Total posts: 8,696
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So who killed Ashli Babitt again? Why can’t good old Joe tell us.
How would Joe know? The question is why doesn't Paul Gosar tell us.
Oh wait, he’s in his basement asleep
In fact, Biden spent the afternoon in Philly talking about this. I guess Tucker missed it.
For your edification: “The Big Lie is Just That— A Big Lie”
Joe Biden Voting Rights Speech Transcript July 13: “The Big Lie is Just That— A Big Lie”
Folks, good afternoon. There’s a serious subject I’d like to talk about today. I’m here in Philadelphia at the National Constitution Center, the city and the place where the story of We The People began. It’s a story that’s neither simple, nor straightforward. That’s because the story is the sum of our parts, and all those parts are fundamentally human. And being human is to be imperfect, driven by appetite and ambition, as much as by goodness and grace.
But some things in America should be simple and straightforward. Perhaps the most important of those things, the most fundamental of those things, is the right to vote. The right to vote freely.
The right to vote freely, the right to vote fairly. The right to have your vote counted. The democratic threshold is Liberty. With it, anything’s possible. Without it, nothing, nothing. And for our democracy and the work, and to deliver our work and our people, it’s up to all of us to protect that right. This is a test of our time and what I’m here to talk about today.
Just thinking about the past election, 102 year old woman in Arkansas who voted for the first time on the very spot she once picked cotton. A 94 year woman in Michigan voted early and in person in her 72nd consecutive election. You know what she said said? She said this election was quote, “the most important vote that we ever had.”
A daughter who voted in memory of her dad who died of COVID-19 so others wouldn’t have the experience of pain and darkness and loss that she was going through. Patients out there. And the parents, the parents who voted for school their children will learn in. Sons and daughters voted for the planet they’re going to live on. Young people just turning 18 and everyone who for the first time in their lives thought they could truly make a difference.
America, America, and Americans of every background voted. They voted for good jobs and higher wages. They voted for racial equity and justice. They voted to make healthcare a right, not a privilege. The reason Americans went to vote and the lengths they went to vote, to be able to vote, this past election were absolutely extraordinary.
In fact, the fact that so many election officials across the country made it easier and safer for them to be able to vote in the middle of a pandemic is remarkable. As a result, in 2020 more people voted in America than ever, ever in the history of America in the middle of a once in a century pandemic.
All told, more than 150 Americans of every age, of every race, of every background exercised their right to vote. They voted early, they voted absentee. They voted in person. They voted by mail. They voted by Dropbox. And then, they got their families and friends to go out and vote.
Election officials, the entire electoral system withstood unrelenting political attacks, physical threats, intimidation and pressure. They did so with unyielding courage and faith in our democracy with recount after recount after recount, court case after court case, the 2020 election was the most scrutinized election ever in American history. Challenge after challenge brought to local, state, and election officials, state legislatures, state and federal courts, even to the United States Supreme Court not once but twice.
More than 80 judges, including those appointed by my predecessor, heard the arguments. In every case, neither cause nor evidence was found. Don’t undermine the national achievement of administrating the historic election in the face of such extraordinary challenges.
Audits, recounts were conducted in Arizona and Wisconsin. In Georgia it was recounted three times. It’s clear, for those who challenge the results and question the integrity of the election, no other election has ever been held under such scrutiny and such high standards. The big lie is just that— a big lie.
The 2020 election, it’s not hyperbole, suggest the most examined and the fullest expression on the will of the people in the history of this nation. That should be celebrated, it is the example of America at its best. But instead, we continue to see an example of human nature at its worst, something darker and more sinister.
In America, if you lose you except the results. You follow the Constitution, you try again. You don’t call facts fake and then try to bring down the American experiment just because you’re unhappy. That’s not statesmanship.
That’s not statesmanship, that’s selfishness. That’s not democracy it’s the denial of the right to vote. It suppresses, it subjugates. The denial full of free and fair elections is the most un-American thing that any of us can imagine. The most undemocratic, most unpatriotic and sadly not unprecedented.
From denying enslaved people full citizenship until the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the Civil War to denying women the right to vote until the 19th Amendment 100 years ago. To poll taxes and literacy tests and the Ku Klux Klan campaigns of violence and terror that lasted into the ’50s and ’60s. To the Supreme Court decision in 2013 and then again just two weeks ago, a decision that weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act. To the willful election attacks in 2020, and then to a whole other level of threat, the violence and the deadly insurrection on the Capitol on January 6th.
Just got back from Europe, speaking to the G7 and to NATO. They wonder, not a joke… They wonder, Gov. They asked me, “Is it going to be okay?” The citadel to democracy in the world, “Is it going to be okay?”
Time and again, we’ve weathered threats to the right to vote in free and fair elections and each time we found a way to overcome. That’s what we must do today. Vice President Harris and I have spent our careers doing this work, and I’ve asked her to lead, to bring people together to protect the right to vote in our democracy. And it starts with continuing the fight to pass H.R. 1, the For the People Act.
That bill would help end voter suppression in the states, get dark money out of politics, give voice to the people at the grassroots level, create fair district maps and end partisan political gerrymander. Last month Republicans opposed even debating, even considering For the People Act. Senate Democrats stood United to protect our democracy and the sanctity of the vote. We must pass the For the People Act, it’s a national imperative.
We must also fight for the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore and expand voting protections, to prevent voter suppression. All the Congress women and men here, there’s a bunch of you, you knew John, many of you.
Just weeks ago the Supreme Court, yet again, weakened the Voting Rights Act and upheld what Justice Kagan called quote, “A significant race based disparity in voting opportunities.” The Court’s decision, as harmful as it is, does not limit the Congress’s ability to repair the damage done. That’s the important point.
It puts the burden back on Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act to its intended strength. As soon as Congress passes the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advanced Act, I will sign it and let the whole world see it. That will be an important moment.
And the world is wondering, and Dwight knows what I’m talking about, for real. You know, the world is wondering what is America going to do? But we also have to be clear-eyed about the obstruction we face. Legislation is one tool, but not the only tool. And it’s not the only measure of our obligation to defend democracy today.
Created:
Posted in:
Imagine asking Lee after he crossed the Potomac on July 14, "General Lee! the South is lost. The Grand Army of the Republic is in pursuit. Every soldier wants to know....do we surrender or do we continue to fight?"
How would the South respond if Lee answered, "Who killed Lew Armistead?" and repeated it every time the question was asked?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So who killed Ashli Babitt again?
In the largest sense, you killed Ashli Babbitt.
Created:
Posted in:
The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own.
He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind.
He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.
— Tao Te Ching, Chapter 49
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I want an Unk-unk spin-off.
Starring Tucker Carlson as Unk-unk
Created:
Posted in:
Caveman Wylted: me cold.
Caveman whiteflame: come to my cave! I have just the thing to warm you. Its an innovation called fire that generates light and heat and kills nasty bacteria on leftover mammoth meat... It's free and highly effective. Come see!
Caveman Wylted: me scared. fire burn
Caveman whiteflame: Well, of course, all new technologies have their drawbacks...Mr. Oog did burn his thumb the other day and...
Caveman Wylted: fire smells
Caveman whiteflame: oh, ok, well the smoke can be a little annoying from time to time but that's why we've created this little ventilation shaft. We call it a chimney. Isn't that nifty?
Caveman Wylted: smoke poison. cause blindness.
Caveman whiteflame: now, where is that coming from? This is a totally new technology and we've seen nothing to indicate such harms.
Caveman Wylted: 25 years from now- smoke make blind
Caveman whiteflame: C'mon! You can't claim to know the long-term consequences any better than I. Look, you are freezing to death! How can some imaginary future harm possibly outweigh the immediate dangers of hypothermia?
Caveman Wylted: dark good. bear no see me.
Caveman whiteflame: Now that's just a myth. Bears see better in the dark than we humans, and bears tend to stay away from open flame.
Caveman Wylted: fire is god maybe. make me slave
Caveman whiteflame: Did Unk-unk tell you that? You know Unk-unk is a congenital liar. He just tells you stuff like that because you fall for it every time. There's no evidence of any kind of intelligence in fire. Now, will you come? The benefits manifestly outweigh all this nitpicky speculation you're offering.
Caveman Wylted: no fire. me cold
Caveman whiteflame: all right, then. Good luck!
Caveman Wylted: m, m, me....
(falls on his face as a solid block)
Caveman Wylted (muffled by snow and howling wind): ....culdh, uh
Created:
Old pirates, yes, they rob I
Sold I to the merchant ships
Minutes after they took I
From the bottomless pit
But my hand was made strong
By the hand of the Almighty
We forward in this generation
Triumphantly
Won't you help to sing
These songs of freedom?
'Cause all I ever have
Redemption songs
Redemption songs
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our minds
Have no fear for atomic energy
'Cause none of them can stop the time
How long shall they kill our prophets
While we stand aside and look? Ooh!
Some say it's just a part of it
We've got to fulfill the book
Won't you help to sing
These songs of freedom?
'Cause all I ever have
Redemption songs
Redemption songs
Redemption songs
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our mind
Wo! Have no fear for atomic energy
'Cause none of them-a can-a stop-a the time
How long shall they kill our prophets
While we stand aside and look?
Yes, some say it's just a part of it
We've got to fulfill the book
Won't you help to sing
These songs of freedom?
'Cause all I ever had
Redemption songs
All I ever had
Redemption songs
These songs of freedom
Songs of freedom
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
I think you've failed to define the subject of your thesis.
The nation-state as the organising principle of geopolitics is breaking up, and is slowly being replaced by a new paradigm.
What is the nature of that new paradigm? Does it have a name?
Debates about things like CRT are only grasping at secondary phenomena.
What are the primary phenomena? How will they break up concepts like gender?
