The reason the SDNY filings are important is because of their statute of limitations. If he isn't reelected in 2020, Air Force One turns into a pumpkin at noon on inauguration day. Trump will not be fighting for his political life so much as his freedom at this rate. But I agree with @Grond0 that if this general idea that Presidents are immune from legal consequences is based on absolutely nothing. It seems the main argument is that because impeachment EXISTS as an option, all other forms of legal punishment are off the table. There isn't a single thing that indicates that is the case.
The further survival of the US government functioning at any level may REQUIRE at least an attempt at impeachment (otherwise it is basically a worthless provision), yet also may he a tactical impediment to removing him from office. The only way Trump can win reelection is a 100% fired-up base, because his base is all he has. Impeachment is exactly what he needs. Yet, on balance, it probably needs to be done just so there is SOME line in the sand against this kind of mind-boggling corruption.
Still illegal. You may personally not care about a bunch of kids passing around a joint on a sidewalk, but a police officer is still going to press charges if he sees the action.
And I honestly think the Stormy thing is going to end up being a very minor sidebar once the whole thing is released.
Obviously it's illegal, and yeah a bunch of kids smoking a joint is about how seriously I take this silliness. Everybody involved needs some time for self reflection but that's about it.
Sometimes things that are legal are a lot worse.
Anyway while we're waiting on the whole thing we can review the past two years of investigation in summary:
Flynn/Papadopolous: Lying to the FBI.
Manafort/Gates: Financial crimes and tax stuff.
Cohen: Paying Stormy Daniels and some other woman.
Multiple potential meetings between the Trump Campaign and Russia were also brought up at different times by different people, but nothing ever came of most of them and the other ones we know about, like the Trump Tower meeting where damaging information on the Clintons was offered. Even if Trump then and there got a look at the entire cache of Podesta emails*, which of course there is zero evidence of, it wouldn't be a crime. What would be a crime is if they hadn't hacked it yet, and did so with help from the Trump admin, or the Trump admin directed the hack or directed its dissemination, a laughable scenario.
This story isn't relevant other than for background information on how the body politic works when it comes to foreign countries. The DNC and Ukraine were working together to sabotage Trump. Exchanging damaging information between countries and admins is not only not illegal, it's not uncommon.
* And I still maintain the leaking of the Podesta emails themselves were a valuable asset to the voters. Why anyone would want powerful government officials to manipulate the supposedly democratic institutions from behind the scenes is beyond me.
Chandler, Arizona, is working with large numbers of self-driving vehicles across the city. Thus far, the presence of self-driving cars has proved uncontroversial; the local residents are fairly satisfied with how they're operating. The only complaints are that they tend to drive slowly (self-driving cars are programmed to always obey the speed limit) and have some trouble merging lanes.
Of course, Trump not only has to worry about the big I (Impeachment), but also, as we saw with President Bill Clinton, being forced to testify in civil suits, like those of Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, but also suits over the Emoluments Clause and many, many other suits facing him in the southern district of New York. He can pardon his children and others from Federal Crimes, but not from crimes brought against him in the states. It's unclear if he could pardon himself at this point, but I definitely think he'll try it. He may try to convince Mike Pence to pardon him if he can't pardon himself, but I have doubts over whether or not Pence would do so. If he does so, he's sunk with the American people. He's not nearly as popular as Trump is, and if he does pardon Trump, people are going to hate him. I wouldn't put it past Pence to say he'll pardon Trump, and then, as soon as he gets into the Presidency, to rip up the agreement/pardon because his Christian conscience won't allow him to pardon Trump.
Andrew C. McCarthy: Why Trump is likely to be indicted by Manhattan US Attorney
Why We Tweet to Trump – by Brian and Ed Krassenstein
https://hillreporter.com/why-we-tweet-to-trump-by-brian-and-ed-krassenstein-17279 You may often find my tweets under the president’s. When the President Trump tweets something I disagree with or I feel is a skewed version of reality, I’m often there with a reply. Sometimes they are joined by followup tweets by my twin brother Ed Krassenstein as well. We’ve been doing this for almost two years now, with the exception of an 8 month break when Trump decided to circumvent the First Amendment and block us from viewing and responding to his tweets. Some may call our actions pointless, others inflammatory, and some may even go as far as calling us “traitors,” “soy boys,” “fake news,” “cucks,” “beta males,” “libtards,” “snowflakes” and just about every other name in the book. Some people may say that we are tweeting because we are “grifters,” “paid George Soros trolls,” or even that our tweets are a means to somehow scam people. I’m here to tell you the real reason we tweet, and it’s simple: The truth!
More GOP Lawmakers Arrested For Sexual Misconduct In Bathrooms Than Trans People
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/04/more-gop-lawmakers-arrested-for-sexual-misconduct-in-bathrooms-than-trans-people/?fbclid=IwAR0B6T5KtkY4znJYsi1CBtFzXOBU5E8_Uw-gDeYmzLMz30V_JTdm823BlDc It is Republican lawmakers, and not transgender people, who are the real danger in public bathrooms. Dead State, Gay Star News, and Friendly Atheist are all reporting that Republican politicians are more of a menace in public bathrooms than transgender people. The reports are based on an earlier report issued by Dan Avery at News Now Next debunking the myth that transgender people using public bathrooms pose some sort of threat. The multiple reports indicate that no transgender individual has ever been arrested for sexual misconduct in a public bathroom, while at least three Republican lawmakers have been arrested for sexual misconduct in a public bathroom. Former U.S. Senator Larry Craig, Florida state Representative Bob Allen, and Mississippi Congressman Jon Hinson were all Republican lawmakers, and were all arrested for sexual misconduct in a public bathroom.
*Democratic president has an afair* "Graagh I can't believe it! Impeach him! Rgrgbgbgdddkl!"
*Republican President has an affair and also use campaign money to keep it quiet* "Meh, who cares!"
