Total posts: 4,222
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine a world where a business (that is open to the public) can choose to refuse service to Jewish customers. Imagine a world where a business (that is open to the public) can choose to refuse service to Black customers. Imagine a world where a business (that is open to the public) can choose to refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers.
All of this is already illegal. And it is, in no way, analogous to what happened to parlor.
U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information. [LINK]CREED.
lol, no one is being punished for their creed. Parlor is being punished for breaching the terms of service with other companies. That has nothing to do with creed. People are spreading insane lies, calling for murder, terrorism and treason and parlor allows it. There is absolutely no way that this a protected class.
If you want to capriciously select your customers, start a PRIVATE CLUB.
every business has the right to select their customers. That is how a free market works. They are free to do business with whoever they want. The only restrictions on this is that they cannot refuse service based on one of the protected classes. And since that has not happened, everything is working exactly the way conservatives are argued it should.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
..b.parlor's platform is on Apple's platform.In Apple's case, but this is not true for Google or Twitter.
Parlor was on the google play store. So they were on google's platform and breaking Google's rules. Did Twitter ban Parlor? I'm not sure that makes any sense.
Parlor had to agree to Apple's terms of service in order to be on their app store. they violated those terms of service and got kicked out. It is very simple.It's very hypocritical. Apple did not sanction others doing the same thing or worse.
I agree. They should have cracked down on this bullshit a long time ago. But they really, really didn't want to have to get involved. They don't want to be stuck in the middle of politics. They try to avoid actually having to crack down on anything. It is only the overwhelming severity of what parlor and the loonies on the right are doing that is forcing them to take action.
She spent years convincing millions of people that trump was an illigetimate president
I have no idea what she did for years. So if she was spreading lies that is a problem. But she is a comedian, not the sitting president of the united states. They have very, very different levels of responsibility. Not to mention, trump took an oath to uphold the constitution (which he very much broke). Comedians do not.
Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies.This is your opinion, not fact.
no, it is very much fact. Dozens of court cases, investigations by multiple law enforcement agencies and by every contested state. Every single time the outcome has been the same, no significant amounts of fraud. Yet the president continues to lie about it.
And the MSM is guilty of this every day. Remember Russia, Russia, Russia? Or quid pro quo? Or collusion? Delusional conspiracies all.
i agree that not all the reporting was accurate. But much of it was. Trump and his campaign did communicate with the russians and lie about it. There was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. These things happened. That is indisputable by anyone fully connected to reality.
Your spin is not what happened. Griffin was on SNL, she was not alone, and she was a constant abuser of Trump, from the day he announced his run for the presidency. 78 million American citizens disagree with your opinion of lies and conspiracy theories.
it's not a crime to make fun of or criticize a politician. It is a large part of the job of a comedian. It most certainly is a crime for a president to organize an armed attack on democracy and the US government.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
but the automobile companies have no way they could have known or prevented that since they have no ongoing ownership of, or relationship to, their car.Any vehicle with an onstar system can be remotely disabled by the manufacturer.
Which can only be used at the owner's request or at the request of law enforcement. Specifically, if the car has been stolen. But the car itself has no real relationship to GM. It has been purchased by the owner. Parlor hasn't been purchased from google. Parlor is paying Amazon/google for the right to put their app on Google/Amazon's platform. It is not even close to being the same relationship as buying a car.
Other than that, Amazon doesn't have to host any app they don't want to.Apparently. Too big to jail.
You didn't directly answer my question, but that comment kind of does. So you are saying you want the government to have the power to force companies to do business with other people/companies against their will? Is that what you are saying? because you appear to want the Chinese government system.
Angry conservatives should abandon all AMAZON hosted apps and services immediately.
that is certainly your right to do so. But try not to be such a hypocrite about it. IE saying how great free market capitalism is, then crying about how terrible free market capitalism is when it reigns in the crazy people you like.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
States the EU’s per capita income is 25000 euros a year, or roughly $30000.
that says GDP per capita. There is nothing on there that says anything about income per capita. Those are 2 very different things.
States that the GDP per capita in the US is roughly $65,000 a year.
in your previous post you were talking about income, now you have switched to GDP per capita. Do you understand those aren't the same thing?
this isn't a good way to determine the health of an economy. Because the vast majority of that wealth you are describing ends up in the hands of a very tiny fraction of people.This applies to both Europe and the US. Wealth distribution is always skewed to the right in countries.
yes, but in Europe, like most modern countries, there are lots of social programs in place to help smooth the rough edges a bit. For example, most of Europe doesn't have hundreds of thousands of people going bankrupt because of medical costs. The US very much does.
I think there are 3 countries with a per capita income higher than America in
now you are back to talking about income again. Which are we talking about, GDP or income?
If someone agrees with the liberals on a majority of social and economic issues, then they are a liberal.
that is exactly your problem. You are basing what a "liberal" is solely on what American "liberals" and "conservatives" think. In most of the modern world an American "conservative" is an off the scale lunatic. No conservative would dare advocate for the insanity that the american right does because they would be run out of office. It isn't that conservatives in europe are liberal. it is that conservatives in the US are nuts.