These tendencies cannot be pinned to any conspiracy of revolutionary college students, greedy capitalists, or any other group - it is a tendency inherent in our social structures, and the attempt to circumvent or avoid it requires increasingly extreme measures, since it is against the fundamental tendency of progress.
What are the tendencies of progress inherent in our social structures and if they are so essential to our nature, why haven't they brought about the new paradigm before now?
The very idea of "merit" or "competence" is really a measure of one's propensity to rise to the top of a system of social cohesion whose centre is really maintained by the stability of the nation-state form.
Nonsense. Competence precedes the nation-state necessarily. Merit precedes the nation-state necessarily. There were noble kings and competent generals long before the Treaty of Westphalia.
What is supposed as "natural" is really the nation-state form, which is supposed as historically immutable.
Nonsense. The Declaration of Independence asserts that nations may be formed artificially- that all government really just exists by the consent of the governed and that dissatisfied people may dissolve all prior allegiance to kings and countries and choose instead to pledge our lives, honor, and fortunes to one another.
Lincoln defined this concept most expressly in the Gettysburg Address: govt. of the people, by the people, for the people while simultaneously acknowledging such an enterprise's mortality and so, mutability. ("shall not perish from this earth"). These documents and the American people's expansive allegiance to all comers so inclined refutes your assertion that all nations are predicated on hereditary lineages or geopolitical dependencies.
It sounds to me like you are predicting that there will be American Revolution one day, unaware that we accomplished this fact 250 years ago.
Created:
Posted in:
Since Zoroastrianism seldom comes up on this site, I might take this opportunity to note that my username is, in part, a Zarathustran reference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagiI'd support the celts officially and loudly denouncing the Anglican Christianity forced upon them. On the other hand, Islam is worse. It is more brutal, homophobic, violent, sexist etc
Well then its on you to prove that the Persian conversion to Islam after 650 CE was more brutal, homophobic, violent, sexist, than the Celtic conversion to Christianity after 350 CE. Good luck finding sources much less sources not sympathetic to converters. I'd make no such assumption except that either experience must have sucked.
Created:
Posted in:
The best document thus far showing the scope and nature of the Jan 6th attack is from NYT Visual Investigations. I'd encourage anybody to watch it before drawing conclusions. The section relevant to Ashli Babbitt's shooting starts at 25:39 - 28:40.
- We should note that the small vanguard Babbitt was in had an opportunity to threaten House members because AZ -R Paul Gosar continued speaking for 15 minutes after lockdown was called. Gosar was one of the original organizers of the "Stop the Steal" movement and has been accused by multiple House members of orchestrating the attack. Gosar is also the first politician to start demanding the name of the officer who killed Ashli Babbitt, which is strange because almost nobody on Earth is in a better position to know that individual's identity than Gosar.
- Gosar was one of the last to leave the chamber so unlike us, he can see the identity of the officer on the far side of the door, protecting Gosar's escape.
- We can see from the video that the man holding the gun is wearing a suit and probably black.
- Metropolitan police confirmed that the shooter was a plainclothes Capitol Police officer.
- Given Gosar's proximity to the shooter and the fact that there can't have been many extra officers hanging around 90 minutes after the violence began I think its very likely that the shooter is the security officer seen advising the House to don masks at 26:09. That's the back of Gosar's head in the foreground.
- The Congressional Record only list the speaker as "a security officer" but its seems hard to believe that Gosar couldn't id a guy he works in the same room with all day or at least look him up in the congressional directory
- Further, it's public knowledge that the officer has not returned back to work. I might not be able to figure out who shot Babbitt from a list of black plainclothes floor security officers who haven't been to work for 6 months but I assume that's a simple task for Gosar.
- I see no reason not to conclude that Gosar's (and by extention, Trump's) supposed ignorance is all pantomime.
- Nevertheless, I think the shooter's name should be released. I understand this information exposes an officer who has already sacrificed much in service to our Legislature to increased vitriol and harm but I can't see how the public can maintain oversight of police violence without public access to individual names and records. Trump's reasons are entirely scummy but we should release the name anyway.
Here is Trump latest round of lies regarding his attempts to nullify by violence the voice and choice of the American people as expressed on Nov 2nd.
FOX's "Sunday Morning Futures." with Maria Bartiromo- Sunday, Jul 11
BARTIROMO:....And I know that you have had some time to reflect on what took place on that day, January 6.Talk to us about what you're thinking about as you reflect. What happened that day, from your standpoint?TRUMP: So, there was a big rally called. And, actually, when I say big, who knew? But there was a rally called.And a tremendous number of people, the largest one I have ever spoken before, is called by people, by patriots. And they asked me if I'd speak. And I did. And it was a very mild-mannered speech, as I think has been -- in fact, they just came out with a report in Congress, and they didn't mention my name, literally.
In fact, the report mentions Trump 27 times. The bipartisan report makes no judgement regarding Trump's claims of fraud in the election but explicitly credits failures in the Intelligence Committee, Dept of Defense, and the National Guard as largely contributing to harms of Jan 6th. Apparently, Trump didn't know he was in charge of those depts. The entirety of Trump's speech on that day is included in the report as relevant to the insurrectionists' mission.
But what they were complaining about and the reason, in my opinion, you had over a million people there, which the press doesn't like to report at all,
The permit for the event was bumped from 5,000 attendees to 30,000 on Jan 3rd. Best estimates of crowd size range between 8,000 and 30,000 attendees.
because it shows too much -- too much activity, too much -- too much spirit and faith and love. There was such love at that rally.
You had over a million people there. They were there for one reason, the rigged election. They felt the election was rigged. That's why they were there. And they were peaceful people. These were great people.The crowd was unbelievable. And I mentioned the word love. The love -- the love in the air, I have never seen anything like it.
And that's why they went to Washington.BARTIROMO: You know, Mr...(CROSSTALK)TRUMP: And, by the way, I can tell you that I thought -- because I was hearing from a lot of people there are going to be a lot of people coming there, much bigger than anybody ever anticipated by many times.And I had suggested to the secretary of defense, perhaps we should have 10,000 National Guardsmen standing by. And he reported that, as you know, but I -- we should have -- and he was turned down. I said, it's subject to Congress. They run it. Nancy Pelosi runs it. So, it would be subject to the Capitol Police and the other things, whatever they need.But I said, perhaps you need 10,000, because I think the crowd is going to be very large. Who knows? Maybe two people will show up. But I think it's going to be very large.Anyway, he had that. He went to them. They said it won't be necessary. They were the ones that were responsible. They were the ones. And this came out very loudly in the report.
The president, [Acting Defense Secretary Christopher ]Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. "We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And Trump goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’"
But Trump didn't ask for it, although as both Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard and leader of the Stop the Steal movement, only Trump had an accurate sense of what was needed and the capacity to meet that need. Miller and Pelosi both confirm that nobody talked to Pelosi's office and of course, the report comes to the opposite conclusion of Trump's assertion.
BARTIROMO: Yes, that report showed FBI operatives potentially aware.But there are unanswered questions here. What did the FBI know? Why weren't your Cabinet secretaries briefed? What did Speaker Pelosi know, Chuck Schumer, McConnell?Do you have any answers to that? They continue to call this an armed insurrection.TRUMP: Oh, I think they knew plenty.
Trump is here accusing Pelosi, Schumer, and McConnell of secretly knowing more about the size and intentions of Trump's own ally and faulting them for not requesting more help from him and the armed forces Trump commands while NOT faulting himself who is in ultimately in charge of both sides of the equation. How entirely disconnected from reality Trump seems to be. Naturally, the FOX interviewer has no curiosity regarding this claim.
BARTIROMO: And yet no guns were seized, Mr. President.TRUMP: Right. There were no guns whatsoever.
Let's recall that police weren't arresting or frisking the rioters so an accurate assessment is impossible Police report that at least hundreds of guns were in evidence on the rioters and plenty of holster bulges are in evidence on video. Of the 14 rioters arrested (mostly that vanguard held at gunpoint by police while evacuating the Senate), 2 were charged with carrying weapons without a permit. If we extrapolate that sampling percentage and apply to the 8,000 besieging the capitol we get more than a thousands guns but that's just speculation. Others arrested had pepper sprays, stun guns, tasers, brass knuckles, lead pipes, knives, and a whip. Police found a Tavor X95 rifle with a telescopic sight, a Glock 9 mm with high-capacity magazines and more than 2,500 rounds of ammunition, at least 320 rounds of armor-piercing bullets, an AR-15-style rifle, a shotgun, a crossbow, several machetes, smoke grenades and 11 Molotov cocktails in two cars owned by rioters parked near the Capitol. Two pipe bombs were discovered concealed next to the entrances to the RNC and DNC's national HQs.
And yet Antifa, which went into Portland and went into so many other places, Seattle -- they took over a big part of Seattle. People died. And there were plenty of guns there, by the way -- and in Minnesota, in Minneapolis. They got -- there was no repercussions for them. And yet they have people still in jail. There were no guns. There were no guns.
Of the 14,000+ charges associated with George Floyd protests, most were misdemeanors and a majority of charges have been dropped. Of the 500 felony charges brought, most are still pending trial. About 30% of all felony charges are associated with Portland rioters.
And, by the way, while you're at it, who shot Ashli Babbitt? Why are they keeping that secret? Who is the person that shot...BARTIROMO: Well...TRUMP: ... an innocent, wonderful, incredible woman, a military woman, right in the head? And there's no repercussions.
In fact, Babbit was shot once in the upper right chest.
If that were on the other side, it would be the biggest story in this country. Who shot Ashli Babbitt? People want to know, and why.BARTIROMO: Well, that's right.And I want to talk about that, because Ashli Babbitt, a wonderful woman, fatally shot on January 6 as she tried to climb out of a broken window.
