helped a client take an illegal course of action and cover his actions. https://www.justia.com/criminal/work...aud-exception/
In addition to attorney client privilege there is something called the duty of confidentiality for attorneys that will often attach even to preliminary discussions between a client and his attorney. Though this also only protects information that is confidential and which no other parties are privy to.