Nothing wrong with claiming your a liberal, but be honest. If you claim to be a liberal but believe the following:
your list is kind of messed up and shows a very flawed understanding of what "conservative" means. You are mixing and matching very different things and assuming they are all "conservative".
-Are pro life
this is a very abstract description. There are lots people who would love universal health care but also have concerns about abortion.
-Are pro war
Do you think all conservatives love war? that's messed up.
-Want to repeal the income tax
who the hell would want that? That is exactly the kind of off the scale crazy I was talking about.
-Are pro AK47 and oppose background checks
this is some more off the scale crazy. The large majority of americans support background checks. Including alot of "conservatives".
-Don’t believe in white privilege
you are confusing "conservative" with "racist". Although I agree there is alot of overlap.
-And want to close American borders
lol, this is absolutely not a conservative value. Republicans have been pushing for globalist trade policies to exploit migrant labor for decades. "conservative" leadership absolutely does not want this.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes. Without automobiles (and or water and or electricity), these dirty rotten scoundrels would have never been able to make it to the Capital Building to perform their evil deeds.
but the automobile companies have no way they could have known or prevented that since they have no ongoing ownership of, or relationship to, their car. Google very much does have an ongoing ownership of and relationship to their own app store. So the comparison doesn't make sense.
The "problem" is with AMAZON canceling their hosting without 30 days notice.
If there is a contract in place requiring 30 days notice, then that should be respected. I don't know the nature of their contracts though.
Other than that, Amazon doesn't have to host any app they don't want to. They are a private company with the right to host, or not, any apps they want. They are making a business decision. IE they are not being paid by parlor, so they are losing money. They believe this is outweighed by the potential costs of continuing to do business with parlor. So the thing you are objecting to, is capitalism.
Do you believe the government should have the power to compel a company to do business with someone they don't want to? That seems to be something conservatives would argue strongly against.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
The problem I think everyone is overlooking is that Twitter is not just banning Parler for term violations on their(Twitter/Apple) platforms, but banning Parler for what they see as "violations" on Parler's own platform.
but parlor's platform is on Apple's platform. Think of it like if you are renting a shop space in a mall. Then that shop commits crimes. These crimes obviously violate the lease the shop owner signed. So the mall kicks them out.
Parlor had to agree to Apple's terms of service in order to be on their app store. they violated those terms of service and got kicked out. It is very simple.
Not by you. You didn't think it was incitement to violence. Why?
I didn't even know this happened until I looked it up a few minutes ago. I agree what she did was wrong.
But she didn't spend months convincing millions of people that trump had stolen an election and was literally going to destroy the country. Then organized a riot in the capitol where people actually tried to carry out a murder of the president. Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies. He did organize a riot, get them riled up then they did attack democracy where they tried to murder government officials.
Let's not pretend 1 tweet from a comedian and months of lies and conspiracy theories from the sitting president of the united states are the same thing.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
their issue is their own stupidity. they didn't have malicious intent for the sake of malicious intent. all that line of thinking, i confess, makes me think of them as less culpable than they could otherwise be thought of.
I suppose this is true to an extent. But not a significant extent. They are choosing to believe nonsense, but they are still rational adults. IE not insane. they know right from wrong. They know what the law is. They know that attacking democracy or kidnapping government officials is wrong and very illegal.
The fact that they chose to believe the nonsense isn't much of a defense. If someone murders their child because they dishonored the family, this is something that some cultures/religions say is severely punishable. Those beliefs do not excuse a murder. Similarly, choosing to be delusional does not reduce the magnitude of your crimes.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm pretty certain at least some of the evil parler users also drive evil automobiles.
I never questioned that. I asked if these products were used to spread their sedition. But automobiles are obviously nothing like the google play store. A car is not an active service. It is a specific item which is sold and then Ford (or whoever) has no knowledge or connection to what it is used for. Google can see the treason these people are spreading using their product. The playstore is an active service with a contract apps like parlor agree to. When parlor breaks that contract (by allowing treason and sedition) then google is perfectly within their rights to revoke parlor's access to their play store.
Would you call the picture of Kathy Griffin holding up the severed head of the sitting president "sedition"?
It is obviously inappropriate. A quick google search says she was flagged by twitter, had a federal investigation of her and lost mutliple jobs because of it. So your example is of another person who did something inappropriate and who was also punished for it.
I'm pretty certain at least some of the evil parler users also use evil water and evil electricity.
same answer as the car example.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Shouldn't we cut the phones, water, and electricity to all accused criminals?
are criminals using water and electricity to spread treason and sedition? I don't think so.
Shouldn't VW, Toyota, GM, and Ford be able to disable their vehicles if they're being used by accused criminals?
again, cars aren't being used to spread treason. Parlor is.
THE ENTIRE POINT OF SECTION 230 IS TO MAKE THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR WORDS AND NOT THE HOST.
why are you bringing up section 230? This isn't a government rule or law. This is exactly what the right has always said they want. The free market making decisions. It has decided sedition is bad. It has decided not to allow their products to be used to spread sedition. You got exactly what you asked for.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Calling for anyone to be killed, as long as you don’t kill them or claim that you will kill them, is protected by the first amendment since it gives you the right to hate someone to the point of wishing them dead.
sedition is not protected speech. Calling for an attack on the US capitol and/or the murder of congressmen/senators because they won't overturn the results of an election is sedition.