That's quite false. Babbitt was climbing in through a window she and her band had just broken and that window was the last physical barrier between the rioters and the fleeing congressmen (including Gosar). The plainclothes policeman and his pistol were literally the last line of defense and Babbitt was the only rioter to breach that line. Of all the rioters that day, Veteran soldier Babbitt was the closest any got to their intended targets and the only who breached every line of defense. [27:50-28:40] The rioters at that door backed down pretty quickly after that single shot.
Her family has spoken out. Her family has been on "Tucker Carlson." And they want answers as far as why this wonderful woman, young woman who went to peaceful protests was shot.Do you have any information? There is speculation that this was a security detail in a leading member of Congress' security detail, a Democrat.(CROSSTALK)BARTIROMO: What can you tell us in terms of who shot Ashli Babbitt? What do you know, Mr. President?TRUMP: So -- so, I have heard that.I will tell you they know who shot Ashli Babbitt. They're protecting that person. I have heard also that it was the head of security for a certain high official, a Democrat.
Capitol Hill Police have confirmed that the shooter did not belong to any individual security detail.
And we will see, because it's going to come out. It's going to come out.
Again, there's no reason to think Trump can't have the name of Babbitt's shooter at will, since some of Trump's closes alliest were eye-witnesses to the shooting and were the very individuals being protected by that shooting from the breach by Babbitt. Those same Trump allies, Gosar, Biggs, and Brooks particularly voted against recognizing CHP valor in the wake of the attack. Gosar has refused to even shake hands or acknowledge the cops who may have saved his ass that day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagiThe Persians never ever chose Islam, they were blackmailed into it. I mean seriously blackmailed at knife-to-throat point.
Never said they did. Are you suggesting that the Celts were peacefully converted?
Created:
Should the KKK be considered a terrorist group?
Let's not forget the US Dept of Justice was created by President US Grant in 1870 because he needed some non-military instrument to go after the Ku Klux Klan. The Dept. of Justice, even to this day, makes counterterrorism its number one priority and is in charge of keeping a watch out for terrorists likely to attack US citizens and interests. So, the DoJ is the subject matter expert on both the Klan and terrorism and definitely still considers a bunch of little groups with Klan in their name terrorist organizations. Most Christian Identity terrorists go by other names since the National organization lost that lawsuit in the '80's and went bankrupt and folks are still trying to collect on that payout. There's a lot of connections and overlaps between Klan groups, neo-Nazis, and new far-right groups like The Three Percenters, The Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and Texas Freedom Force with a wide variety of differences in assessments in terms of terrorism. All were well represented at the Jan 6th terrorist attack on the US Capitol. The SPLC noted that the Klan's most popular website, Stormfront, only has a couple of thousand regular visitors but that small group was responsible for more than a hundred murders in a five year period, more than half of which were designated as terrorists attacks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Aryanman
Islam is an arabic religion and iran is a persian countrysomething like zoroastrianism or bahaism is betterthoughts?
If this line of argument is valid (I don't think it is), then it follows that Christianity is not suitable for the UK. Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion and the UK is a Northern European country. Something like Druidism is better.
People can and should choose their own religion. Assigning religious beliefs according to geography or nationality makes little sense.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I recall that you had a thread about "Movies that conciously edited out powerful women"And I like how well you speak, though I don't always agree with you.I'm curious of your opinion, perspective, on a wife obeying her husband?Posts #19 down, about.
- I am a feminist, which means I believe women are just as deserving of self-determination as men and men's equals in any legal, political, or societal sense. I think our most fundamental human responsibility is to thoughtfully caretake the richness of life on earth and that the proper care and education of children must be the number one priority of that inheritance and that our whole economic outlook as humans should should be restructured to reflect the value of that priority and duty. To that end, women as the babymakers and the more biologically driven caregivers live closer to our true economic priorities than men do and we men make a mistake when we fail to respect women's superior compassion and sense of community in our decision-making. Women understand better than men the whole point of civilization as a function of women's role in human reproduction and our society should reflect and include a feminine perspective in all things.
- I am also a liberal, which means I believe that human freedom and equality ought to be prioritized over the preservation of wealth and property and even tradition, as important as all those thing are to humanity.
- So I don't believe women owe men their obedience. If anything, I think men ought to (slightly) defer to women as the better informed regarding humanity's top priority, which is the care and education of the next generation.
- But the core of liberalism is also a profound respect for other people's belief and I'm not much down for forums where we sit out around and trash other people's religion, particularly since we are fairly likely to be ill-informed or wholly ignorant about the nature of other people's religion and particularly in cases where religions have a long history of wisdom and good deeds, as is true of all major religions.
When I was in college, I took a job for some minor Saudi princeling who was blind and pursuing a doctorate in Lexicography- an insanely ambitious pursuit. My incredibly dull but good-paying job was to read pages and pages of dictionary entries to him, carefully describing every notation from a wide variety of dictionaries. I am pretty deaf but years of speech therapy has made me very good at reading things out loud.
I spent many hours at the Prince's nice house and his wife was always there in full niqab but she never spoke. If we walked into a room where she was she would immediately leave without comment. Her husband never introduced her or spoke of her in all my time there. One day, he called to say my services were no longer required and I never saw him again.
I did, however, meet his wife once more at a grocery store on the other side of town months later. She knew me by name and had to introduce herself because I'd never seen her face. She was wearing a skirt and a bedazzled t-shirt and she was surprisingly young and beautiful considering what a fat toad the princeling had been. She was funny and spoke perfect English and she was utterly contemptuous of her husband. She explained that I'd been fired because her husband learned that I lived with a woman unmarried (of course he didn't know that I was gay but I'm sure that would have been equal cause for termination).
She explained without prompting that she hated her role and restrictions in Arab society and only in this town where nobody knew her could she go out once in a while and participate in society like a normal, pretty girl laughing and flirting and talking shit about her husband. She was delightful, and I often think about how much that fat prince was missing out on because he treated that pretty girl like an object to be owned instead of woman to be adored. Ironically, because of his religiously rigorous possessiveness, strangers like me got to meet and enjoy the best of his wife while he never would- not just denying himself the pleasure of her company but kind of cluelessly self-cuckolding in the name of God.
This experience has informed my assumptions about women in strict Islamic societies more than any other.
Created:
-->
@coal
@Aryanman
coal is well informed on this subject. I'll tag him and perhaps he'll weigh in.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
READ THIS: (site specific)
Not site specific:
Flip through the mafia archives- look for some recent games Pie has modded and maybe even looks at how some players joining this game have played before.
There are many sites online devoted to variations of this game, most with site specific rules. The popular online game "Among Us" is even a kind of variation on the game. Here the moderator makes the rules and the quality of the games highly variable. Some games are short some long. Most are boring for hours punctuated by quick spasms of revelations and actions. Don't sweat it. You don't need any deep understanding of the rules to play but be patient. The interactions of roles can be complicated and newbies get voted out early fairly often just based on game dynamics, which here is all about detecting and projecting familiar and unfamiliar patterns of behavior. If you play, stay active but trust nobody. If you are scum let your more experienced partners lead you. If you are town take advice with a grain of salt. People may pressure you or ignore you or whatever, but don't take it personally. Standards of behavior within the game don't apply outside of the game. People sometimes adopt personas and gameplay is sometimes tense. Don't discuss the game in other forums or even refer to it. There's an endgame forum at the end of each game for questions and processing game dynamics.
Feel welcome to join- the more who play the better the game and we are currently starving for more participants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
@oromagitheres people who want to be allowed to bring semi auto assault guns to colleges.-- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/college-graduate-wears-gun-holster-with-ar-10-in-her-graduation-photos/
Colorado is an open carry state but generally prohibited on school campuses and most of the bigger cities have restrictions. Our Supreme Court has twice ruled that campuses may not regulate licensed concealed gun usage although most campuses regulate the dorms and anything that can be called private. to an extent deliberately devised to make concealed carry a nuisance on campus. I guess I'm okay with that. I don't think of college students as particularly responsible citizens on the whole. Outside of the cities, people walking around with rifles is not unusual, nor is being served by a waitress with a gun on her hip.
Created:
Posted in:
Police here just announced that they arrested 4 people- 3 men and one woman on suspicion of plotting a Las Vegas style shooting at the All-Star Game, just a few blocks from where I live. They were staying at a fancy new hotel a block from Coors Field but the hotel isn't really tall enough to see down into the stadium. There are a row of apts about 100 yds west of left field that would ideal for that kind of mayem.
Hard to tell how serious they were yet. They seem to be local meth dealers out of Longmont and had 16 rifles in the hotel room along with a lot of ammo and body armor and meth. One posted on Facebook that he planned to go out in a big way. 4 meth dealers doesn't really seem like the classic shooter profile but there are always the one offs.
I'm going to an event down there tomorrow so I hope tis all clear.
One of my least favorite parts about living in America....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
->@oromagiObviously, there's plenty more. I'm just surveying the Wikipedia bullet points, really. - oromagi
lol.
Yeah, that's too bad because that's so amazingly wrong and the event was so recent and well publicized. I think a lot of Trump supporters are just willfully misinformed. - oromagiEh, I don't consider myself a Trump supporter, I paid it some scant attention when it's on the news, I wasn't much impressed.The Democrats have gone for that impeach angle the 'moment Trump took office,
I opposed impeaching Trump the moment Trump took office. But when Trump made Michael Flynn the top spy in the country , Mr. Pizzagate "lock her up" himself, and then we learned that:
- Flynn actually hangs out with Putin sometimes, and
- that he got paid ten of thousands of dollars by Putin to do nothing
- while hiding that fact from the US Govt
- and not paying taxes on those foreign bribes
- while also consulting for at least 7 of the US's most sensitive defense and cybersecurity contracts
- making him a pretty goddamn obvious Russian spy
- And then we learned that Trump KNEW Flynn was a Russian spy
- that it was the first thing Barack Obama warned Trump about in November after congratulating Trump on his win
- and that Flynn admitted to Trump in early January that he was taking Putin's money and lying about it to FBI investigators who were already sniffing around
- and then also admitted that he took half a million dollars to spy for Turkey
- and lied to the FBI about that
- and didn't pay taxes on that money, either
- and that Trump then made him America's top spy anyway for reasons that can only be treason (truly, no non-treasonous explanation could ever suffice)
- and then fired the Attorney General on his third day in office when she warned Trump that Flynn was a Russian spy
- and then lied to his FBI director abut Flynn
- and then lied to his cabinet about Flynn
- and then lied to his VP when Pence confronted him directly
- and then lied to the Press and then realized he was fucked
- so he fired Flynn on Flynn's 21st day in office
- and told the Press it was because Flynn lied to Pence
- which even Obama knew was a lie because Obama already knew that Trump already knew Flynn was a spy for at least 3 months and made him top spy anyway
- and Flynn admitted that he'd been a Russian secret agent and had lied and covered up and stolen taxpayer's money
- and suddenly, every intelligent person in America realized that Trump wasn't just a stupid stooge, that astonishingly, somehow, the Steele Dossier was essentially true and Russia had compromised our new Commander-in-Chief.
- THAT was the moment that I realized that, just three weeks into office, Trump had already committed far worse crimes in office than any President ever and that our nation was already deep in a National Security Crisis from which we have not yet emerged
- THAT was the moment I said impeach the fucker before he brings us all down
"drug deal"Bosh, accusing Trump of being a drug dealer.
Not Bosh, Bolton. The original neo-Con, the most conservative politician in America called Trump a drug dealer and guilty of treason. Actually, in his book Bolton says Trump tried to get Xi to support his election, too, in exchange for an agricultural deal.
I don't see the corruption, so much as I see party lines, which the Democrats have intentionally deepened themselves.
Well, then you need a new prescription, buddy, because Trump's corruption was always utterly manifest.
I don't see the 'justice of the Democrats, I see a self interested, self righteous, bunch of hypocritical blowhards, intent on removing the 2nd amendment, removing secure borders, seeking to enlarge big government, defund the police, and push views and laws not 'worthy, in my eyes. Who push for disorder in the streets and small businesses of America, but screech in concern, when a bit of hubabaloo comes to 'their front door.
Well, I'd argue all those points but the line here is loyal vs. disloyal, pro-US vs anti-US.
. . .wolf, Wolf, Wolf! Cries the Democrat.
The wolf came and went, dude. The wolf came to town for 4 years ago and invited all his bear friends over and they ate the sheep and then they fucked your wife and then ate her too and then they ate your children and peed down your well and went home fat and laughing. Now we want to build a wolf-proof fence and get a posse together to see if we can kill that thing but you're still sitting on your barstool, unimpressed.
Certainly Covid was 'such a danger in Trumps term, now everyone's walking around maskless, what a miracle, just a bit of Biden, and what little concern Covid is now.
Except in rural counties that voted for Trump and won't get vaccinated or wear masks because somehow that's a badge of Trump loyalty. Be advised that the CDC says you better get vaccinated and wear a mask until you do because its already making a comeback in Republican enclaves- Missouri, Wyoming, Idaho.
Trump could have conceded power easier, he didn't, oh well.
Created:
Posted in:
“We don’t need no gun control, you know what we need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
― Chris Rock
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Welcome to Ancient Rome - the time period of some of the greatest military tacticians in history.I haven’t designed this game yet, but I will based on the number of people that signup. The more the merrier
I call that shameless pandering. I've been swearing not to play this stupid fucking game anymore that I am so bad at
but there are times in my life when all I really want to do is talk about ancient Roman battles.
Milvian Bridge is obv scum
/in u mfs
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
@oromagi2020 United States presidential election - WikipediaPopular voteBiden Trump81,268,924 74,216,154'That's an unpopular support of Trump?After 'all his errors?'That's the best the Democratic nominee could do?'That's something to say, well, we handled that fine?
Let's just go back to that 7% of mail-in vote that the USPS failed to deliver on time
81,268,924 +74,216,154=155,485,078 voters total
of which 46% were mail-in votes = 62,194,031
but an additional 7% were never counted because of Trump's fucking up the US mail delivery SO
let's add another 4,353,582 to mail-ins
of which Biden got 3 out f every 4 votes
+3,265,186 votes for Biden and
+1,088,396 votes for Trump
(ignoring -1% independents)
That is, if we correct for just one of the many, many ways that Republicans illegally tampered with the election the results should have read
Biden Trump84,534,110 75,304,550
I wonder what the election would have looked like if we corrected for all Republican vote rigging? Perhaps something exactly like pre-election polling? I wonder how many fewer Republican Senators and House members there would be if only Republicans were as law-abiding as Democrats (which is not to suggest perfectly law-abiding by any means)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
-->@oromagiThat's a lot of words,
Obviously, there's plenty more. I'm just surveying the Wikipedia bullet points, really.
I thought the Democrats tried to impeach him on the Ukraine thing already, and he was found innocent/acquitted?
Yeah, that's too bad because that's so amazingly wrong and the event was so recent and well publicized. I think a lot of Trump supporters are just willfully misinformed.
- In fact, Trump was impeached and a trial convened in the Senate. The Republican controlled Senate refused to call any witnesses or review any evidence of any kind.
- The most relevant eye-witness to the criminal charge, NSA Director John Bolton, referred to the Trump-Zelensky call as "drug deal" and Guiliani as a hand-grenade trying to blow them all up and confirmed that Trump was guilty as fuck of the charges laid against him.
- So if the DA decides to press charges but then the Judge, who happens to be the defendant's next door neighbor, declares a mistrial without even allowing the DA to make opening remarks is that innocence? No. Isn't that just obvious corruption , in the case of this impeachment corruption performed on live TV? Trump and McConnell counted on folks like you to not give a damn about corruption and it looks like you delivered.
- So, let's add Republican's corrupt disinterest in the truth to the long list of ways Republicans unfairly rigged the 2020 Election.
Too bad they didn't try the censure option, 'had to go for the impeachment, and try to overturn the election of Trump to the presidency.
- Well, Trump essentially admitted that he did the crime and it was certainly the worst crime any President has ever been officially accused of (before Jan 6th of course) - fucking with an ally's military relief during wartime in the hopes of forcing fake investigations against his political opponent? Makes Nixon look like a boy scout. Censure really didn't cut it and Dems already knew that the GOP wasn't interested in confirming the truth. Better to just go down in recorded history as the party that sided with Justice.
Or was that the one he 'was impeached on, they all blend together for me, really.
"So if in-person voting is safe, then why are Democrats pushing belated and risky changes toward all-mail balloting in key states?The answer is quite simple: Democrats believe that all-mail voting will boost the political chances of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and sow chaos and uncertainty in case of a victory by President Trump.""Democrats claim there is little evidence of fraud associated with all mail-in ballots. Don’t buy it. There is plenty of evidence of election crimes and administrative errors associated with mail-in voting.Look no further than a recent New York congressional primary, when Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s late shift to mail-in voting led to chaos. Election officials disqualified thousands of ballots for not having timely postmarks and the election was not certified for six weeks.""Problems with mail-in voting are not new. In 2005, the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform found mass voting by mail remains “the largest source of potential voter fraud.”"
Let's take Jim Jordan's first premise,
- in-person voting is safe
- Starting in March 2020, the CDC and really all healthcare professionals began recommending alternatives to in-person voting because in-person voting was not safe. Republican and Democratic Governors alike were scrambling to postpone primaries and roll out safe ways to vote because everywhere that primaries were held, coronavirus cases spiked 3 weeks later. It wasn't just Democrats, it was also all non-Trump Americans trying to keep fellow Americans safe, including health officials reporting directly to Trump.
- Trump's (and Trumpists like Jordan's) efforts to invalidate mail-in voting translated into millions of Americas still voting in-person on Nov. 3rd.
- Three weeks later, just as Fauci and the CDC and experts everywhere predicted, America experienced the first really massive spike in infections, - 180,000 new cases per day which eventually became about 3,272 mostly preventable deaths daily, nearly triple the Nov 3rd rate of infection and disproportionately impacting Republican voters.
- https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/06/24/multimedia/24coronavirus-nl/24coronavirus-nl-facebookJumbo.png
- It will probably be years before we get official numbers but it seems reasonable to project that if we could have maintained pre-election infection rates, at least a couple of hundred thousand lives might have been saved.
- Thanks, Jim Jordan!
- Trump repeatedly stated that he hoped that the Supreme Court would (unconstitutionally) decide the election and that he wanted a conservative majority in case of an election dispute.
- To this end, Republicans expedited the October nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Court in spirt of hypocritically and vehemently refusing a February nomination before the previous election.
Well that's just politics, it's not 'nice, maybe bad long term strategy, but politics.
- In Putin's Russia maybe. In America, we prefer for Republicans and Democrats to apply the same standards and play by the same set of rules, whichever party is power.
- It is clear that Republicans don't believe in that principle anymore, but that's not okay or patriotic.
- Democrats are trying hard now to get bipartisan legislation passed and are so far resisting perfectly legal remedies that would knock the GOP out of power, maybe forever, including dumping the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, and adding new States while cognizant that the Republicans are no longer likewise constrained by core values.
- Mail-in ballots overwhelming favored Biden.
Something that the Democrats 'intended, I'm sure.
America was designed as a Liberal project. The more Americans vote, the more Liberals win. This has always been true throughout US history.
. . .Eh, whether Trump transferred power 'gracefully, is a different question.
Fuck grace. We're just talking about basic patriotism and loyalty.
. . .
insurrection, coup, bah.Riot at most, and only for those who 'entered the building, not the thousands voicing their opinions 'outside.
- this vid is 40 min long but this is the clearest document of Jan 6th that has yet emerged. I encourage every American who wants to pretend that Jan 6th was less than insurrection to watch it all.
- NATO intelligence officially reported Jan 6th to European leaders as a failed coup attempt
- The US National Security Council characterizes Jan 6th as a Trump "self-coup"
- Let's note that the DNI has determined that Trump is too great a threat to US security to be allowed to be allowed access to the President's daily briefing. Even Nixon was given privilege but Trump is just too sketchy from a basic American loyalty perspective.
- The US Military's Joint Chief of Staff refers to Jan 6th as "insurrection" and ordered all active service members to recognize Biden as the constitutionally elected head of state.
- The FBI officially classifies Jan 6th as a "Major Terrorist Attack" alongside 9/11
- Republicans can promote their self-delusions all they want but the rest of the world is clear- Jan 6th was a test of American patriotism and the Republican Party clearly flunked. Loyal Americans may differ on how best to process and punish a crime so near to the heart of American Democracy and sovereignty but I think our willingness to tolerate Republican disloyalty is at an end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
If they'd exercised a bit of restraint, tact, I think they could have won over the people sooner.
Trump has never had the people. He has never, in any legit opinion poll, election, or survey of opinion, captured 50+% support. He has maintained a vital voting block of elderly, disenfranchised, ill informed and mostly racist support within the Republican Party which he has leveraged effectively into an authoritarian grip on the GOP but at his most popular, Trump never enjoyed better than 41% support nationally. Trump is the only president in the history of polling whose disapproval rating consistently surpassed his approval rating throughout the course of his presidency (He maintained approval over disapproval during his first 3 days in office. Once he fired the Attorney General on day 3, he never got it back).
It cannot be fairly said that Trump ever had the people so it can't be fairly said that the media ever needed to win the people from him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
@oromagi
How did the Republican party, rig the election?
- Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony. A 2019 impeachment inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid and an invitation to the White House to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in order to influence Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent Joe Biden and to promote a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election.
- Trump's own Director of National Intelligence advised:
- "We assess that Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US. Unlike in 2016, we did not see persistent Russian cyber efforts to gain access to election infrastructure. …
- A key element of Moscow’s strategy this election cycle was its use of proxies linked to Russian intelligence to push influence narratives — including misleading or unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden — to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration."
- The US Supreme Court and Republicans in the State Legislature of Wisconsin rebuffed Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers's request to move the state's spring elections to June. As a result, the elections, which included a presidential primary, went ahead on April 7 as planned.
- Trump and his campaign strongly opposed mail-in voting in spite of the ongoing pandemic emergency, claiming that it would cause widespread voter fraud, a belief which had already been thoroughly debunked by the administration own election experts. "We'll see what happens, Trump said, "Get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very peaceful – there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation."
- In other words, Republicans tried to force election venues into conditions that violated the administration's own public sanitation and quarantine recommendations, believing that fear of infection would drive down voter turnout to Republican's benefit.
- During the campaign Trump repeatedly promised to refuse to recognize the outcome of the election if he was defeated; Trump falsely suggested that the election would be rigged against him. Trump refused to answer whether he would accept the results. Trump repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power after the election.
- Trump repeatedly stated that he hoped that the Supreme Court would (unconstitutionally) decide the election and that he wanted a conservative majority in case of an election dispute.
- To this end, Republicans expedited the October nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Court in spirt of hypocritically and vehemently refusing a February nomination before the previous election.
- Trump repeatedly stated that the election should be unconstitutionally postponed or skipped.
- Trump appointed Postmaster General Louis DeJoy introduced a host of new measures deigned to slow and break the mail-in voting process, including banning overtime and extra trips to deliver mail, and dismantling and removing hundreds of high-speed mail sorting machines from postal centers in Democratic strongholds. Postal delivery still hasn't recovered from these interferences.
- 7% of all ballots that arrived in postal facilities before the election went uncounted because of Post Office delays.
- Mail-in ballots overwhelming favored Biden.
- Trump has refused to nominate any new members to the Federal Election Commission, the division of Govt. charged with enforcing fair elections and campaign financing rules.
- Simultaneously, Republicans submitted hundreds legal of lawsuits relating to the election had been filed. About 250 of these had to do with the mechanics of voting in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- That is, Trump manufactured a backlog of complaints while also guaranteeing that backlog could not be addressed by Federal means- forcing suits into State courts where GOP lawyers hoped to create the illusion of wrong-doing.
- When called on to denounce political intimidation by White Supremacists during a presidential debate, Trump told White Supremacists to "stand by."
- After the election, Trump ominously fired the Sec. of Defense and a number of key DoD and replaced them with loyal inner party members- a clear attempt to seek military alternatives.
- After Nov. 10th, Trump's cabinet and personal lawyers collectively advised Trump that all legal remedies had been expended and that all further attempts to change the election's outcome would be illegal and therefore treason.
- Trump began firing officials for confirming the election results or initiating procedures for the orderly transfer of power.
- Trump ordered officials to submit budgets for 2022 and fired officials who complained that was a waste of taxpayer money.
- Republicans filed 86 lawsuits questioning the outcome of the Presidential (most after Trump had been advised that they could not change the election's outcome). Most of which depended on wildly unstained conspiracy theories, most of which originated with QAnon. QAnon's website, 8kun, had been moved to Russian networks in October to protect its owners from US and Filipino criminal investigations.
- "Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence. Judges, lawyers, and other observers described the suits as "frivolous" and "without merit". In one instance, the Trump campaign and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost multiple cases in six states on a single day. Only one ruling was initially in Trump's favor: the timing within which first-time Pennsylvania voters must provide proper identification if they wanted to “cure” their ballots. This ruling affected very few votes, and it was later overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court."
- On March 22, 2021, lawyers for [Trump's lead election lawyer, Sidney Powell, who was responsible for filing most of these lawsuits] argued that "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements by Powell about the 2020 election were truly statements of fact". Instead, “it was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories"
- That is, in court, Trump's own lawyers have since argued that Trump's fraud claims were obviously fictional.
- Trump and other prominent Republicans illegally pressured Republican campaign officials in at least 4 states, GA, MI, AZ, and PA to delay certification past the deadline, decertify legal votes, and manufacture non-existent.
- In at least one state, WI, Trump supporters physically interrupted and delayed vote counts.
- Trump supporters threatened election officials, their staff, and families in at least 8 states including WI, PA, MI, NV, and AZ via emails, telephone calls and letters.
- Many communications included death threats.
- Multiple election officials required police protection and/or family relocation
- Trump attorney Joseph diGenova argued on Fox News that Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Chris Kreb should be taken out and shot for certifying the election.
- The AZ Republican Party repeatedly tweeted that Republicans needed "die for" and "give their life" to protect Donald Trump's incumbency
- Republican Congressmen filed a lawsuit requesting an unconstitutional finding by a Federal Judge that the Vice President maintained sole authority to certify the election.
- Trump unconstitutionally ordered AG Barr to request from SCOTUS an injunction delaying the certification of the election. When the AG refused, Trump fired Barr and ordered the same from acting AG Rosen who likewise refused.
- Beginning in January, Trump asked, then demanded, then ordered Vice President Pence, both in public and in private, to overturn the election results and declare Trump-Pence the winners of the election.
- LIz Cheney:
- "On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our Republic. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution."
- Trump supporters interrupted and explicitly called for the end of the constitutionally mandated election certification
- Insurrectionist explicitly demanded the death of the Vice President and the Speaker of the House (2nd and 3rd in power).
- Trump's lawyer Giuliani was recorded pressuring Republican Senators to illegally postpone their constitutional mandated responsibility:
- "we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down ... So if you could object to every state and, along with a congressman, get a hearing for every state, I know we would delay you a lot, but it would give us the opportunity to get the legislators who are very, very close to pulling their vote ... they have written letters asking that you guys adjourn and send them back the questionable ones and they'll fix them up"
- After the insurrection, 7 GOP Senators and 138 Republican House members objected to certifying AZ and PA without presenting any substantive cause.
- Trump conceded the election on Jan 7th but has since reneged on that concession on dozens of occasions, suggesting the election was stolen, unconstitutionally claiming that he is the rightful President, and predicting an re-instatement by late Summer.
- AZ State Senators illegally surrendered custody of all 2020 Maricopa County ballots to an ad-hoc rag-tag of QAnon conspiracy theorists with Trump's full throated approval, anticipating a manufactured counterclaim in AZ.
- Multiple Republicans continue to advocate for further coup attempts or other violence to reverse the election results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Media bias undermined the 2020 election - Hillsdale Collegian
"According to an October 2020 article by The Hill, at least 119 newspaper editorials endorsed Biden, while only 6 endorsed Trump. While being a left-leaning publication does not disqualify a publication from providing objective media coverage, it means that the American media establishment has essentially become an extension of the Biden-Harris campaign. If a media outlet endorses a campaign, then that outlet should not be trusted to report objectively, because it is in its interest to promote the candidate it endorses."
I would expect the editors of a school newspaper, even for a private, conservative college with only 1500 undergrads, to know more about journalistic ethics than to suppose that endorsement=subjective bias in reporting.
Fox News did not endorse Trump for President in either 2016 or 2020. Neither did any of Rupert Murdoch's papers including the NY Post and the Wall St. Journal. When the Wall St Journal won't endorse the Republican candidate for President, the problem is the candidate not the liberalism of the Wall St Journal. The Texas Observer, the most conservative newspaper in Texas, refused to endorse Trump. The AZ Republic had an unbroken string of Republican endorsements for President of 126 years before Trump came along. It's not like any of these papers are endorsing Democrats for Senate or the House, because they are not. It's not like they aren't endorsing the conservative side of voting referendums. It's just that Donald Trump is a terrible candidate for any office. Newspaper editors, whatever their personal politics, can't spend decades reporting about what a liar and a thief Donald Trump is and then credibly support his candidacy for office. No. Thieves make bad presidents. Responsible journalist ought never endorse thieves for president.
Let's further recall that Trump couldn't even secure the endorsement of any prior Republican candidate for president- Romney, McCain, both Bushes begged America not to elect this guy. If Trump couldn't get the support of his own partisan core, why would anybody expect more support from more objective outsiders?
The media 'hated Trump, for obvious reasons, the entire left did, 'always with the Late Night Talk Shows, the hosts, the straight criticism and disdain, and their clear it's not funny, I'm serious about how much of a problem this guy is to me.
Obviously, late night talk show hosts can't get away with that kind of obvious subjectivity unless it pleases the majority. The overwhelming majority of Americans hated Trump- always have. Probably the best known candidate to ever run for the office and easily the most despised.
also an article about how trump himself manipulates media https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2016/9/26/13061494/trump-media-manipulation - drlebronski
Ah yes, one man, standing alone against the corrupt giant of media conglomerate. . . I'm joking.
More like one corrupt man incompetently manipulating the media. Let's recall that in 1990 he was forced to testify under oath that he posed as fictitious people to offer recommendations, endorsements, authentications of facts. He used fake names to get on Forbes lists and called in to talk shows using fake names to talk about what a chick magnet he was. Everybody knew Trump was sick fuck decades before he ran for the presidency- no responsible editor would put his name behind that creep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
@drlebronski
Define, "rigged"?
RIGGED is "Pre-arranged and fixed so that the winner or outcome is decided in advance"
The 2020 was certainly rigged by the Republican Party. Only GOP incompetence and the largest turnout in US history rescued the presidency.
Created:
Posted in:
The 2020 election wasn't "rigged"
RIGGED is "Pre-arranged and fixed so that the winner or outcome is decided in advance"
The 2020 was certainly rigged by the Republican Party. Only GOP incompetence and the largest turnout in US history rescued the presidency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
That is a possible good avenue that could fix the issue of their power over discourse. I suppose I discounted anti-trust prematurely.I suppose my main concern is the urgency of the issue. If we could limit their power to crush competitors, there is still the concern that the competition needs to gain its own power. Facebook, Twitter, etc took well over a decade to get the reach they have.Since the flow of information is necessary for elections, it might be better to force the companies with the existing infrastructure and audience to comply with 1st Amendment rules.
I'd agree that the flow of accurate information is necessary for free and fair elections. Republicans have demonstrated a heedless disregard for accurate information in the age of Trump so I can't say I share your sense of urgency. Nor is it possible for those media goliaths to violate a citizen's FA rights. The Constitution constrains the government from infringing on free speech, not big tech. If big govt. were to force big tech to promote ideas that those giants consider harmful or anti-American that would be an infringement. Any Conservative American will know that while Republicans have been required to eject such principles.
What the GOP wants and ought to have is an at least one rival network- a Hearst to Facebook's Pulitzer, a Fox to YouTube's MSNBC. It doesn't need to be explicitly Republican (Hearst and Pulitzer were mostly on the same side politically), nor ought it be. The competition itself will ensure that unpopular opinion gets expressed. Any Capitalist American will count on that competition while again, Republicans are required to eject any principle that obstructs their path to power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marauder
How many of you have heard of the Axial Age? a designation given to a part of history by a academic named Karl Jaspers.
I have not heard of the Axial Age although I was vaguely aware of Karl Jaspers.
What are your thoughts about it? Do you deny that it occurred (a hard sell if you do) and if you don't then how do you explain the Axial Age, what do you make of it?
Nevertheless, I am willing to offer some skepticism on the subject.
How can for thousands and thousands of years religion across the globe basically take one of two shapes exclusively (Animism and Polytheism) then all of a sudden across the globe, every religion as we know it today was born? Isn't that just a little mind blowing? If you had a time traveling private jet, you could theoretically go to a single year that's roughly around 500 B.C. and pick up Siddhartha, Confucius, Lao Tsu, the author of the Upanishads, Daniel and Jeremiah, Xenophanes and Anaximander,
- Let's put Confucius, and Xenophanes on that plane, perhaps one of the authors of the Upanishads, maybe Lao Tzu. The rest seem unlikely to make their flight.
- Gautama Buddha was likely not yet born or very young in 500BCE
- 411–400: Dundas (2002), p. 24: "...as is now almost universally accepted by informed Indological scholarship, a re-examination of early Buddhist historical material, [...], necessitates a redating of the Buddha's death to between 411 and 400 BCE..."
- Indologist Michael Witzel provides a "revised" dating of 460–380 BCE for the lifetime of the Buddha
- Confucius [551–479 BCE]
- Lao Tsu [Unknown, 6th to 4th century BCE- so perhaps]
- Upanishads author- Gavin Flood states that "the Upanisads are not a homogeneous group of texts. Even the older texts were composed over a wide expanse of time from about 600 to 300 BCE Stephen Phillips places the early or "principal" Upanishads in the 800 to 300 BCE range-more than one author, big maybe
- Daniel- The consensus of most modern scholars is that Daniel is not an historical figure and that the book is a cryptic allusion to the reign of the 2nd century BCE Hellenistic king Antiochus IV Epiphanes- Not Daniel and 300 years too early
- Jeremiah- [c. 650 – c. 570 BC] 70 years too late
- Xenophanes [c. 570 – c. 478 BC]
- Anaximander [ c. 610 – c. 546 BC] 46 years too late
and bring them all to the same room and hold a religious summit with the founders of every major religion and schools of thought in western and eastern philosophy.
- I don't know why Daniel is given more credit than Isaiah or Ezekiel.
- Paul founded the biggest religion in the world, Christianity, 500 years later
- Mohammed founded the second biggest religion in the world, 1130 years later
- If you'd lump Judaism, Christianity, and Islam into one major religion then your time traveling jet plane should go back another 675 years to pick up Abraham
- Zoroastrianism was huge in 500 BCE and neither animism nor polytheistic but you forgot to pick Zarathustra up and anyway he was likely long dead
- Jainism was huge in 500 BCE and not animism or really polytheistic (believing that humans could become gods isn't quite polytheism) but you forgot to pick up the 24th tirthankara and anyway he was dead some 30 years and anyway he was just the last of 24 founders.
Industrial Revolutions are pretty easy to explain because they just hinge on a breakthrough in some kind of technology and how fast that tech can spread. But a diverse religious renaissance across the globe in relatively isolated cultures? "well it was a turbulent time in history, people needed to turn to new ideas to help them through it. The Waring States Period was going on in China, the Temple had been destroyed in Jerusalem and their people sent into exile, the Persian and Peloponnesian war was going on in greece." Yeah but it's not like war and significant social disrupting events hadn't occurred before in history. The Bronze Age Collapse ended the written word, and sent multiple advanced developed kingdoms back to the stone age and to barbarianism. Yet for the most part, with the exception of Israel (and even they were not much of an exception) the whole world stuck with animism and polytheism like they always had. What was different during the Axial Age? and is "it was just a coincidence" a good enough explanation for you in explaining why it happened everywhere all at once or is their a systemic social and cultural historic explanation for this religious renaissance that satisfies you? I'd love to hear it cause this is interesting stuff.
I think Jaspers (and by extension you) over-estimate the isolation of the cultures you include. Let's note that your time-traveling plane has no need to cross an ocean to get to your selected cultures. If you are going to conclude that some sort of global Vulcan mind meld transpired, wouldn't you want to include at least some of the cultures that had no access to the trade routes? North and South America, Australia, sub-Saharan Africa had significant populations with sophisticated belief systems and yet your jet plane made no stops at places that did not trade with the melting pot of the Middle East.
Jared Diamond's Gun, Germs, and Steel posits that "Eurasia's large landmass and long east–west distance increased [military and agricultural] advantages. Its large area provided more plant and animal species suitable for domestication. Equally important, its east–west orientation has allowed groups of people to wander and empires to conquer from one end of the continent to the other while staying at the same latitude. This was important because similar climate and cycle of seasons let them keep the same "food production system" – they could keep growing the same crops and raising the same animals all the way from Scotland to Siberia. Doing this throughout history, they spread innovations, languages and diseases everywhere."
Whole cloth silk was almost exclusively a product of China in the Spring and Autumn period, yet we read of such silk in the Odyssey and the Book of Ezekiel. By 500 BC postal riders could travel from the Aegean Sea to the Persian Gulf (2000 miles) in 9 days on the Persian Royal Road (rivaling Pony Express speeds 2360 years later) and Scythians were carving belt buckles out of Chinese Jade traded for horses and gold.
Heck, consider that Yamnaya migrations had spread Proto-Indo-European languages from Ireland to Mongolia to India two thousand years before. Is it really so impossible to believe that proto-Monotheistic ideas of an afterlife and a golden rule transmitted along the same routes a couple of millennia later?
Bronze Age collapses were mostly initiated by Iron Age incursions. Iron production was complicated and ritualized. You didn't find iron ore, like copper and tin, you burnt the iron out by slagging, needing large amounts of fuel and charcoal. The size and centralization needed to produce iron very likely consolidated power structures, including priestly power structures that could very likely have expedited monotheistic thinking (my temple before others becomes my temple alone).
Iron made arrows far more deadly and chariots became obsolete. Armored phalanxes became the way to break the enemies' line and moving large numbers of spearmen in synchronicity required a huge amount of training and expensive armor, which necessitated way more power-sharing, giving rise to middle-class armies like the Persian immortals and Spartan hoplites, giving rise to more democratic power structures. The technology was rapidly changing, in no small part due to trade and conquest. Social structures were changing, giving rise to new governments. It seems natural that religions were changing rapidly too.
What do you make of this if you are a christian in terms of your faith? does it challenge your faiths notion that Jesus is the only way if it seems God was inspiring religious thinkers across the world all at once, or do you have a way to view these religious awakenings in a somewhat positive light without giving them the same degree of credit and status you do your own faith? or some other explanation for all this?
I am a lapsed Catholic who does not credit God for these very human-seeming shifts in ideology.
If your an atheist what you make of the Axial Age? do you find it interesting at all?
Very, very interesting but not evidence of magic or God or even Vulcan mind melds.
Thanks for asking!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I read Darkness at Noon for existential literature and have been citing that Pendulum of Time analogy ever since. I think of Koestler's "library angel" theory of coincidence in research every time I watch WIngs of Desire. I was aware of Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe and I think there was some early validation regarding Khazar influences in the Ashkenazi population but more recent studies have gotten a lot more doubtful.
[Nebel, et al 2005] hypothesized that [ R1a1a (R-M17)] could reflect low-level gene flow from surrounding Eastern European populations, or, alternatively, that both the Ashkenazi Jews with R1a1a (R-M17), and to a much greater extent Eastern European populations in general, might partly be descendants of Khazars. They concluded "However, if the R1a1a (R-M17) chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then, according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed ~12% of the present-day Ashkenazim." This hypothesis is also supported by David B. Goldstein in his book Jacob's legacy: A genetic view of Jewish history. However, Faerman (2008) states that "External low-level gene flow of possible Eastern European origin has been shown in Ashkenazim but no evidence of a hypothetical Khazars' contribution to the Ashkenazi gene pool has ever been found." A 2017 study, concentrating on the Ashkenazi Levites where the proportion reaches 50%, while signaling that there's a "rich variation of haplogroup R1a outside of Europe which is phylogenetically separate from the typically European R1a branches", precises that the particular R1a-Y2619 sub-clade testifies for a local origin, and that the "Middle Eastern origin of the Ashkenazi Levite lineage based on what was previously a relatively limited number of reported samples, can now be considered firmly validated."
That library scene:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@ILikePie5
@MisterChris
-->@MisterChris @SupaDudzHere’s to a new (hopefully more conservative) era.Congrats!
what would be the qualities and characteristics of a more conservatives website?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@Barney
Many thanks to Ragnar and to David for their service. I hope this will translate into greater participation on the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Thanks for that, I would never have found that via any search engine or internet listing. It looks like this is a freeweb website hosted on webs.com so its basically a blog and the last update I see is from 2008. I can't tell if this is associated with the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan or is some kind of independent effort.
When the Supreme Knights of the Klu Klux Klan doesn't have a website anymore?
It doesn't look like the creator has paid for a domain name which is probably good news in terms of the likely lifespan remaining to this site.
In late 2020, the parent company, Vistaprint, announced that on March 31, 2021 all the paying websites hosted by webs.com will be migrated to the Vistaprint domain and all the free websites deleted, with their owners' accounts removed. This change was postponed to June 30, 2021.
Looks like the change was postponed again but I interpret this information to mean that this website wont be a website anymore in the short term.
I don't find the Supreme Knights of the Ku Klux Klan listed as a hate group in 2008 or today on the SPLC or ADL hate group lists. This is probably a pretty indie effort but its hard to know for sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
@oromagiI see.I’d agree that this lawsuit is unlikely to win. Seems to me that it is a waste of time, money, and political capital to try it.Under the current laws, it is difficult to do anything about the censorship. Hence why my focus is on changing the laws and not on frivolous lawsuits.
I think I would focus on anti-trust legislation and fully justified Federal anti-trust interventions against a number of big tech giants- Amazon and Facebook are certainly anti-competitive monopolies- perhaps Twitter although I'd have to think that one through. Why change corporate rights to control private content with new law when hundred year old laws are clearly relevant and address the problem of lack of alternative venue much more directly? I know Conservatives despise anti-trust generally but using existing law is more Conservative in principle then designing new laws to achieve desired political outcomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@Fruit_Inspector
How will we know when this supposed racism has been eliminated?When the Supreme Knights of the Klu Klux Klan doesn't have a website anymore?
I think you are conflating two different organizations.
The top ranks in the national Klan org are Imperial Wizard and Grand Dragon. Supreme Knight is the top rank in the Knights of Columbus which is a fraternal organization largely constituted as a counter-reaction to anti-Catholic bigotry promoted by the Klan.
If you mean David Duke who founded the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, his title was Grand Wizard but he was forced out of his own organization after selling a membership list to the FBI.
Stormfront is the main website of the Klan and it was founded by Duke's ex-wife and the guy she left Duke for. Duke is still a frequent and popular contributor. Last fall, investigators discovered that Stormfront was running on the same Philippines-based server as 8kun, the main QAnon website owned by Jim Watkins, and administered by his son Ron Watkins. The new information exposed both sites to increased attacks and criminal investigation so both websites were brought under the protection of St. Petersburg-based (read Russian Intel) DDo-Guard who's biggest client is the Russian military. After the Jan 6 attacks, DDo-Guard renounced 8kun so now its not clear who protects QAnon and Stormfront, except that it is protected by Russian interests.
I wonder what Klan members from the 50's and 60's would think of the current Stormfront's dependence on Russian Intel to stay up and running. We might note that after going to jail for tax evasion and spending charitable donations on himself Duke spent a couple of years in Russia and the Ukraine meeting with many of the same oligarch-adjacent personalities that met with Giuliani and Manafort. They helped Duke get on his feet by sponsoring his neo-Nazi instigations in Germany, the Czech Republic, and the UK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
-->@oromagiOops, forgot my question. What lawsuit were you referring to in which he said he didn’t have to use the money on the lawsuit?
The lawsuit filed yesterday, the one mentioned in the title and OP.
WILL TRUMP's BIG TECH LAWSUITS SUCEED? EXPERTS say CHANCES are SLIM
Legal scholars suggest former president’s complaint may bring the attention he craves but doesn’t present a serious legal argument
Kari Paul
Wed 7 Jul 2021 17.32 EDT
Donald Trump may have filed lawsuits against Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, claiming he and other conservatives have been censored – but legal scholars say his case is probably doomed to fail.
The former president was suspended from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube after the 6 January Capitol attack over fears he would incite further violence. Trump on Wednesday filed class-action lawsuits in federal court in Miami against the three companies, arguing these suspensions violated the first amendment, despite the fact that the companies are private and therefore subject to different rules.
“Trump has the first amendment argument exactly wrong,” said Paul Barrett, the deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. “The first amendment applies to government censorship or speech regulation. It does not stop private sector corporations from regulating content on their platforms.”
Trump says he will sue social media giants over ‘censorship’
Social media platforms, under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, are allowed to moderate their services as they please so long as they are acting in “good faith”. The law also generally exempts internet companies from liability for the material that users post.
But Trump and other conservatives have long argued that Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms have abused that protection and should lose their immunity – or at least have to earn it by satisfying requirements set by the government.
All three lawsuits ask the court to award unspecified damages, declare Section 230 unconstitutional and restore Trump’s accounts, along with those of the other plaintiffs – a handful of others who have had posts or accounts removed.
Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California, has studied more than 60 similar, failed lawsuits over the past few decades that sought to take on internet companies for terminating or suspending users’ accounts. He says Trump’s lawsuits are unlikely to go far.
“They’ve argued everything under the sun, including first amendment, and they get nowhere,” Goldman said. “Maybe he’s got a trick up his sleeve that will give him a leg up on the dozens of lawsuits before him. I doubt it.”
Goldman said it’s likely Trump is instead pursuing the suits to garner attention. As president, Trump last year signed an executive order challenging Section 230.
“It was always about sending a message to their base that they’re fighting on their behalf against the evil Silicon Valley tech giants,” Goldman said.
The lawsuit is “meritless” as major platforms are private entities, with first amendment rights to control the content they publish, echoed Vera Eidelman, a staff attorney with the ACLU. Eidelman added that Trump has baselessly claimed these social platforms responded to pressure from the government in their content moderation.
“He fails to back that up with allegations showing that the companies were responding to government coercion or encouragement, which is an issue we would not take lightly,” Eidelman said.
As antitrust battles continue, there have been discussions about how to address the outsized power and influence of big tech firms on users. But ideas about how exactly to address the issue differ widely. Experts say Trump’s lawsuits do not actually address many of the antitrust issues at hand.
Facebook, Google and Twitter all declined comment Wednesday.
“There is an important debate to be had about what kinds of obligations the first amendment may impose on private actors that have so much influence over public discourse, and about how much leeway the first amendment gives to Congress to regulate the activities of those private actors,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “But this complaint is not likely to add much to that debate.”
The claims from Trump serve to distract from “legitimate concerns” about how haphazard content moderation or censorship has negatively impacted marginalized communities, said Evan Greer of digital rights organization Fight for the Future.
“While it’s silly to pretend that the moderation decisions of big tech don’t have a significant impact on free expression, the first amendment enables private platforms to make exactly the kind of moderation decisions they wish to make as non-government entities,” she said. “This is not a lawsuit. It’s a fundraising grift.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
g@drlebronskiI DONT support burning buildings but what would you expect after decades of police brutalityWhat buildings were burned down?
Some building were definitely burned down, mostly in Minneapolis after police and firefighters withdrew from some neighborhoods during the rioting. Famously, the 3rd Precinct Police Station was burned down on the second night of rioting. About 150 buildings in mid-town Minneapolis were damaged by fire and a couple of dozen of these were total loses, including restaurants, gas stations, liquor stores and churches, overwhelmingly impacting non-white small businesses in the blackest neighborhood in the state. As the Pioneer Press put it, "the irony of self-proclaimed advocates — many of them white — arriving from outside the city to burn down large strips of ethnic neighborhoods in the name of racial justice hasn’t been lost on residents of the Midway."
On June 13th, the night after Rayshard Brooks was killed by an Atlanta Police officer, Garret Rolfe (now facing felony murder charges), the Wendy's where Brooks was murdered was burned to the ground by Brook's 29-year old White mistress (now facing felony arson charges) among others.
Protests in Portland have continued throughout the past year and up to the present although violent protests in downtown Portland were commonplace long before BLM (George H. W. Bush famously dubbed Portland as "Little Beirut" after anarchists protested a campaign speech he made there in 1991). Setting fires is fairly common and the City Hall, the County buildings, a police station and a city councilman's home have been targeted by arsonists in the past year although none of these buildings were totaled, nor people hurt, nor, as far as I can tell, were any Black people arrested for any of these crimes. Portland is often called the whitest large city in America and it's probably true depending on how you define white and large city. Portland is whiter than Salt Lake City or Omaha, which is saying something. That Portland is hosting the longest running protests against racial disparities in policing says more about the virtue signaling nature of the protestors than the degree of injustice perpetrated by Portland Police (although Portland Police are under investigation for ties to White Supremacist organizations and collusion with White Supremacists to frame an unpopular Police Commissioner).
In my hometown, a beloved burger joint was partially damaged by fire at the height of the protests but a white homeless man with a grudge against the place was only taking advantage of the protests and is now facing felony arson charges.
We should note that FOX News must be given a lot of the responsibility for promoting the misconceptions of BLM protests as mostly black arsonists. Many media analysts have noted that when reporting from cities where BLM protests were mostly White, FOX substituted pictures of black protestors from other cities and dates. When discussing protests generally or even specific totally peaceful protests, FOX employed pictures of buildings burning in Minneapolis, Ferguson and other violent riots from other times and places.
Created:
Posted in:
First of all, I think the nomenclature is misleading. BLM is a relatively small organization with only 9 chapters around the US. There's not a membership list or a hierarchical governing structure. BLM is essentially a handful of mostly queer, mostly black people who tweet a lot and run a website that highlights injustices and amplifies protests. Yes, they will send out a tweet and email saying "everybody meet at 13th St. Baptist Church on Saturday to protest the murder of Jane Doe" but the odds that anybody from that organization will actually show up with a plan is pretty small.
There are advantages to this structure in terms of mamabirding investigations into local organizers and fuzzying up actual accountability but the primary disadvantage seems to be that most people think that most BLM protests are mostly Black and that's not always true, not even mostly true. Within the actual Black CIvil Rights community of churches and NAACP members, BLM is barely tolerated and seldom considered representative. I'm just saying, when we call somebody a BLM activist that generally means that they are shouting "Black LIves Matter" in the streets and wearing a BLM T-shirt. That seldom means that anybody's taking any instructions from BLM.
What we are calling BLM protests were overwhelmingly George Floyd protests and protests against local police brutality and those protests would be more effective to be called by that name. BLM did little more than blow a trumpet at most of these.
That said, BLM did do some actual organizing and representation in Minneapolis, LA, NY, and DC and I think it can be fairly said that some acts of violence were associated with marches they organized. That doesn't change the fact that most protests against police brutality were overwhelmingly peaceful, daytime, socially distanced events while most of the violence and harm attributed to BLM took place at night with little political or social intent beyond "fuck the cops, let's fuck stuff up." The racial makeup of those rioters varied widely and often according to regional demographics- in cities with large black core communities, we saw a lot of blacks but in terms of raw numbers the majority of damage attributed to BLM was done by white people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
@oromagiWe get it. You hate the Jews.I just learned I am jewish. So my mind has changed
In the modern age of genetics this is more often the case than not. Let's remember that when Adolph Hitler's genealogy was examined his ancestry was more Libyan than anything else and he was more Jewish than he was Northern European. Most Palestinians are no more than fourth or fifth cousins from their nearest Jewish relative, practically family. Genetic testing is a popular subject on the Stormfront website but a survey of all posted results found that only about a third of White Supremacists were happy with their degree of whiteness. Just over two-thirds got results that showed less whiteness and more black or Jewish ancestry than was supportable by their ideology. So much for purity.
Created:
Posted in:
CORRECTION: Tribe of Jacob is incorrect. All 12 tribes were derived from sons and grandsons of Jacob. Judeans were one tribe of Jacob. Only the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin survived. Josephus reports that the other ten went in exile to the east. Jacobeans were not Jews but it would be far more clear to say that Judeans were but one tribe of Jacob.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Yes, Trump has little legal ground to stand on and seems to know it. The lawsuit seems to be just another way to re-up Trump income with another round of fundraisers that explicitly say that Trump is not obligated to spend donations on his lawsuit and on which we've already established he won't pay taxes. The GOP is complaining that Trump is now cutting deep into GOP fundraising for 2022 Congressional races but Trump, as ever, does not give a fuck.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
-->@oromagiwhich means we need to have an exact number for how many folks need shelter and dont get it, while not being mentally ill and drug addicted. that's the only way we can settle our differing positions. if it's more on the inconsequential side i would join your position.
exact numbers are hard to come by. Tent villages are easy to find but half of homeless folks live in a car. Many sleep in bushes and out of the way woods. Many take shelter some place illegally and don't want to be discovered.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
we spend enough money on housing that every person who isn't completely crazy or drug addicted should have a place to go. my guess is most homeless people have those problems, but i'd think there's plenty who should have a place to go to. we can't give everyone an apartment and such. it's too wasteful and expensive. if we geared money towards homeless shelters, we'd have fewer homeless people, which should be our goal.
HUD estimates that 70% of homeless people are addicted to at least one substance and about half have a debilitating mental illness with significant overlap between those two. Generally, you must be sober to request a bed in a shelter and remain sober for the duration which is a difficult ask for most hardcore addicts.
In most cities on most nights there are more beds set aside for the homeless than requests. During COVID, the numbers looking for shelter dropped precipitously and have not bounced back much. Many homeless are making do with tents.
Shelters have always been difficult places to stay- lots of theft, violence, very noisy, big problems with lice and bedbugs. My understanding is that the majority of homeless, crazy, addicted, both, or neither prefer the streets to shelters except when it is very wet or very cold.
I would say that we should focus on families, parents with children, and work hard to make comfortable safe spaces for them because most shelters don't provide that.
Created:
Posted in:
We get it. You hate the Jews.
The Anglo Saxon Celtic people burst into history at the very same time that ancient Israel disappeared. Coincidence, I think not!
That's false. To suggest that Celts were the original Whites recategorizes Greeks, Romans, Iberians, Russians, North Africans, and half of Scandinavians as non-white- a controversial statement. We know from ancient burial sites that Europe was dark-skinned until genes for light skin, blond hair, and blue eyes and tallness are found in Southern Scandinavia beginning about 7700 BC. When settlers arrived out of the Near East, they carried both genes for light skin but not the other traits. The biggest influx of whiteness and red hair and even taller tallness and especially Indo-European language but also better Vitamin D production and Lactose tolerance and Bell Beaker culture came from Yamnayan migrations out of modern day Georgia and Armenia spreading from Ireland to India to Mongolia starting about 3000 BC. Central European Bell Beaker Tribes homogenized into Urnfield Culture which homogenized into the Hallstatt Culture that developed the earliest common Celtic language and Art which was then spread west by La Tène Culture until the Romans overran them.
The Anglo-Saxons, lowland Scots, Normans, Danes, Norwegians, Swedes…Dutch, Belgians, Lombards and Franks have all sprung from that great fountain of the human race.
Spaniards are about as Celtic as the French .Only about half of Scandinavian males carry the specifically Celtic haplotypes, less than that in Italy and almost none in southern Italy. Fewer males are Celtic the further East you go across Europe- 50% in Germany, 20% in Poland and Serbia as well as Turkey and Syria. Almost none in the Ukraine.
>Israel falls around 750bc
Well, that is the Kingdom of Israel which fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC, 2000 years after Celtic language and art began. That's the lost ten tribes of Israel which warred against the tribe of Judah for forty years and worshipped rather differently than the Judeans although they shared a common descent from Aaron and Levi and a common Hebrew language. The Judeans, who held Jerusalem and the first Temple but weren't really even monotheistic yet survived the Assyrians but fell to the Babylonians in 598 BC who destroyed the First Temple. When the Persians conquered the Babylonians 60 years later, Cyrus the Great freed the survivors who had been transformed by the loss of their Temple and the land promised to them by God into a tight knit tough-minded monotheistic group called the Jews.
So the Jews actually became Jews about the time that Rome became a Republic and the Ionian Greeks were first clashing with the Persian Empire, which I would call more than three millennia after Europe became mostly white.
Europeans did inherit much of their whiteness from the Near East, but 2 or 3 thousand years before Abraham and 3 or 4 thousand years before Judaism.
Whites are gods chosen people (according to the bible, I'm not a christcuck...just a bringer of knowledge).
That is false and quite contrary to the Bible. Only 51% of Europe is even Christian. I don't know how God can chose you unless you've chosen God first. In America, blacks are more likely to be Christians than whites but you would reserve the chosen franchise for one skin color.
Whites, Image search your family coat of arms. It probably has ensigns of the tribes of Jacob.
Also super dumb but also the Tribe of Jacob is separate from the Tribe of Judah. Jacobeans were not Jews.
This is the big one folks. The fake Jews are trying to wipe out the real jews
If we go strictly by genetics, Palestinians are the most direct descendants of Aaron and Levi. Lebanese, Syrians, and native Saudi Arabians have more of the defining Jewish haplotypes than modern Ashkenazis or Shepardis and about the same as modern Mizrahis.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
@oromagiI don't think the occupy movement was ever about genocide
You are the only one talking about the occupy movement. The subject was how your reduction of Jews to alien reptiles falls in line with the right wing tradition of de-humanizing ethnic groups as a prequel to genocide. The purpose of your OP was an explicit celebration of the mass death of Jews.
Created: