• 0 Posts
  • 42 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 7th, 2023

help-circle
  • Holy shit… How can you rightly identify that the US military (and the US government’s use of said military) is evil, and that killing people for their ideas just spreads those ideas, but then somehow come to the conclusion that public health mandates during a pandemic are unconstitutional and “billionaires in this country got rich by actually serving their fellow man”?

    Fucking hell, the propaganda machines are in overdrive.

    Appreciate a veteran telling kids not to join the military. (Assuming this was written by an actual veteran, and isn’t just fictional propaganda.)

    The rest is idiotic corpo bootlicking unrelated to the topic.











  • To confirm what you mean by “I’m a conservative”, which of these commonly held “conservative” beliefs (each which implies a lack of empathy) do you not subscribe to (i.e. “I don’t think like that…”)

    • Black people only get harassed by police more often because they commit more crime.
    • Gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
    • Women should not have the choice of abortion.
    • The state is allowed to infringe upon free speech to prevent you from telling children about gay people.
    • Foreigners are ruining this county.
    • Climate change is a lie.
    • COVID was a lie.
    • Contemporary statues honoring Confederate traitors and slave owners are “honored cultural heritage”.
    • All corporate media lies about Donald Trump, except that corporate media which supports him.
    • Rich people earned all that money, and we have no right to take it back, or to limit how they use it.






  • You picked two random days, compared their active user counts, and concluded that it must indicate a continuous trend.

    Yesterday, it was 60°F out. Today it’s 30°F out. Clearly, by next week, everyone in my town will be dead by freezing.

    Experts struggle with statistics. Laymen, doubly so.

    EDIT:

    Also, that’s only a difference of 7%, so it’s not even that drastic.

    EDIT2:

    Also also, what does any of this have to do with your post being removed? What was the post? Did the mod/admin give you a reason for removal?



  • Hmm, I see, I see… But, pray tell…

    WHAT JUSTICE WAS HE OBSTRUCTING?!

    The GOP logic seems to go like this.

    1. Get accused of crime.
    2. Illegally block investigation into the original crime.
    3. Because of your obstruction, insufficient evidence of your original crime is found to force prosecution.
    4. Now that you blocked the original charges, you can claim it was all bogus. You can’t “obstruct justice” if there was no crime in the first place, right?!

    So, obstruction of justice is legal now, so long as you succeed. Got it. Thanks.

    Also, fuck off. I’m not reading another reply. You are unwilling to discuss this topic in good faith, or you lack the brain cells to do so.


  • Insufficient evidence to prove a crime? Maybe. I disagree, but I’m neither a lawyer nor a judge.

    But “collusion” itself isn’t a crime, and the evidence clearly showed evidence of collusion between the GOP and Russia.

    The number of connections between the GOP and Russia, financially and ideologically, and Russia’s proven interference in 2016 and since (not to mention the GOP visit to Moscow on July 4th) are evidence enough to show there is “collusion”.

    The problem is our laws on campaign finance and foreign political influence are Swiss cheese.

    And then they turn around and act like, “Well, he didn’t get convicted of a crime, so clearly it was all a hoax.”

    No. It wasn’t a hoax. There was evidence. Just not enough to do anythong about it, apparently. (And I still argue only because of the amount of interference run on the investigation.)

    EDIT: And just in case you want to come back and obtusely repeat your argument, here’s the report in full. After 181 pages of evidence, here’s the conclusion.

    IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

    Its in black and white: they had already determined that they would not make a “prosecutorial judgment” (recommendation to charge Trump with a crime), since Barr said that should be left to the Impeachment process. But despite that, the report makes clear, in no unclear terms…

    “It also does not exonerate him.”