They want companies to be able free to do what they want. They want the free market to decide.The free market means customers. They can choose to buy Parler or not. The option shouldn’t be taken away.
The free market means companies have the power to do what they need to do in order to appeal to their customers. If they aren't allowed to do what their customers want, then that isn't a free market. These companies know that allowing their platforms to be used by terrorists, traitors and murders is highly damaging to their brand. Since parlor is allowing these horrible people to spread lies and violence, Google and the other platforms had every reason to take down their app.
But i understand. Conservatives love to pretend they have actual convictions right up to the point those convictions are inconvenient and then they quickly shit all over those same convictions they pretended to have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Remember the Democrats said the same thing about the phone call.
Trump tried to use the office of the president to get a foreign power to intervene in a US election. that is absolutely impeachable. And he was impeached for it. Actually, this is sort of just an extension of it I suppose. His dirty tricks (like extorting foreign powers) couldn't steal the election, so now he tried to use a violent insurrection to steal it.
Where they lose credibility is when we see that for them, literally anything Trump does is "impeachable".
no, just when he uses the power of the presidency to try to destroy american democracy.
They know in the next 4 years, the truth about the election rigging will see sunlight.
it already has. There wasn't any. Everyone already knows that. Delusional people just choose to pretend like they don;t.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
In Europe, if even conservatives back UHC, are pro choice, and support gun control, how are they any different from liberals?
You sound like someone who has never spoken to anyone who wasn't american. You can't fathom how people from other places function. It isn't conservatives in the rest of the world that are strange. America's right is insanely right wing by the standards of most developed countries.
So your question is a bit like Nazi's asking how can anyone be right wing if they don't want to exterminate the jews. They just can't fathom how you could want anything else.
Here in America, the conservatives actually believe in fiscally conservative policies
sure they do.... and that is why a republican president just ran historic deficits for his entire term and his republican party didn't complain about it at all.
it allowed America to have double the per capita income of the EU and 50 percent more than Canada.
A couple of things.
1) where did you get your numbers? I'm not sure they are accurate.
2) this isn't a good way to determine the health of an economy. Because the vast majority of that wealth you are describing ends up in the hands of a very tiny fraction of people.
3) Also, by that measure there are at least a dozen countries better than the US, like Luxembourg, Switzerland and Norway.
In Europe, your either liberal or conservative in name only (with an exception to immigration).
Ahh, that's the spirit. If someone doesn't believe the same thing as you, they must be fake or less than you. Because only far right wing loonies could possibly be right....
So, European conservatives are diet liberals.
nope. American conservatives are just off the scale right wing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
In the 01/11/2021 "impeachment," show me when phases [1] and [2] were conducted, per the procedure.
It took me like 10 seconds of reading to find why your question is silly. Here is a quote from that document
"The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases:"
This is a loose guideline for how to proceed. These are not rules. There is nothing that says they must do it this way. It is just a framework they can use. The constitution gives congress alot of latitude to carry out an impeachment proceeding however they want.
So why would it matter whether or not they followed a document that is just a suggestion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Who says? DOJ policy? pfffttt. The Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 7, read correctly, says otherwise.
I agree that the DOJ policy is stupid. But alas, the people who decide to press criminal charges think otherwise.
Lying may be offensive, but it's not illegal.
depends on context.
not illegal if the statements made are true
trump has said things that are true. However basically everything he has said about the 2020 election is not.
Incitement to riot is not proven, merely charged, and not criminally, therefore, though some may have been offended, it's not a crime until convicted.
please refer back to the title of this thread. No one here is talking about a criminal offense. We are talking about impeachment. Those are very different things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Peace and patriotism are not offensive, period.
no one ever said they were. But lies, slander and incitement to riot very much are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if liberals were serious about what they're talkin about with this incitement stuff... they'd be talkin about criminal penalties against trump.
two things:
1) he is a sitting president. So he can't be charged with a crime right now. It is entirely possible that charges are waiting for him on the 21st for his numerous crimes. Although it is still unclear if any prosecutor would choose to go after a former president. It would be highly unusual.
2) that is up to a prosecutor, not congress. Congress doesn't decide on criminal charges. So saying why aren't liberals talking about criminal charges is pointless, because they have nothing to do with criminal charges.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well, that is why Trump keeps the book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order next to his bed.
I have never claimed that trump idolizes and consciously follows in Hitler's footsteps. But a large chunk of the way he acts, things he does and things he says fit very well into the play book of fascists like Hitler or Mussolini.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
According to the OED, "fight" as a verb has a variety of definitions. The obvious definition Trump used must align with the later commentary of "peaceful" and "patriotic," let alone "voices." A fight by voices to sustain peace and patriotism. What, you automatically go to a physical battle as the defining meaning that Trump "engaged in insurrection" by inciting a crowd to violence? Uh-huh. Is that why the first person arrested in this incident is a liberal activist, who apparently, by attending the speech, displayed no ability of self control to follow Trump's advice to be "peaceful and patriotic?" Oops.
what you are doing is what trump wants you to do. He says contradictory things all the time. It's part of his basic speech pattern. Whether it is an intentional defense mechanism to avoid legal repercussions or he just is all over the place, I couldn't say.