Me, August 2017, in the old politics thread:
"What they're trying to do is trip somebody up to feed their dying narrative in the same way they tripped up Bill Clinton. He didn't go down for anything he did wrong politically or anything he did wrong during the scope of the investigation. They got him lying about Lewinsky. The investigation was about Whitewater. This is the kind of witch hunting we're likely to see again, and it will all be just as unrelated to the wild excuses made to get us to this point."
I still have sympathy for Clinton in that regard, if not for other things.
That's just how special councils work though. Unlimited investigations and unlimited prosecutions, the main issue at hand usually not being what matters in the end. Which is why Comey was so desperate for one.
I have a fun fact for ya though, big name left wing activist organizations that survive to this day were founded on the idea that Clinton's affair and subsequent lies and impeachment proceedings were all an irrelevant distraction. I think it can be accurately pointed out your comment has truth when also applied in reverse.
Sargon of Akkad was banned from Patreon, among other names, in the continued financial assault by Silicon Valley against anyone to the right of Che Guevara. Youtube has long been demonetizing political and "controversial" content so can't rely on them. Can't rely on your own audience to support you because the infrastructure won't have you. Can't use Google Play. Can't use Spotify. Your only alternative is to create a new internet from scratch.
If you would have told me the free internet would be destroyed by extreme left wing puritans a few years ago, I would have laughed at you. It is increasingly apparent that is the case.
And in other news, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatens to abuse her position because she gets made fun of. We're all outraged, right? This is the beginning of fascism and a threat to the republic and all that, right? Right.
Sargon of Akkad was banned from Patreon, among other names, in the continued financial assault by Silicon Valley against anyone to the right of Che Guevara. Youtube has long been demonetizing political and "controversial" content so can't rely on them. Can't rely on your own audience to support you because the infrastructure won't have you. Can't use Google Play. Can't use Spotify. Your only alternative is to create a new internet from scratch.
If you would have told me the free internet would be destroyed by extreme left wing puritans a few years ago, I would have laughed at you. It is increasingly apparent that is the case.
And in other news, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatens to abuse her position because she gets made fun of. We're all outraged, right? This is the beginning of fascism and a threat to the republic and all that, right? Right.
Please explain to me how Saragon of Akkad is political?
What civic issues does he personally address that make what he talks about political?
A lot of people love to hide behind the political label since they think it gives them immunity from this type of persecution. There are terms and services a person needs to follow when using online services. Nothing is preventing this guy from starting up his own website and using PayPal or even direct deposits to get donations.
Almost everything he talks about is political. He's a member of UKIP and does promotional work for them on his channel as well. He also documents crazy events in the far left world of academia and elsewhere, mostly as a critic of social justice ideology from a left wing perspective.
I don't know how we continue to have this discussion in a world where the Supreme Court has declared businesses don't have to cater to gay customers and can refuse to cover birth control in their health coverage. The conservative Supreme Court in recent years has given leeway to businesses to do whatever they want in regards to refusing service to anyone.
Moreover, saying Google, Youtube, and Twitter should be considered public utilities is a valid position, maybe even a correct position. The problem is that it's a regulation the Republican Party is explicitly against. In fact, it seems the only reason this about-face on regulation of businesses in ANY way had taken place is because of tech companies exercising the same rights as bigoted Colorado bakers. I thought this was the libertarian paradise the conservative movement has been pushing for since before I was in diapers. NOW we are concerned about refusal of service to certain people?? Since when?? Do conservatives want businesses to be regulated or not?? Do they want business to be able to exercise their right to refuse service to customers, or don't they?? Is the "free market" now a piecemeal idea that only applies to people with "strongly held religious beliefs" and not possible political or public relations positions of large corporations?? This is the world the right-wing view of the business world has created since Reagan. It's here. This is the result.
Yeah lol bakeries and the damn internet are definitely exactly the same and analogies that use them are 100% accurate. People's free speech rights are under threat whenever you can't get a cake from Bakery A rather than Bakery B, *in the exact same way* that a handful of tech giants who control almost all expression on the internet can threaten your free speech rights when they agree to act in coordination to punish a particular person.
Sargon of Akkad was banned from Patreon, among other names, in the continued financial assault by Silicon Valley against anyone to the right of Che Guevara. Youtube has long been demonetizing political and "controversial" content so can't rely on them. Can't rely on your own audience to support you because the infrastructure won't have you. Can't use Google Play. Can't use Spotify. Your only alternative is to create a new internet from scratch.
If you would have told me the free internet would be destroyed by extreme left wing puritans a few years ago, I would have laughed at you. It is increasingly apparent that is the case.
And in other news, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatens to abuse her position because she gets made fun of. We're all outraged, right? This is the beginning of fascism and a threat to the republic and all that, right? Right.
Good to mention che guevara, because he is racist and I never saw anyone of the left criticizing him. Quoting him on his own biography "The Motorcycle Diaries:"
"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese."
"The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations."
"The episode upset us a little because the poor man, apart from being homosexual and a first-rate bore, had been very nice to us, giving us 10 soles each, bringing our total to 479 for me and 163 1/2 to Alberto."
"The first person we hit on was the mayor, someone called Cohen; we had heard a lot about him, that he was Jewish as far as money was concerned but a good sort."
This quotes looks much more an quote from a white supremacist TBH.
But of course, when you are right wing, you can be married to a castiza and won a democratic election in a white minority country where the majority of "whites" are just light brown mestizos with non whites on his family and real whites without non whites on his lineage are a tinny minority. Can accept a lot of Venezuelans refugees like Bolsonaro did. Still accused of being racist by angry words out of contest, jokes and by being against affirmative action to protect the majority from the minority.
Good to mention, a lot of Venezuelans are fleeing to French Guiana. Wasen't colonialism supposed to be bad and socialism good??? Why Venezuelans rather live on a French territory instead of a socialist paradise?
Yeah lol bakeries and the damn internet are definitely exactly the same and analogies that use them are 100% accurate. People's free speech rights are under threat whenever you can't get a cake from Bakery A rather than Bakery B, *in the exact same way* that a handful of tech giants who control almost all expression on the internet can threaten your free speech rights when they agree to act in coordination to punish a particular person.
Then it might have been wise to not support a party that has been explicitly against almost all regulation of public utilities, INCLUDING the ENTIRE internet when it comes Net Neutrality. Conservatives have clearly won for the time being on the issue of buisness regulation. Now because some of them are being adversely affected, only certain companies apparently need to be reigned in, but god forbid telcom companies have to treat the internet itself as a public utility, rather than specific websites that can only be accessed if you have internet access in the first place. Get back to me when Net Neutrality is reinstated, until then, there is no argument to be had here.
Yeah lol bakeries and the damn internet are definitely exactly the same and analogies that use them are 100% accurate. People's free speech rights are under threat whenever you can't get a cake from Bakery A rather than Bakery B, *in the exact same way* that a handful of tech giants who control almost all expression on the internet can threaten your free speech rights when they agree to act in coordination to punish a particular person.
But they are. They are using their position as private companies to not serve certain people. Sargon of Akkad, gay people wanting wedding cakes. There used to be a sign, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". 'Free Speech' only means that the government is not going to crack down on you for what you say. It has absolutely zero to do with what private companies can do. I remember when I used to be on "America Online" and how people ranted and raved about its terms of service. They should be free to say anything they want, because it was "America" Online, and somehow, in their minds, this meant it was somehow a government entity. Hint: It wasn't and still isn't.
Get back to me when Net Neutrality is reinstated, until then, there is no argument to be had here.
I was complaining about this when Net Neutrality was a thing and your tune didn't change. Just sayin'.
Also i'd love to hear what party I should support for free speech rights. The one that actively celebrates and is the cause of the crushing corporate boot on the neck of everyone who disagrees with them? Great idea.
Good to mention che guevara, because he is racist and I never saw anyone of the left criticizing him. Quoting him on his own biography "The Motorcycle Diaries:"
That name drop was intentional, but you would be mistaken if you think that's the only racist on the left who gets a pass because they are on the left.
Do you think Silicon Valley would punish someone on the left who is racist as much as they punish a critic of the left who is absolutely not racist? You would be mistaken!
The real crime, as always, is political affiliation.
""Twitter's standards are an utterly inconsistent joke," conservative commentator Ben Shapiro tweeted."
Just like the right! Remind me again who backed people like Louie Gohmert, who ranted in such an anti-semitic way that FOX Business had to apologize on air? How about Roy Moore? Who backed him? Who doesn't care when Donald Trump has affairs and sleeps around, but cared very much when it was Bill Clinton? I mean, you said yourself @WarChiefZeke that you don't care about Trump's having affairs and paying off women to keep silent.
Yes, there are hypocrites everywhere. I don't support Louis Farrakhan, and I think he should have been banned from Twitter. But don't claim to be free of Hypocrisy yourself if you cared that Bill Clinton had an affair and don't care about Trump doing the same. And multiple times.
Incidentally, in other news...
Is Fraud Part of the Trump Organization’s Business Model?
Anti-LGBTQ Activist Admits Bathroom Predator Myth Was 'Concocted' As Cover for Transphobic Hate
https://www.intomore.com/impact/anti-lgbtq-activist-admits-bathroom-predator-myth-was-concocted-as-cover-for-transphobic-hate?fbclid=IwAR2G8dns9KvwOclAYEcUoK-6DW314CAPOIjYUgac3GNEz6mGnI1vDh0SavE As it turns out, transphobic messaging like this — which links access to public bathrooms and locker rooms to the threat posed by sexual offenders — was “concocted,” according to a Massachusetts-based “pro-family activism” organization Mass Resistance. Its president, Brian Camenker, is believed to be the author of the group’s November 9th “Election Analysis” post, in which the organization (which is designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center) admitted its scary campaign to repeal a statewide Massachusetts nondiscrimination law was a lie. “Our side concocted the ‘bathroom safety’ male predator argument as a way to avoid an uncomfortable battle over LGBT ideology, and still fire up people’s emotions. It worked in Houston a few years ago,” reads the post.
As far as I'm aware, none of the most popular right-wing Youtube channels outside of insane conspiracy theorist Alex Jones have gone anywhere. Sargon still has his, Milo does as well. The issue seems to be they aren't making as much money as they used to, and crowdfunding sites aren't interested in hosting them. Is it a god-given right to be able to beg for money on the internet?? It seems there is only so far a career focused on maintaining an endless persecution complex can take you.
""Twitter's standards are an utterly inconsistent joke," conservative commentator Ben Shapiro tweeted."
Just like the right! Remind me again who backed people like Louie Gohmert, who ranted in such an anti-semitic way that FOX Business had to apologize on air? How about Roy Moore? Who backed him? Who doesn't care when Donald Trump has affairs and sleeps around, but cared very much when it was Bill Clinton? I mean, you said yourself @WarChiefZeke that you don't care about Trump's having affairs and paying off women to keep silent.
Okay I looked up who Louie Gohmert was and what he said, which was this:
“George Soros is supposed to be Jewish, but you wouldn’t know it from the damage he’s inflicted on Israel and the fact that he turned on fellow Jews and helped take the property that they owned,” Gohmert said Thursday on “Varney & Co.,” hosted by Stuart Varney."
That doesn't sound anti-semitic to me at all. It's a rhetorically loaded, and factually inaccurate, reference to real events, but where is the Jewish hatred?
I'm not sure this is relevant to the politically motivated de-platforming by the world's biggest tech giants acting in collaboration though.
But this is, Farrakhan has also used the phrase SATANIC JEW in a tweet and he's still on the platform.
SATANIC JEW
AND HE'S STILL ON TWITTER
If you go back and actually research what any of the dozens and dozens of popular right wing voices have been permanently kicked for you will be amazed at the sheer gall of them to not say this isn't all politics. Every bit of it.
Sargon of Akkad has been long banished from Twitter like so many others. Never made a hateful statement about any group of people in his life but makes a living on pointing out the bad policies of the left.
[Irrelevant rant]
And man, what a news media we have. Farrakhan and Obama were hanging out together all the way back in 2005? And the media chose to remain silent until after he left office? And the pictures were suppressed by Congress because they didn't want it to harm his chances of President? I'm sure the entire DC press corps missing that one, pure coincidence!
Keith Ellison, that lovable DNC co-chair, is also an old buddy of his and past associate with the same organization. Also incredible how they fail to mention that as well!
This isn't going away. Linda Sarsour is still a Women's March Leader. Bigotry is a-okay on the left, provided you take some small time away from Naming The Jew to say F*** Drumpf.
""Twitter's standards are an utterly inconsistent joke," conservative commentator Ben Shapiro tweeted."
Just like the right! Remind me again who backed people like Louie Gohmert, who ranted in such an anti-semitic way that FOX Business had to apologize on air? How about Roy Moore? Who backed him? Who doesn't care when Donald Trump has affairs and sleeps around, but cared very much when it was Bill Clinton? I mean, you said yourself @WarChiefZeke that you don't care about Trump's having affairs and paying off women to keep silent.
Okay I looked up who Louie Gohmert was and what he said, which was this:
“George Soros is supposed to be Jewish, but you wouldn’t know it from the damage he’s inflicted on Israel and the fact that he turned on fellow Jews and helped take the property that they owned,” Gohmert said Thursday on “Varney & Co.,” hosted by Stuart Varney."
That doesn't sound anti-semitic to me at all. It's a rhetorically loaded, and factually inaccurate, reference to real events, but where is the Jewish hatred?
I'm not sure this is relevant to the politically motivated de-platforming by the world's biggest tech giants acting in collaboration though.
But this is, Farrakhan has also used the phrase SATANIC JEW in a tweet and he's still on the platform.
SATANIC JEW
AND HE'S STILL ON TWITTER
If you go back and actually research what any of the dozens and dozens of popular right wing voices have been permanently kicked for you will be amazed at the sheer gall of them to not say this isn't all politics. Every bit of it.
Sargon of Akkad has been long banished from Twitter like so many others. Never made a hateful statement about any group of people in his life but makes a living on pointing out the bad policies of the left.
I said I don't support Louis Farrakhan. Somewhere in the last 2 hours or so. So why bring him up to me? Also Louie Gohmert brought up a supposed "fact", which wasn't actually a fact. When has George Soros taken property from fellow Jews?
As the fact-checking website Snopes wrote in its piece debunking the myth, “The simple truth is that George Soros neither said nor did anything resembling what he has been accused of. In no sense was Soros, who turned 14 years old not long after the Germans occupied Hungary in 1944, a ‘Nazi collaborator.’ At no time did he confiscate (or help confiscate) the property of Jews, ‘identify Jews to the Nazis,’ or help ‘round up’ people targeted for deportation or extermination by the Germans (to answer just a few of the accusations leveled against him).”
So, there you go. Clear anti-semitism against George Soros.You're welcome.
And Carl Benjamin (Aka Sargon of Akkad) was banned from Twitter before, when he sent Interracial Gay Porn to members of the Alt-Right. "Sargon had been suspended from Twitter before, including one instance where he was sending interacial gay porn to members of the Alt-Right, but this time Twitter offered no leeway in lifting the suspension."
It sounds like he did something else, and having already trespassed on the rules at least once, this time they banned him for good.
He's also made a joke that has become an almost right of passage on the alt-right, which is to tell a woman they aren't at risk of rape because they are too ugly. In fact, in the Daily Wire piece that was posted about the Kavanaugh accusers awhile back, I briefly skimmed the comment section and found DOZENS of comments along the line of "there is no way these old hags were raped, looked at how unattractive they are".
Being wrong is not anti semitism. Nothing he said implies hatred for jewish people or even a hint of it. Please direct me to those particular statements.
Lol Sargon deserved to be suspended for that but man that was funny. I actually remember that. That was temporary however and no reason to my knowledge was ever given for why he was kicked off the platform permanently later on.
He should have just posted multiple racist screeds, then he'd never even receive a suspension let alone a perma-ban.
Oh, and I bring it up because my posts are about my topic, which is the mass political censorship by all the biggest tech giants according to their insane far left ideology and to the celebration of their political peers.
He's also made a joke that has become an almost right of passage on the alt-right, which is to tell a woman they aren't at risk of rape because they are too ugly. In fact, in the Daily Wire piece that was posted about the Kavanaugh accusers awhile back, I briefly skimmed the comment section and found DOZENS of comments along the line of "there is no way these old hags were raped, looked at how unattractive they are".
He perfectly predicted the spin on that statement which is why he said it, which is that him saying "I wouldn't rape you" has essentially become the equivalent of him saying that he would. The pathological lies spread about anyone not considered a social justice advocate is pretty predictable at this point. They just HAVE to be evil amirite
Sargon's problem is that although he was one of the first to mine this particular ore (that ore being anti-PC politics), people just like him are now a dime a dozen. Every day my YouTube feed is bombarded by videos about SJW tactics ruining video games. One week it's Assassin's Creed Odyssey, the next it's Battlefield V, then it's a grown man bitching about the She-Ra reboot on Netflix, now it's Super Smash Brothers. It's just neverending. Sargon's problem is that he is now indistinguishable from the flood of imitators who have sprung up in his wake in the last two years. Believe it or not, I actually DO dip my toe in this stuff when I can tolerate watching it, which is why my feed is filled with these personalities. To be frank, Sargon just isn't trying as hard as he used to. Other people who are spreading the exact same message put out way more videos on a more regular basis.
And man, what a news media we have. Farrakhan and Obama were hanging out together all the way back in 2005? And the media chose to remain silent until after he left office? And the pictures were suppressed by Congress because they didn't want it to harm his chances of President? I'm sure the entire DC press corps missing that one, pure coincidence!
Keith Ellison, that lovable DNC co-chair, is also an old buddy of his and past associate with the same organization. Also incredible how they fail to mention that as well!
This isn't going away. Linda Sarsour is still a Women's March Leader. Bigotry is a-okay on the left, provided you take some small time away from Naming The Jew to say F*** Drumpf.
[/Irrelevant rant]
Actually, Farrakhan met with the entire Congressional Black Caucus. Obama wasn't the only one there. The other two members are and were no longer in office.
And, what, supposedly, is wrong with Keith Ellison? Are you ranting about the claim that said Keith Ellison had said that white men should be in chains? (BTW: He never said that.)
He's also made a joke that has become an almost right of passage on the alt-right, which is to tell a woman they aren't at risk of rape because they are too ugly. In fact, in the Daily Wire piece that was posted about the Kavanaugh accusers awhile back, I briefly skimmed the comment section and found DOZENS of comments along the line of "there is no way these old hags were raped, looked at how unattractive they are".
He perfectly predicted the spin on that statement which is why he said it, which is that him saying "I wouldn't rape you" has essentially become the equivalent of him saying that he would. The pathological lies spread about anyone not considered a social justice advocate is pretty predictable at this point. They just HAVE to be evil amirite
I can't think of a single thing "I wouldn't even rape you" is supposed to mean as a response to someone talking about rape threats they recieve other than "you aren't attractive enough to bother raping". And that's exactly what I believe he was trying to convey. And I believe this because it's practically becoming a rallying cry in comment sections. Mind you, I have, in my personal life, been taken to task by girlfriends who are rape survivors for even SAYING the word rape or not telling them that a certain movie had a rape scene in it beforehand. And I understood why they were pissed afterwards. So I have very little sympathy for this kind of internet troll culture.
He's also made a joke that has become an almost right of passage on the alt-right, which is to tell a woman they aren't at risk of rape because they are too ugly. In fact, in the Daily Wire piece that was posted about the Kavanaugh accusers awhile back, I briefly skimmed the comment section and found DOZENS of comments along the line of "there is no way these old hags were raped, looked at how unattractive they are".
He perfectly predicted the spin on that statement which is why he said it, which is that him saying "I wouldn't rape you" has essentially become the equivalent of him saying that he would. The pathological lies spread about anyone not considered a social justice advocate is pretty predictable at this point. They just HAVE to be evil amirite
I can't think of a single thing "I wouldn't even rape you" is supposed to mean as a response to someone talking about rape threats they recieve other than "you aren't attractive enough to bother raping".
How about, I don't know, exactly what it says without inserting your own spin and prejudice into it in order to turn it into the exact opposite of what it means.
Don't take my word for it, that's his own explanation, and it's abundantly obvious he was right. There simply isn't good faith among the far left. It's not a thing. They will twist and turn and contort and make that square peg fit the round hole.
He's also made a joke that has become an almost right of passage on the alt-right, which is to tell a woman they aren't at risk of rape because they are too ugly. In fact, in the Daily Wire piece that was posted about the Kavanaugh accusers awhile back, I briefly skimmed the comment section and found DOZENS of comments along the line of "there is no way these old hags were raped, looked at how unattractive they are".
He perfectly predicted the spin on that statement which is why he said it, which is that him saying "I wouldn't rape you" has essentially become the equivalent of him saying that he would. The pathological lies spread about anyone not considered a social justice advocate is pretty predictable at this point. They just HAVE to be evil amirite
I can't think of a single thing "I wouldn't even rape you" is supposed to mean as a response to someone talking about rape threats they recieve other than "you aren't attractive enough to bother raping". And that's exactly what I believe he was trying to convey. And I believe this because it's practically becoming a rallying cry in comment sections. Mind you, I have, in my personal life, been taken to task by girlfriends who are rape survivors for even SAYING the word rape or not telling them that a certain movie had a rape scene in it beforehand. And I understood why they were pissed afterwards. So I have very little sympathy for this kind of internet troll culture.
Yeah, that's pretty darned crappy as a comment. I believe in the past, I have heard comments on the fact that women who are seen as 'unattractive' by some men should be 'grateful' to be raped, as the implied comment is that they are unable to have sex any other way (Sometimes even the POLICE say this). Now I say this in an ironic tone, because, yeah, every woman looks forward to the day that a man finds her attractive enough to rape.
Never been a fan of Farrakhan myself. Anti-Semitism displays ignorance and bigotry no matter who expresses it. Being a supporter of black rights doesn't mean you're inherently free from any given form of bigotry. I think as Americans we tend to think of racism as a "white people thing," because racism from whites has caused so much more violence and discrimination in this country than racism from other races. But it's not a one-to-one thing. Bigotry is pretty universal, and it goes in lots of directions. Vladek Spiegalman, a Holocaust survivor whose life served as the basis for his son's graphic novel Maus, was not above making racist statements about blacks, much to his son and daughter-in-law's consternation.
As for the Twitter issue: I simply don't trust any private corporation to host a truly neutral free speech platform without any form of government oversight or limitations on its power. Alex Jones was one of the last people who deserved widespread attention (the man is a crackpot who encourages the harassment of the victims of gun violence, which I personally think should be illegal), but I don't think an unelected, for-profit entity like Twitter, whose only loyalty is to their own material interests, should make that decision.
I don't know where exactly the cutoff should be, but once a social media platform reaches a certain size, it's no longer just a company providing a service; it's a platform for free speech, and that company's actions become directly relevant to the public interest. There are valid reasons to ban an individual from a platform, but we need to make sure that banishment and demonetization are based on neutrally-enforced rules, and not on the whims of executives or the pressures of public outcry alone.
Oh, and I bring it up because my posts are about my topic, which is the mass political censorship by all the biggest tech giants according to their insane far left ideology and to the celebration of their political peers.
I agree with you about how much power Twitter should have to influence access to a free speech platform (little at most, and ideally none), but I fail to see how the occasional ban for a rule-breaking user who happens to be a conservative constitutes "mass political censorship," and I've seen zero evidence that the biggest tech giants (which ones?) subscribe to any "far left" ideas (which ones?).
In fact, I've seen the same things happen to liberals on Twitter. Right-wing Twitter trolls have successfully gotten their political enemies banned from the platform by organizing false reports en masse to Twitter authorities (you attack a liberal target until you provoke a response, then get your buddies to report that response so the target gets banned instead of you). Liberals have also been removed from the platform for strictly political reasons; Twitter bans are hardly exclusive to conservative figures.
He's also made a joke that has become an almost right of passage on the alt-right, which is to tell a woman they aren't at risk of rape because they are too ugly. In fact, in the Daily Wire piece that was posted about the Kavanaugh accusers awhile back, I briefly skimmed the comment section and found DOZENS of comments along the line of "there is no way these old hags were raped, looked at how unattractive they are".
He perfectly predicted the spin on that statement which is why he said it, which is that him saying "I wouldn't rape you" has essentially become the equivalent of him saying that he would. The pathological lies spread about anyone not considered a social justice advocate is pretty predictable at this point. They just HAVE to be evil amirite
I can't think of a single thing "I wouldn't even rape you" is supposed to mean as a response to someone talking about rape threats they recieve other than "you aren't attractive enough to bother raping".
How about, I don't know, exactly what it says without inserting your own spin and prejudice into it in order to turn it into the exact opposite of what it means.
Don't take my word for it, that's his own explanation, and it's abundantly obvious he was right. There simply isn't good faith among the far left. It's not a thing. They will twist and turn and contort and make that square peg fit the round hole.
I'll explain why: 1.) Saying "I wouldn't rape you" to anyone is a completely pointless comment. It should never need to be said. And 2.) Is that he didn't say "In wouldn't rape you", he said "I wouldn't EVEN rape you". He was using "even" as an adverb, and adding that word was meant to convey she wasn't WORTH raping, not that she didn't deserve to be raped or threatened with rape.
Comments
The further survival of the US government functioning at any level may REQUIRE at least an attempt at impeachment (otherwise it is basically a worthless provision), yet also may he a tactical impediment to removing him from office. The only way Trump can win reelection is a 100% fired-up base, because his base is all he has. Impeachment is exactly what he needs. Yet, on balance, it probably needs to be done just so there is SOME line in the sand against this kind of mind-boggling corruption.
Sometimes things that are legal are a lot worse.
Anyway while we're waiting on the whole thing we can review the past two years of investigation in summary:
Flynn/Papadopolous: Lying to the FBI.
Manafort/Gates: Financial crimes and tax stuff.
Cohen: Paying Stormy Daniels and some other woman.
Multiple potential meetings between the Trump Campaign and Russia were also brought up at different times by different people, but nothing ever came of most of them and the other ones we know about, like the Trump Tower meeting where damaging information on the Clintons was offered. Even if Trump then and there got a look at the entire cache of Podesta emails*, which of course there is zero evidence of, it wouldn't be a crime. What would be a crime is if they hadn't hacked it yet, and did so with help from the Trump admin, or the Trump admin directed the hack or directed its dissemination, a laughable scenario.
This story isn't relevant other than for background information on how the body politic works when it comes to foreign countries. The DNC and Ukraine were working together to sabotage Trump. Exchanging damaging information between countries and admins is not only not illegal, it's not uncommon.
* And I still maintain the leaking of the Podesta emails themselves were a valuable asset to the voters. Why anyone would want powerful government officials to manipulate the supposedly democratic institutions from behind the scenes is beyond me.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
*Republican President has an affair and also use campaign money to keep it quiet* "Meh, who cares!"
Andrew C. McCarthy: Why Trump is likely to be indicted by Manhattan US Attorney
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-c-mccarthy-why-trump-is-likely-to-be-indicted-by-manhattan-us-attorney?fbclid=IwAR3NnQaisSRfX5WunHr2H9f722S47LwbyvCoGKtI8pW3AESNKx0AFNuu5aAAnd mind you, this is FOX News running this story!
Why We Tweet to Trump – by Brian and Ed Krassenstein
https://hillreporter.com/why-we-tweet-to-trump-by-brian-and-ed-krassenstein-17279You may often find my tweets under the president’s. When the President Trump tweets something I disagree with or I feel is a skewed version of reality, I’m often there with a reply. Sometimes they are joined by followup tweets by my twin brother Ed Krassenstein as well. We’ve been doing this for almost two years now, with the exception of an 8 month break when Trump decided to circumvent the First Amendment and block us from viewing and responding to his tweets.
Some may call our actions pointless, others inflammatory, and some may even go as far as calling us “traitors,” “soy boys,” “fake news,” “cucks,” “beta males,” “libtards,” “snowflakes” and just about every other name in the book. Some people may say that we are tweeting because we are “grifters,” “paid George Soros trolls,” or even that our tweets are a means to somehow scam people. I’m here to tell you the real reason we tweet, and it’s simple: The truth!
More GOP Lawmakers Arrested For Sexual Misconduct In Bathrooms Than Trans People
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/04/more-gop-lawmakers-arrested-for-sexual-misconduct-in-bathrooms-than-trans-people/?fbclid=IwAR0B6T5KtkY4znJYsi1CBtFzXOBU5E8_Uw-gDeYmzLMz30V_JTdm823BlDcIt is Republican lawmakers, and not transgender people, who are the real danger in public bathrooms.
Dead State, Gay Star News, and Friendly Atheist are all reporting that Republican politicians are more of a menace in public bathrooms than transgender people.
The reports are based on an earlier report issued by Dan Avery at News Now Next debunking the myth that transgender people using public bathrooms pose some sort of threat.
The multiple reports indicate that no transgender individual has ever been arrested for sexual misconduct in a public bathroom, while at least three Republican lawmakers have been arrested for sexual misconduct in a public bathroom.
Former U.S. Senator Larry Craig, Florida state Representative Bob Allen, and Mississippi Congressman Jon Hinson were all Republican lawmakers, and were all arrested for sexual misconduct in a public bathroom.
"What they're trying to do is trip somebody up to feed their dying narrative in the same way they tripped up Bill Clinton. He didn't go down for anything he did wrong politically or anything he did wrong during the scope of the investigation. They got him lying about Lewinsky. The investigation was about Whitewater. This is the kind of witch hunting we're likely to see again, and it will all be just as unrelated to the wild excuses made to get us to this point."
I still have sympathy for Clinton in that regard, if not for other things.
That's just how special councils work though. Unlimited investigations and unlimited prosecutions, the main issue at hand usually not being what matters in the end. Which is why Comey was so desperate for one.
I have a fun fact for ya though, big name left wing activist organizations that survive to this day were founded on the idea that Clinton's affair and subsequent lies and impeachment proceedings were all an irrelevant distraction. I think it can be accurately pointed out your comment has truth when also applied in reverse.
https://front.moveon.org/a-short-history/
If you would have told me the free internet would be destroyed by extreme left wing puritans a few years ago, I would have laughed at you. It is increasingly apparent that is the case.
And in other news, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatens to abuse her position because she gets made fun of. We're all outraged, right? This is the beginning of fascism and a threat to the republic and all that, right? Right.
What civic issues does he personally address that make what he talks about political?
A lot of people love to hide behind the political label since they think it gives them immunity from this type of persecution. There are terms and services a person needs to follow when using online services. Nothing is preventing this guy from starting up his own website and using PayPal or even direct deposits to get donations.
Moreover, saying Google, Youtube, and Twitter should be considered public utilities is a valid position, maybe even a correct position. The problem is that it's a regulation the Republican Party is explicitly against. In fact, it seems the only reason this about-face on regulation of businesses in ANY way had taken place is because of tech companies exercising the same rights as bigoted Colorado bakers. I thought this was the libertarian paradise the conservative movement has been pushing for since before I was in diapers. NOW we are concerned about refusal of service to certain people?? Since when?? Do conservatives want businesses to be regulated or not?? Do they want business to be able to exercise their right to refuse service to customers, or don't they?? Is the "free market" now a piecemeal idea that only applies to people with "strongly held religious beliefs" and not possible political or public relations positions of large corporations?? This is the world the right-wing view of the business world has created since Reagan. It's here. This is the result.
"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese."
"The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations."
"The episode upset us a little because the poor man, apart from being homosexual and a first-rate bore, had been very nice to us, giving us 10 soles each, bringing our total to 479 for me and 163 1/2 to Alberto."
"The first person we hit on was the mayor, someone called Cohen; we had heard a lot about him, that he was Jewish as far as money was concerned but a good sort."
This quotes looks much more an quote from a white supremacist TBH.
But of course, when you are right wing, you can be married to a castiza and won a democratic election in a white minority country where the majority of "whites" are just light brown mestizos with non whites on his family and real whites without non whites on his lineage are a tinny minority. Can accept a lot of Venezuelans refugees like Bolsonaro did. Still accused of being racist by angry words out of contest, jokes and by being against affirmative action to protect the majority from the minority.
Good to mention, a lot of Venezuelans are fleeing to French Guiana. Wasen't colonialism supposed to be bad and socialism good??? Why Venezuelans rather live on a French territory instead of a socialist paradise?
Guyana to create settlement for Venezuelan refugees
https://www.upi.com/Guyana-to-create-settlement-for-Venezuelan-refugees/3271533082115/
Also i'd love to hear what party I should support for free speech rights. The one that actively celebrates and is the cause of the crushing corporate boot on the neck of everyone who disagrees with them? Great idea. That name drop was intentional, but you would be mistaken if you think that's the only racist on the left who gets a pass because they are on the left.
Do you think Silicon Valley would punish someone on the left who is racist as much as they punish a critic of the left who is absolutely not racist? You would be mistaken!
The real crime, as always, is political affiliation.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/411950-twitter-says-it-wont-suspend-louis-farrakhan-over-tweet-comparing-jews-to
""Twitter's standards are an utterly inconsistent joke," conservative commentator Ben Shapiro tweeted."
Just like the right! Remind me again who backed people like Louie Gohmert, who ranted in such an anti-semitic way that FOX Business had to apologize on air? How about Roy Moore? Who backed him? Who doesn't care when Donald Trump has affairs and sleeps around, but cared very much when it was Bill Clinton? I mean, you said yourself @WarChiefZeke that you don't care about Trump's having affairs and paying off women to keep silent.
Yes, there are hypocrites everywhere. I don't support Louis Farrakhan, and I think he should have been banned from Twitter. But don't claim to be free of Hypocrisy yourself if you cared that Bill Clinton had an affair and don't care about Trump doing the same. And multiple times.
Incidentally, in other news...
Is Fraud Part of the Trump Organization’s Business Model?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/swamp-chronicles/is-fraud-part-of-the-trump-organizations-business-model?fbclid=IwAR3xINXJaRLRAaJj8yVDKKVHZm3a35dS2gm2h91Y-XvoUbDb-R5HZMmCvqoA new investigation shows a pattern in different projects around the country and the world.
Anti-LGBTQ Activist Admits Bathroom Predator Myth Was 'Concocted' As Cover for Transphobic Hate
https://www.intomore.com/impact/anti-lgbtq-activist-admits-bathroom-predator-myth-was-concocted-as-cover-for-transphobic-hate?fbclid=IwAR2G8dns9KvwOclAYEcUoK-6DW314CAPOIjYUgac3GNEz6mGnI1vDh0SavEAs it turns out, transphobic messaging like this — which links access to public bathrooms and locker rooms to the threat posed by sexual offenders — was “concocted,” according to a Massachusetts-based “pro-family activism” organization Mass Resistance. Its president, Brian Camenker, is believed to be the author of the group’s November 9th “Election Analysis” post, in which the organization (which is designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center) admitted its scary campaign to repeal a statewide Massachusetts nondiscrimination law was a lie.
“Our side concocted the ‘bathroom safety’ male predator argument as a way to avoid an uncomfortable battle over LGBT ideology, and still fire up people’s emotions. It worked in Houston a few years ago,” reads the post.
Okay I looked up who Louie Gohmert was and what he said, which was this:
“George Soros is supposed to be Jewish, but you wouldn’t know it from the damage he’s inflicted on Israel and the fact that he turned on fellow Jews and helped take the property that they owned,” Gohmert said Thursday on “Varney & Co.,” hosted by Stuart Varney."
That doesn't sound anti-semitic to me at all. It's a rhetorically loaded, and factually inaccurate, reference to real events, but where is the Jewish hatred?
I'm not sure this is relevant to the politically motivated de-platforming by the world's biggest tech giants acting in collaboration though.
But this is, Farrakhan has also used the phrase SATANIC JEW in a tweet and he's still on the platform.
SATANIC JEW
AND HE'S STILL ON TWITTER
If you go back and actually research what any of the dozens and dozens of popular right wing voices have been permanently kicked for you will be amazed at the sheer gall of them to not say this isn't all politics. Every bit of it.
Sargon of Akkad has been long banished from Twitter like so many others. Never made a hateful statement about any group of people in his life but makes a living on pointing out the bad policies of the left.
[Irrelevant rant]
And man, what a news media we have. Farrakhan and Obama were hanging out together all the way back in 2005? And the media chose to remain silent until after he left office? And the pictures were suppressed by Congress because they didn't want it to harm his chances of President? I'm sure the entire DC press corps missing that one, pure coincidence!
Keith Ellison, that lovable DNC co-chair, is also an old buddy of his and past associate with the same organization. Also incredible how they fail to mention that as well!
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/27/obama-farrakhan-photo-dershowitz-says-he-would-not-support-him-if-he-knew-about-picture
This isn't going away. Linda Sarsour is still a Women's March Leader. Bigotry is a-okay on the left, provided you take some small time away from Naming The Jew to say F*** Drumpf.
[/Irrelevant rant]
As the fact-checking website Snopes wrote in its piece debunking the myth, “The simple truth is that George Soros neither said nor did anything resembling what he has been accused of. In no sense was Soros, who turned 14 years old not long after the Germans occupied Hungary in 1944, a ‘Nazi collaborator.’ At no time did he confiscate (or help confiscate) the property of Jews, ‘identify Jews to the Nazis,’ or help ‘round up’ people targeted for deportation or extermination by the Germans (to answer just a few of the accusations leveled against him).”
So, there you go. Clear anti-semitism against George Soros.You're welcome.
And Carl Benjamin (Aka Sargon of Akkad) was banned from Twitter before, when he sent Interracial Gay Porn to members of the Alt-Right.
"Sargon had been suspended from Twitter before, including one instance where he was sending interacial gay porn to members of the Alt-Right, but this time Twitter offered no leeway in lifting the suspension."
It sounds like he did something else, and having already trespassed on the rules at least once, this time they banned him for good.
Lol Sargon deserved to be suspended for that but man that was funny. I actually remember that. That was temporary however and no reason to my knowledge was ever given for why he was kicked off the platform permanently later on.
He should have just posted multiple racist screeds, then he'd never even receive a suspension let alone a perma-ban.
Oh, and I bring it up because my posts are about my topic, which is the mass political censorship by all the biggest tech giants according to their insane far left ideology and to the celebration of their political peers.
And, what, supposedly, is wrong with Keith Ellison? Are you ranting about the claim that said Keith Ellison had said that white men should be in chains? (BTW: He never said that.)
Don't take my word for it, that's his own explanation, and it's abundantly obvious he was right. There simply isn't good faith among the far left. It's not a thing. They will twist and turn and contort and make that square peg fit the round hole.
1:00 in
As for the Twitter issue: I simply don't trust any private corporation to host a truly neutral free speech platform without any form of government oversight or limitations on its power. Alex Jones was one of the last people who deserved widespread attention (the man is a crackpot who encourages the harassment of the victims of gun violence, which I personally think should be illegal), but I don't think an unelected, for-profit entity like Twitter, whose only loyalty is to their own material interests, should make that decision.
I don't know where exactly the cutoff should be, but once a social media platform reaches a certain size, it's no longer just a company providing a service; it's a platform for free speech, and that company's actions become directly relevant to the public interest. There are valid reasons to ban an individual from a platform, but we need to make sure that banishment and demonetization are based on neutrally-enforced rules, and not on the whims of executives or the pressures of public outcry alone. I agree with you about how much power Twitter should have to influence access to a free speech platform (little at most, and ideally none), but I fail to see how the occasional ban for a rule-breaking user who happens to be a conservative constitutes "mass political censorship," and I've seen zero evidence that the biggest tech giants (which ones?) subscribe to any "far left" ideas (which ones?).
In fact, I've seen the same things happen to liberals on Twitter. Right-wing Twitter trolls have successfully gotten their political enemies banned from the platform by organizing false reports en masse to Twitter authorities (you attack a liberal target until you provoke a response, then get your buddies to report that response so the target gets banned instead of you). Liberals have also been removed from the platform for strictly political reasons; Twitter bans are hardly exclusive to conservative figures.