But if you tell someone to commit a crime, then say "but don't commit any crimes", then repeat that you want them to commit a crime, you are still guilty of telling them to commit the crime. He told these people they were in mortal danger. That they personally had to do something to stop it. The fact that he contradicts himself constantly doesn't remove his culpability.
You are choosing to ignore that he incited them to violence. Throwing in a line here and there saying the opposite of what your overall message is, doesn't change anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If there was no evidence - what did the FBI and the Justice Department investigate?
They investigated the claims people made. They found no evidence there was any significant amount of fraud.
Did the elected officials investigate every claim of fraud?
Georgia state officials confirmed they investigated every claim. Other states officials investigated the claims in their states as well.
Of course I know what evidence is - it seems you still do not.
i don't think that's true. You said an email talking about fraud would be evidence fraud happened, but that obviously isn't true. That would just be evidence they talked about it. Evidence it happened would be tampered ballots, tampered voting machines etc.
An email giving the ok for fraud to take place is evidence in a situation where fraud is alleged.
ok. but if there is no evidence fraud actually happened, it is evidence of nothing. And there is no evidence that significant fraud actually happened.
Does it prove evidence took placed? Not by itself. But it attaches motive or at least a person to the fraud.
true. and it would be useful in confirming the how and why fraud happened. But since there isn't any evidence that it did, it's kind of irrelevant.
There was evidence of ballots being found in bins
All votes are put in bins. they get transported and/or stored that way. If there wasn't evidence ballots got put in bins that would be weird.
There was evidence of people voting twice.
please provide a source for that. Such claims would have been investigated and disproven. So if you have actual information that says otherwise, i would like to see it. If you don't have a source for it, then it is just more speculation and conspiracy theory.
There was evidence of reviewers not being permitted to peruse the votes.
why would they be allowed to do that? People can't just "peruse the votes". It sounds like people tried to do something against the rules and were prevented from doing so.
There was hundreds of affidavits. An affidavit is evidence. Do you deny this? A sworn statement is evidence.
sort of. You can sign an affidavit for literally anything. You could say you were abducted by aliens and sign an affidavit. It doesn't mean it's true. And unless the statement in the affidavit is repeated under oath (like in court) it is extremely unlikely there would be any consequences for lying in an affidavit. Also, many of those people were just wrong about what they saw. IE they saw someone moving ballots and thought it was "secret ballots", when in reality it was just the normal process. And there is no punishment at all for being wrong about what you said you saw or heard. So those affidavits don't mean much. Especially since the things they are claiming have no other evidence to support them.
Having a case tossed out does not imply or infer that there is no evidence to investigate.
true. cases can certain be tossed out on procedural grounds. However many of the judges expressly stated when they threw out trumps cases it was for lack of evidence.
You prove my point. the case was not a joke. After all, if it was just a joke, the Supreme Court would not have even entertained it being listed. The fact that it was listed demonstrates the court itself did not consider it a joke.
I'm not sure what you mean? They refused to even hear the case. What more could they have done to show it was rediculous?
Yet it like the other cases never got to giving evidence. No evidence was ever tested in court.
incorrect. Texas wasn't bringing any new allegations of fraud. They were repeating some which had already been tested in other courts. So their claims had been tested already, and thrown out.
This does not mean there no evidence - because we know there was evidence - every affidavit is evidence.
by that standard we have evidence that the loch ness monster and big foot are real.... We have "evidence" for any crazy claim made by any person. If your standard of evidence is someone said something happened, but there is zero evidence to support it, then you are primed to believe anything.
My point is that there was and remains evidence - but that evidence has never been tested by a court of law.
you've yet to show that there is any actual evidence. You have established that people say they saw things. But when put before a judge those people's testimony fell apart. You claim there is other evidence, but have failed to provide any. So at the moment, you are claiming there is all this evidence, but you don't actually have any. Just like trump.
And the LEFT and the Media to continue the lie to say there was no evidence is misleading and a misunderstanding of what evidence is.
there is no actual evidence that any significant fraud occurred. There are statements made by people who said they saw stuff, but when challenged most of them weren't sure what they'd seen, hadn't understood what they'd seen, or couldn't back it up in any way at all.
And this misunderstanding by the LEft and by the media -- makes all of them somewhat culpable.
If accurately describing reality makes you culpable for what delusional people do when their delusions are challenged, then the world is seriously screwed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I never said mass fraud did happen. I said the Left lied about there being no evidence. These are two separate things. Do you even know what "evidence" is?
Yes I do. And if there were evidence, why would every single one of trumps lawsuits have been tossed out? If there were evidence, then why did the FBI and trump's Justice department confirm they had investigated and could find no evidence. Why did the elections officials in the contested states confirm they investigated every claim of fraud and could find no evidence.
Do you know what evidence is?
To be perfectly honest, unless the Trump campaign were able to find a smoking gun - such as an email from Biden or some member of the democrats saying they okayed the fraud, then the Left would never agree there was any evidence. And if they Trump party did find such an email - then the Left would accuse the Trump campaign of planting it.
Again, i'm not sure you know what evidence is. An email saying fraud is good is not evidence fraud happened. Evidence fraud happened would be actual evidence fraud happened. You know, tampered ballots etc. But all those claims got investigated and no evidence for them could be found.
But just for the record, did court even hear the evidence or as you fabricate throw it out - or did they hear legal arguments and decide that there was not sufficient reason to look at any of the so called evidence?
If they threw the case out before examining it thoroughly it is because they didn't have sufficient evidence or even a real case to investigate. The trump lawyers started every case they could think of, some of them didn't even make sense and got tossed out because they obviously didn't make sense.
If you think valid cases got thrown out, please specify precisely which cases those were.
At least one major case was thrown out before any evidence was produced - because the Supreme Court decided the party bringing the application DID Not have standing. This is legal argument - not throwing evidence out.
that case was a complete joke. Literally everyone knew the supreme court couldn't possibly have agreed with it. Here is a video breaking down all the ways the case was ridiculous made by a lawyer.
But i will break it down to 2 main points as to why bringing up this case is silly:
1) everything the state of texas was alleging, either already had been tested in court and thrown out, or could easily be tested by a suit in that state. There was no reason for texas to sue at all.
2) Texas has absolutely no standing to bring a suit against another state's election. Even if Texas' case had merit (which it didn't) the supreme court still couldn't hear it. Each state essentially runs their own elections. One state cannot sue another state over their election. They don't have standing. If someone thinks something was done wrong they need to sue in the state the issue happened in. Another state can't sue over it.
Basically, Texas' lawsuit was a political stunt that literally no one who knows anything about the law or elections thought was going to go anywhere. That includes Texas' attorney general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If they had not lied about the fact that there was evidence about a mass fraud then those who knew that such evidence was real would not have felt so threatened.
lol, so "the left" says fraud didn't happen. Which is backed up by everyone who has actually looked into it. so clearly "the left" is to blame for psychotic people attacking democracy for daring to describe a reality they don't want to hear.
When the Left and the media denied the reality of the evidence - then it meant that unless good people did something about it - then evil would win.
what else can "the left" possibly do? there is no evidence. Court case after court case has been thrown out because trump's lawyers couldn't find any evidence. Trump's own justice department as well as the FBI have confirmed they can't find any evidence either. Should the left go along with obvious lies to protect the feelings of delusional people?
I think Trump being impeached is a last effort ditch by Pelosi to try and destroy the man who continues to make her look like a fool.
no. It is an attempt to prove that actions, even Trump's, have consequences. You can't incite an attack on the US government and get away scot-free. He attempted to overthrow the results of a democratic election in order to cling to power. His followers attacked the US capitol and murdered a police officer to try to help him do it. Trump needs to be punished for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
That violates his oath of office. And is a hair short of treason.And if that democracy is corrupt? Does the insurrection violate the oath of his office?
i'm not sure i know what you mean by "democracy is corrupt". that could mean alot of things. but generally speaking, yes, it absolutely violates his oath of office.
except it has been by every single court and law enforcement agency that has looked at this. And that is alot of courts and law enforcement agencies.Which ones?
off the top of my head, the courts in every contested state in the dozens of lawsuits (none of which came up with actual evidence of any sort of crime or fraud). the FBI and the US justice department.
So? How did he incite this? Did he encourage armed conflict?
yes.
And if so, where in the transcript is this explicitly stated?
you don't need to explicitly confess something to be guilty of it. If a mob boss tells his hit man to take care of a guy and then the hit man goes out and kills him, the mob boss ordered the murder even though he didn't say the words "go commit a murder".
According to you and those of your ilk, he's been lying since he was elected.
hundreds and hundreds of times, yes that is very well established.
If lies cause attacks, and we control for this, why was this the only "attack" he incited?
it's not. he has incited attacks before. this example is just far more direct and egregious.
Why weren't all of his supporters implicated in the instigation of this "terrorist attack"?
The FBI is hunting down the people who engaged in this attack as we speak.
It's nonsense like this, and the regurgitation through sheepish devotees of "the LEFT," that gives birth to contrarians like the Donald.
ahh yes. punishing someone for inciting an attack on the US government in nonsense. If this isn't impeachable, literally nothing is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
so if someone tells a crowd to do something about injustice, and tot take back the country with strength.... you are responsible for inciting a riot if that crowd turns riotous?
he spent months getting them fired up on lies. he convinced them the election was stolen. he convinced them that they personally had to do something to stop it. He told them to assemble on that specific day in that specific place where the results of the election would confirm he lost. He told them to march there and take action. His associates told them they needed to use violence (a trial by combat).
Well they listened. they believed his lies. They believed he really won and it was stolen. They believed that pence could do something about it and was refusing (he couldn't). They listened when he told them to gather there are march on the capitol. They listened when they were told they had to personally do something to stop the election results. They listened when they were told violence was needed.
And we all saw the results. Trump is guilty of inciting an attack on the US government and on democracy. He deserves to be impeached. No one has ever deserved it more.
When a mob boss tells his hitman to "take care of a guy", we don't say "well he didn't explicitly say to murder him". If that was the level of proof necessary then no high level mobster would ever be convicted of anything. Trump did incite them to attack the capitol, in the same way a mob boss gives orders without explicitly saying the crime he wants them to commit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
of course. he incited an insurrection against democracy.So?
That violates his oath of office. And is a hair short of treason.
He has been feeding them a pack of lies for months about he won in a landslide but it was secretly stolen.This has not been confirmed.
except it has been by every single court and law enforcement agency that has looked at this. And that is alot of courts and law enforcement agencies.
His personal attorney told them that same morning they needed a trial by combat.Did the State choose a champion? Was the The Donald clad in armor? No? Then this is irrelevant, albeit hilarious.
no, his supporters picked up guns, spears and pipe bombs etc. and led an armed assault on the capitol resulting in the deaths of several people.
And that doesn't even get into his actions during the riot. He reportedly resisted calling in the national guard and pence needed to do it.Because they were invited and let in.
what? there is tons of footage of police being attacked by the insurrectionists. Once they had already breached the building the police pulled back to defend the people inside the building.
He failed to make a statement for hours while people were dying.So?
he incited an insurrection against the US government. His actions as that violent insurrection were being carried out are important. He did nothing to stop it for hours. And even then egged them on by repeating the lies which triggered the attack in the 1st place.
When he finally did make a statement, he repeated all the lies that were causing them to attack the capitol in the 1st place thus egging them on even more.Lies cause attacks?
yes. there are lots of cases in india where someone claims they saw someone eat beef and that person gets lynched. The lie caused the murder. Trump lied and told his cultists that he really won the election and it was being stolen. And that they needed to use strength to prevent this. The cultists then attacked the capitol resulting in the deaths of at least 5 people. His lies and incitement caused that attack. His lies triggered a terrorist attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
do you think he should have been impeached today? why or why not?
of course. he incited an insurrection against democracy. He has been feeding them a pack of lies for months about he won in a landslide but it was secretly stolen. He told that crowd they had to do something about it. He told them they had to retake their country with strength. His personal attorney told them that same morning they needed a trial by combat.
And that doesn't even get into his actions during the riot. He reportedly resisted calling in the national guard and pence needed to do it. He failed to make a statement for hours while people were dying. When he finally did make a statement, he repeated all the lies that were causing them to attack the capitol in the 1st place thus egging them on even more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
If you were confident enough to list the amount of years, at max, for your organization to be a major influence in the progress of your perceived country, and it happened that way, then yes I would consider you to have founded the state.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you suggesting jewish people are psychic?
It was established that there would be a Jewish state in 1947. That what the vote was for, or at least did, put it in perception that there would be a Jewish state.
I know. i just said that. You keep throwing out dates trying to make them mean something but left out the date israel actually came into existence.
you specifically said there was a prophecy, now you are saying there is no prophecy...The world turning its focus toward Israel and Jerusalem is slow and in stages.
that isn't even remotely a response to what I said.
The main opposition to Trump's moves concerning Israel is that they will hinder, rather than promote, peace. I think that argument has mostly been rendered moot given the spree of peace deals Trump announced in recent months.
what peace deals are these exactly? He has been ratcheting up tensions in many areas of the world.
The Jerusalem move was one move that quickly got news and went away more or less.
I know. Because it was a meaningless show done to ingratiate trump to rich jewish political donors. in particular, sheldon adelson.
Humans can read a calendar. I'm sure the PR aspect was considered when they decided when to announce this.Trump has a tendency to stick to his doing even in strong opposition.
again, that is not a response to what I said. Trump picked that date because it had meaning, not because of some silly prophesy. And he moved the embassy to get money from political donors like sheldon adelson. So the more accurate statement would be "Trump has a tendency to stick to his doing when he directly profits from it".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Entire web sites with millions of users are being shut down because of the actions, no not even the actions, but the words of a few.
nope. an app is being taken off an app store for violating the policies of that store. People are calling for the murder of government officials and that app allows it. They are being punished for their actions.
Facebook has millions upon millions of users who threaten violence on group pages on a daily bases. And it doesn't censor them or shut them down.
sounds like you are arguing for more censorship. I see nothing about that statement that would, in any way, make me think shutting down violent extremists is wrong.
It sounds like you are arguing that the federal government should force companies to cater to the whims of extremists. You really want the federal government to have the power to force them to do that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
So in lite of Twitter and fakebook and Google (privately owned companies) choosing to discriminate against any and all users of their service for any reason they see fit, will bakeries now have the same luxury?
no one is being discriminated against for who or what they are. They get banned for choosing to do terrible things. Like advocating violence for example.
A bakery choosing to refuse service because of the something the person cannot control (like their ethnicity or their sexual orientation) is extremely immoral and needs to be illegal.
So refusing service to someone advocating murder, totally fine. They chose to do something awful. Refusing service to someone for the color of their skin, very much not fine.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I watched and listened, then read the transcript of Trump's speech. Nothing said incited the rational person to do anything but what he asked
yeah, yeah i know. He could literally murder someone in front of you, splashing their brains across your face and you would find a way to defend him.
So, who was it who stormed the Capital?
trump's cultists. Why would that be in doubt?
Best wait for the FBI iinvestigation, yeah?
the FBI is rounding up and arresting trump cultists. Are you expecting them to somehow prove it wasn't really the trump supporters? Even though many, many of them admitted to it on camera, and facebook, and parlor, etc?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Cause Orangeman bad. Free Cheetos for everyone!
go back and read post 7. that's a pretty good description of how trump is very similar to fascists.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
why is Pelostomy thinking about it, now
hmm, maybe because trump organized an attack on democracy by an armed mob on lunatics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jasmine
So.. Why do people think Trump is a fascist?
trump engages in alot of the same behavior that fascists did in their rise to power.
- the rampant nationalism (blurring heavily into jingoism).
- The calls of restoring a lost idealized period that they would restore. For Mussolini, this was the restoration of a roman empire. For trump it is less clear when specifically america was "great" and how you would make it that way again. But this call for lost "greatness" is core to both.
- the use of an "other" as a foil. To hitler it was the jews that "stabbed germany in the back" in WW 1. To Trump, he uses a couple, but primarily it was mexico and china.
- The cult of personality. Both hitler and Mussolini played themselves up as a "strong man" who was at the core of their political movement. Trump very much does this as well.
- And, most recently, fear mongering your base against an invisible enemy that you need to overthrow. To hitler it was primarily communists he did this to (see the burning of the Reichstag). To Trump it is the "deep state" and election rigging, even though there is no evidence such a thing occurred.
There are many disturbing parallels between hitler, Mussolini and Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
There actually was a Jewish state in 1897, just not yet physically manifest. The physically unseen is just, if not more important than focusing only on what's physically seen.
lol, so there was a country entirely in people's imaginations, and you thing that is an "actual state"? if i think about making a country is it also a an actual state?
Yes, you're right, but we're looking at two sets of 50 here. One for the establishment of the nation and one for the management. Part of the Jubilee year is for this purpose concerning the land of Israel.
Israel was established in 1948. None of the dates you have provided are for the establishment of Israel.
There's no specific prophecy concerning Donald Trump or his actions that I know of. Him and his actions just happen to fall in line with with certain things.
you specifically said there was a prophecy, now you are saying there is no prophecy...
I don't think the Embassy marked anything important other than symbolizing the United States full, instead of half-full, support for Israel by recognition of Jerusalem.
Israel has had the US' full support for decades. The only question at issue in the embassy decision is where the capitol of Israel and the capitol of the Palestinian state should be. Since the Palestinians also claim Jerusalem, the US unilaterally claiming it is the capitol of Israel is a stupid decision.
It happened to fall on Israel's 70th birthday.
Humans can read a calendar. I'm sure the PR aspect was considered when they decided when to announce this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But by all means, let's get back to your point that I make bad points, let's just accept that as fact without any critical discussion.
I never said we should take it as fact without critical discussion. I brought up my point and you attempted (multiple times) to deflect. It's hard to have a discussion about things with you deflecting with every single response.
This is exactly what this thread is about. The complete lack of any discussion whatsoever whether it is intentional or genetically impossible.
That is what this thread is about. With every answer you deflect, change the topic or engage in a personal attack.
There are millions of Americans walking around thinking "hurr durr Fox bad" or "hurr durr CNN bad" and that's the end of the thought process/discussion. That's not enlightenment or critical thinking.
I agree. Both Fox and CNN get some things right. They get alot of things wrong. Assuming things they say are true or false is certainly a problem. A great example of this is "election fraud". There is no evidence that any significant amount of it occurred. Yet every single right wing news outlet is saying there was, and most of the people who consume that "news" believes it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're just a mouthbreather with an axe to grind. Not a particularly special species of sheep.
ahh, there's the next step. Once you get called out for your multiple attempts at deflection, you just switch to personal attacks. Classic sheep move.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What's the last book you read? What is the book you are currently reading?If you have to take more than 30 seconds to answer that, you are one of the sheep this thread is talking about.
again, this is just deflection. I am pointing out that you personally spew stories on here that have no basis in reality. You do this because you hear those stories on conservative news sources and assume them to be true. That makes you a sheep. You could read 100 books a day, but you if you repeat obvious lies off of fox news you are still a sheep.
and you are only further proving that there is little hope in people stopping being sheep. Because when confronted with it they just deflect or change the subject, as you are aptly demonstrating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
top 10 fake news stories, from bad to worse:
ok. i pointed out how you personally parrot bullshit stories. You responded by talking about random stories on other networks that have nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Classic deflection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which talking point?Maybe this point?
what point? that markets are easily spooked? How is this at all relevant to the topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even a broken clock like Fox is right twice a day.
And yet you continue to repeat their talking points even when they are very obviously wrong. You are a case in point of the type of person this thread is about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because people with power control public education today to control those without it.
I assume you believe yourself to be educated? But you have parroted obvious lies spread by Trump/fox/news max. You are a great example of sheep. You repeat things that others tell you even though you don't know if they are true. Even if the evidence says they aren't true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am not sure why I am constantly surprised but it never ceases to amaze me how many sheep there are in the human race.
It is part of human nature. It has always been that way and it likely always will.
And hoping against hope that there is no need for an uprising - and that a progress towards a more natural position can be achieved without resorting to anything more than common sense.
an uprising may come, but it won't change anything. Look at the french revolution. There was an explosion of anger. The old tyranny was removed and replaced with a new tyranny. That tyranny was replaced by another tyranny after that. They ended up right back with an emperor again.
The world is a complicated place. No one understands all of it. Most people see that and defer to those who understand it better (or who they perceive to understand it better). That isn't likely to change any time soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
In 1897, a visionary leader named Theodor Herzl assembled the first Zionist Congress and founded the Jewish state.
untrue. There was no jewish state in 1897. He didn't found a jewish state. He founded a group that wanted a jewish state.
Now, the balfour declaration was the start of the forming of the Jewish State entering world affairs.
there had been lots of people calling for a jewish state before the balfour declaration. Pretending like it was a new idea is inaccurate.
Trump's opinion matters if he is moving prophecy along. If he's not, you're right.
2 things.
1) what prophesy?
2) trump's actions didn't change anything. he moved an embassy. That is it. The US government could move it back next month. It had no real world impact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
lol you are cherry picking random events from history and ascribing a deeper meaning to them.
1917 was the Balfour declaration which was the calling for the establishment of a nation for the Jewish people.
this call had been made for decades by that point. You are cherry picking one specific call for this because it fits in the narrative you want.
1967 was the six day war in which Israel defeated her enemies and captured land.
Israel fought multiple wars. Why are you focusing on this one instead of the others?
December 2017 was when Trump declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
Trump's opinion on the matter means very, very little. So this isn't really an important event.
Created:
-->
@Conway
Really, you don't remember the reporter saying how peaceful everything was while there stuff burning in the background?
So to you any riot is terrorism? Is that the argument you are making?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You want to point me to the text where Trump said be violent?
He has on many occasions called for violence. He has told his followers to attack journalists, protesters, god only knows how many people at this point.
As for context this is BLM where domestic terrorists were destroying businesses.
I don't believe i've ever heard of a BLM domestic terrorist. I think I would have remembered them setting bombs and carrying guns... oh wait that was trump supporters.
Is there a reason why Kathy Griffin still has her account after literally posting an image of her holding Trump’s head? How is that not inciting violence?
again, I do not know what you are talking about. Context is important.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re telling me that Ayanna Presley does not deserve to be banned from Twitter after she said people should cause unrest on the streets? Gimme a break.
i would need much more context than that. A peaceful protest is still unrest in the streets. Nothing in that statement suggests violence.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It does. If Twitter didn’t have a two-tier justice system then we wouldn’t be talking about Parler.
parlor doesn't exist because there is a two-tiered system. Parlor exists because right wing loons perceive there to be a two-tiered system. There is a big distinction.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's all very general language.It's as if everyone just forgot about the CHAIN OF COMMAND.
no, it's as if we're only a couple of days removed from the event and that information isn't available.
I'm looking for interviews with actual Capital police officers and commanders.
why would they want to give an interview?
And the apparent Capital police complicity is being framed by reporters conjecturing that "poor planning" and "general incompetence" are "responsible".
at the moment, we don't have any solid information to indicate otherwise.
All of the coverage seems to revolve around how evil the protestors are.
well that is the primary story. A group of lunatics literally attacked democracy. The actions of the police are certainly important, but they are not the primary part of the story.
And the truth is that very few people, if any at all, actually know that right now.Try asking anyone in the Capitol police department.
I haven't seen any of them give any kind of public statement. They certainly aren't going to do so on the record when there are investigations taking place.
The news is absolutely covering this story, so why are you continuing to pretend they aren't?Every story on the event is completely missing the mark.
what mark? This is a complicated story with alot of moving parts. You might think one thing is the most important, others will disagree with you. Based on your comments you think the actions of the police are the most important. That is certainly an important part. However the fact that an armed mob literally attacked democracy at the urging of the sitting president, kind of takes priority.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
STRANGELY NO QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO GAVE THE ORDER FOR THE POLICE TO "STAND DOWN".SPECIFICALLY IN THE ARTICLES CITED (NYT MSNBC).AND CERTAINLY NOT IN THE "OFFICAL" HEADLINES.PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK IF YOU'VE GOT ONE HANDY.
That kind of detail is stuff that isn't going to come out in the immediate aftermath of the event. You seem to want to know every minutiae of who did what and when. And the truth is that very few people, if any at all, actually know that right now. So no, no news agency is going to be able to provide you with that because no one has it yet.
There is an investigation that will happen. Probably a whole bunch of them. Expecting the media to be able to provide you with that info now is unrealistic.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
When you hear the words "they let them in" you see protestors jumping through broken windows.
So again, your assertion up to this point is that no one was covering the story. I provided links to them covering the story and now you are complaining that they don't have the footage you wanted them to have while they cover the story. which you claimed they hadn't done.
Here is another article about it from politico.
Here is another one from politico where they are saying they are investigating.
The news is absolutely covering this story, so why are you continuing to pretend they aren't?
Created: