MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
Hits of the Day
- crazedandconfused (26)
- HSG (24)
- MrSmith1 (19)
- Doctor Cleveland (18)
- PeraclesPlease (14)
Trump, the Psychopath
By Orion on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 9:24am |Cable news can be a bit of constant feedback, but I found this clip very jarring. The guest tells Joe Scarborough that, unlike Richard Nixon, there appears to be little regret or sorrow about this situation in Donald Trump and, due to that, there is nearly no sympathy for him. He is now in a bizarre situation in which he will be branded for the rest of his life and banned from sending money, sending e-mails or doing a number of things that even people in prison can do.
That's what you get for being a psychopath.
A lot of people blame social media, and it clearly has issues, for the degradation of discourse over the past few years. However, we had the internet since the 1990s. We had chat room and message boards where people said a lot of stuff - I remember it. Trump entered with his hatred around 2011, starting the rumor that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. That rumor took off and was repeated by Mitt Romney (which I'm sure he regrets) during his 2012 campaign. The volume progressively went up until he announced his own run in 2015.
The president clearly matters more than we may like to think in the United States, as the tone in this country got progressively worse and worse as Donald Trump became more prominent. His actual inauguration was the culmination of what he was building up, as opposed to the start. I've heard people talk in a way that would cause blood in the streets and has done just that.
URL:
https://youtu.be/mR8fdyOGAVI
- Add new comment
- 19071 reads
Comments
I love it when people support certain actions that are indefensible. In this case private companies acting as defacto judges and juries.
What happens when they come after you?
by Jeff (not verified) on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 11:44am
Uh, the meaning of private companies is that the people who own them can spend their money as they damn well please.
See Citizens United decision for details.
by moat on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 11:53am
So you agree that any company can refuse service for anyone for any reason?
by Jeff (not verified) on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 12:01pm
What are you talking about?
by moat on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 12:01pm
It's one of those buckshots to open a conversation.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 12:04pm
Many of the entities cutting off Trump are platforms, banks and various business partners who he utilized over a long period of time. If they have inordinate power now, he helped build it up and that power is only a problem now once it challenges his.
by Orion on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 12:21pm
Jeff (unverified)? I smell a sock puppet...
It's one of those buckshots to open a conversation???
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 1:02pm
What were you talking about?
What does denying service to an individual have to do with they denying service provideer spending money?
by Jeff (not verified) on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 5:02pm
The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, and sex.Other legislation and Supreme Court rulings expanded and prohibits discrimination by age, disability, or sexual orientation etc.. None of these laws seem to apply to Trump. Do you think they go too far and need to be rolled back or not far enough so that Trump is included? It seems to me that all the so called "discrimination" would have happened years ago if Trump wasn't in the privileged position of being president. For example all American banks refused to loan money to Trump long before he was president based on his many defaulted loans and he had no choice but to seek loans from a foreign bank known for corruption.If not president even this corrupt bank would have stopped loaning him money based of his economic situation. He has violated the tos of social media companies and if not president would have been banned long ago. Is it appropriate for social media companies to have a tos agreement or should they be considered common carriers legally obligated to publish anything and everything submitted by everyone?
by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 1:27pm
Yes.
I am trying to imagine Trump joining a class action suit. I may have just injured my brain.
by moat on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 1:27pm
That right there is what we call bullshitting. It's always been okay to cut ties in business partnerships, especially when you "find out" the other party is criminal
by Orion on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 1:48pm
Excellent point on the social media issue how he himself got special privileges because he was president. He broke lots of rules that they enforced against others but with him they let it go. (Twitter actually has a special entry on their rules for world leaders, admit I haven't read it.) So he would rightly not be included on any sort of "class auction suit" type thing about them on like Qanon memes.
And on that, comes to mind, why weren't all these free speech absolutists screaming when they purged Russian trolls? After all, a post is a post is a post, is speech? Another thing you brought up on another thread was a good point on this front. there used to be a choice of newspapers with editor gatekeepers, or fairness doctrine television with producers. You could start one of those or you could yell ontop a box at the park. I too was pretty much a free speech absolutist in that situation. But then I became a moderator on a bulletin board on the internet for a year or two and learned about "trolls."
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 1:50pm
The rioters, especially family of the woman who was killed, could make a case that they were manipulated in to this, that they didn't realize what they were being brought in to, but Trump can't claim to be victim in any part of this because he's not one.
If anything, this all is a bullshit prank he had in mind to pull for decades.
by Orion on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 2:43pm
Yeah a textbook troll his whole life, he thinks about trolling 24/7. That much most of us New Yorkers knew, before trolling on the internet became a thing and had a name. We just didn't take his political ambitions seriously because frankly, over the years, they were often allover the place, whatever got attention at the time.
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 2:42pm
He literally looks like a troll, and his presidency followed that "Trump Trackdown" show from the 1950s that satirized his father to a T, as if he's been thinking about it for years.
by Orion on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 2:44pm
saw another great point argued on Twitter the other day against a social media free speech absolutist, the guy said: you mean it would be okay with you if they let Instagram get overrun with hard core pornography?"
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 2:34pm
I believe in freedom of association. If I own a business and don't want to do business with you that is my decision.
As far as violating terms of service MANY MANY people do that yet they aren't banned.
Again, like or dislike of Trump is irrelevant. They will come after people you agree with eventually.
.
by Jeff (not verified) on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 5:06pm
"If I own a business and don't want to do business with you that is my decision."
Then you support everything that has happened to Trump done by private companies.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 5:12pm
Platforms have certain obligations to make sure they're not being used for criminal activity. I know Republicans like to think the World of Commerce is some big free range Libertarian ranch, but that's not how it works.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 5:17pm
Really? So APPLE is liable since some of the rioters were using iPhones? I also remember that not too long ago apple refused to unlock a the phone of a felon
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/apple-refuses-barr-request-to-unlock-pen...
"Apple continues to refuse Barr’s request that it help find a way for law enforcement to access encrypted devices with a court order, like the one Apple resisted in 2016 in the case of a shooter’s iPhone in San Bernardino, California. In that case, the point was dropped when the FBI was able to crack into the phone without Apple’s help, but the incident raised questions about the balance between civil liberties and public safety that have yet to be settled."
Apples Phones are being used right now to plan violence. Why is apple allowed to use the wireless phone infrastructure?
by Jeff (not verified) on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 9:21am
There's a difference between single-person terminal use for 1-to-1 communication, vs 1-to-many social nets with unknown actors. As just part of the issue. But I have a feeling you don't actually care, you just don't like being told no.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 9:30am
"Platforms have certain obligations to make sure they're not being used for criminal activity. " --PeraclesPlease
"There's a difference between single-person terminal use for 1-to-1 communication, vs 1-to-many social nets with unknown actors." ----PeraclesPlease
Darn those pesky situational ethics.
by Jeff (not verified) on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 11:55am
You probably meant to make a point rather than just drove a smarmy comment that doesn't convey much meaning or takeaway. Or maybe you didn't.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 1:48pm
The point is you're not half as smart as you think you are.
You make a statement about a rule and how it applies. You;re shown an example that contradicts your rule. You make an exception to the rule. That's the problem with people like you.
You don't live my principles. You live by outcomes so when you don't get the outcome you ike you change your principles. Pretty soon your new principles are at odds with your old principles. When this is demonstrated you start calling people names.
by Jeff (not verified) on Sun, 01/17/2021 - 6:49pm
The point is you're not half as smart as you think you are.
You make a statement about a rule and how it applies. You;re shown an example that contradicts your rule. You make an exception to the rule. That's the problem with people like you.
You don't live my principles. You live by outcomes so when you don't get the outcome you ike you change your principles. Pretty soon your new principles are at odds with your old principles. When this is demonstrated you start calling people names.
by Jeff (not verified) on Sun, 01/17/2021 - 6:49pm
Please present that example again. I am having trouble following your line of thought.
by moat on Sun, 01/17/2021 - 7:17pm
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.
And she sells sea shells...
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/17/2021 - 9:27pm
Apple refused to unlock the phone based on the slippery slope theory so that in the absence of clear legal guidelines about when data should be released they would resist all requests for phone data. It's the same argument you're making here by claiming Trump's twitter ban could lead to bans on those who don't incite followers to riot. Or the gun nuts use when fighting the smallest gun control law with the claim that it would eventually lead to banning and confiscating all guns.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 10:51am
Yes I do.
Will you support the banning of President Joe Biden from social media and email and his campaign from being able AWS?
by Jeff (not verified) on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 5:21pm
"First they came after the pathological lying, Party purging, vindictive, child bullying, corrupt malignant narcissistic child caging, violence, riot and insurrection inciting oath breaking obsessively self absorbed perverse misogynistic loser game show host con man of a failed, twice impeached president, then they came after ....."
Not working for me. Anybody?
by NCD on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 5:39pm
I would just like to note that you haven't been banned from Dagblog via IP address. YET. Behave yourself and mho, judging from all that has gone before here, that won't happen.
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 5:46pm
AA is true here...
I'm proof for that comment.
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 10:34pm
Many of the people here are interested in a more sophisticated discussion on this complicated topic than your right wing talking points responses engenders.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 6:44pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 6:48pm
That's funny.
Endless posting of someone else's tweets is what passed for discussion?
by Jeff (not verified) on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 9:23am
You're welcome to go somewhere else if you don't like the format (not that it looks like you figured it out quiet accurately, but whatevs)
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 9:25am
In the absence of bloggers I consider the news articles and tweets are offered as a "spark" to discuss. Not all are successful but most of the discussion begins with them. But anyone can blog here if they find what's offered by others inadequate.
I could easily answer your question with a comparison to Hillary's loss to Trump. If it's ok for Trump to exhort 30k supporters to riot and not appropriate for him to be banned from social media for it than it would have been even more ok for Hillary to exhort the 500k anti-Trump Women's March protestors to surround the White House and remove Trump. But even though I supported and voted for Hillary I would not support that and would support a ban on social media for Hillary if she incited that 500,000 protestors to violence.
But the more interesting question that's goes to the fundamental problem behind the more specific discussion of Trump's ban is what i briefly discussed here.
Another problem is the partisan tribalism that impedes rational dialog, that some here don't align with. So I can critique the internet's promotion of irrational memes like the anti-vaxers who seem to be mostly on the left while while few on the far right will honestly and frankly call out Qanon as irrational to the point of insanity.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 11:33am
I agree that a tweet or news article is an appropriate way to spark a discussion but just replying with other tweets is hardly a discussion.
I disagree that Trump exhorted anyone to violence. If you could please post the evidence of him calling for violence then please do so. There are many examples of prominent figures actually calling for violence yet they remain on social media platforms.
I disagree that one must pass a purity test to be able to opine. Do I need to denounce Q-Anon? if so why? I know next to nothing about them. They are irrelevant to me. I'm sure there are many fringe groups on every side of every issue. I don't concern myself with irrelevancies.
by Jeff (not verified) on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 11:48am
It's not about a purity test. If we're going to engage in a deeper discussion of the internet and the problem of fictions gaining traction and spreading on social media we need to be able to identify those fictions. Qanon and other fictions and their cult following isn't an irrelevancy in that discussion but the central issue. I'm just not interested in the superficial discussion you seem to want from a purely partisan perspective. And one reason for that is that while on the left I am not partisan and do not defend or toe the line of the totality of current leftist dogma
by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 12:05pm
Yeah has always struck me a lot of people are into social media debate only to hone partisan talking points. They wish to practice punditry, think they can do better than like Tucker Carlsen or Joy Reid Their family and friends are sick to death of hearing it, so they come to social media to practice preaching, see if they can get dittoes or even a following of the troll baited haters of their talking points. I care only about analysis, so I always thought about these types: why would I waste time on anonymous Jeff at Dagblog's amateur version when I can get the real highly-rated deal from Carlsen or Reid so much more efficiently?
by artappraiser on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 1:22pm
Let me just throw this sentence in here from Twitter Inc.'s World Leaders on Twitter: principles & approach, Oct. 15, 2019, it's nice and succinct: We understand the desire for our decisions to be “yes/no” binaries, but it’s not that simple.
by artappraiser on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 1:37pm
What you think is central to your position doesn't make it central to mine. And accusing me a wanting coming from purely partisan perspective is rather quaint.
Take a step back and take off the rose colored glasses.
by Jeff (not verified) on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 12:08pm
You post, "What you think is central to your position doesn't make it central to mine." I post, " I'm just not interested in the superficial discussion you seem to want " It seems we agree. Neither of us thinks the other person is worth talking to. Let us stop wasting our time and posting replies to each other.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 1:21pm
The crowd gathered because Trump repeatedly lied and said that he (Trump) won the election.
He said the election was stolen
He told people to come to DC to protest, the event would be "wild"
The results could not be changed without a fight
This was followed by directing the crowd to march to the Capitol
Once the riot started, he was slow to take action
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 12:12pm
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican who planned to vote against certification of Biden, changed her vote after the violence
She laid the blame directly in Trump's lap
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/electoral-vote
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 12:25pm
Just watch his fucking videos and enablers as they pushed the lies about the votes and marching to the Capitol. If you need me to do your grunt work, front me $500/hr, minimum 5 hours, and I'll carry your water for you. Meanwhile you'll get enough proof from the trials and witness statements over the coming weeks. I posted a collection of Trump gang going "fight fight fight" - next will be the deep dive into what Rudy, Tuberville, others did in the days leading up to Jan 6.
Just remember, after Jan 20 the douchebags like Bill Barr no longer have control of DoJ/FBI to shut down investigations and hide evidence. Gonna be a gas gas gas.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/14/2021 - 1:18pm
I notice no one was able to actually post any evidence. Many of you seem to have all sorts of time to post random tweets from random tweeters yet can't seem to find the actual inciting words.
Since this forum seems to operate on the asumption that anything that is asserted it true.
Many Democrats and their supports have called for violence in the past four years and excused violence.
by Jeff (not verified) on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 12:16pm
What evidence do you have to support the assertion made in your third paragraph?
by moat on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 12:48pm
I will quote one of your prolific posters:
"If you need me to do your grunt work, front me $500/hr, minimum 5 hours, and I'll carry your water for you."
by Jeff (not verified) on Sun, 01/17/2021 - 6:27pm
Got it. You just pasted what Gaetz said and you have nothing to back it up with.
by moat on Mon, 01/18/2021 - 3:29pm
Except that you are the one person here who never does his own grunt work and posts the results here and who's posts consist almost solely of requests that other people to do it for him.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/18/2021 - 3:50pm
Here is one of the more obscure offenders.
BTW, she still has a Facebook account. Don't konw about twitter
https://nypost.com/2020/12/10/mi-rep-cynthia-johnson-disciplined-by-gop-...
Some more:
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY)
“And that yes, without no justice there will be no peace.”
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT)
“Even in states where Donald Trump won big, that it does you any good running away from Donald Trump. I think you need to go back and punch him in the face. I mean, the truth is is this guy is bad for this country.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
“Sunday morning. I just came from Mass, but nonetheless I’ll just say this. If you’re in the arena, you’ve got to be ready to take a punch. You got to be ready to throw a punch, for the children.”
Big Sean
“If you put this round my neck, and I might just kill ISIS with the same ice pick that I murdered Donald Trump in the same night with.”
Johnny Depp
“When was the last time an actor assassinated a president? It’s been a while, and maybe it’s time.”
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up, and if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they are not welcome. Anymore. Anywhere.”
Gov. Andrew Cuomo
“He can’t come back to New York. He can’t. He’s gonna walk down the street in New York, forget bodyguards, he better have an army if he thinks he’s gonna walk down the street in New York.”
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)
“Go to the Hill today. Get up and please, get up in the face of some Congresspeople.”
by Jeff (not verified) on Tue, 01/19/2021 - 10:05am
For all Trump's insults and encouraging his followers to punch and abuse and "2nd Amendment" the other side, i don't care if he wanders the earth despised, homeless and spit on, kicked, whatever for the rest of his days, especially in New York. As for actors and who knows what, i usually ignore the rantings of the crowd - otherwise I couldn't go on the internet. As for politicians, some of the statements are over the line. Cabinet members who enabled him? They should be judged & shamed in public opinion, and prosecuted where approoriate, but no, following around public figures and harrassing them with street mob tactics is bad (maybe with the exception of Rudy and "pardoned" ratf*cker Roger Stone.). Happy?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/19/2021 - 10:48am
"Over the line"
Wow! Harsh condemnation there. Did your head explode?
by Jeff (not verified) on Thu, 01/21/2021 - 11:50am
That's all you came up with the last 3 days? Yawn.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/21/2021 - 12:01pm
Prez & armed Proud Boy buddies push war on media as "enemies" for 4 years, but Jeff wants us to worry about a Tweet from drug-addled Johnny Depp on his Bahama island. You go, dude.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/19/2021 - 5:27pm
Read his fucking speech transcripts. Go do your own work,.l you lazy shit-dusturbung bastard. It's all over the fucking news - we-re not playing your asswipe games or being your butt boy, so sod off. They walked from his speech to the Capitol 1 mile away and attacked it - whatever he said, it worked.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 1:18pm
That's seems to be the the modus operandi around here. Make assertions and when questioned to post a specific item you spend more time reasserting and and making excuses for not being able to point to the specific fact you keep reasserting.
by Jeff (not verified) on Sun, 01/17/2021 - 6:29pm
You deny that Trump incited the crowd
He praised the crowd for their actions and again lied that the election was stolen
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/donald-trump-capitol-mob/index.html
Your comments solidify the image of the nonsense we expect from a Trump supporter.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 1:42pm
What makes you think I support Trump? Please, be specific.
by Jeff (not verified) on Sun, 01/17/2021 - 6:32pm
Dags, Jeff "is a very special person", and Trump surely "loves him".
Perhaps even more than Trump loves the juvenile despot of North Korea.
It's a love and loyalty that no comments, facts or 20,000 National Guard can break.
Lets recognize Jeff's specialness, and always just remind him how Trump loves him, it may give him peace.
by NCD on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 1:56pm
This has been a unity message from our site to you.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 2:01pm
It's obvious that you have some extreme libertarian leanings from what you have argued about free speech. With freedom of hate speech but strong policing, it can work. But with whole hog libertarianism, you have no one policing the extremists, both right and left, that are chaos agents, but the people themselves. I think people like you have to decide whether you want to go with rule or law or not. Just one smart anarchist, righty or lefty version, using speech to incite violence, can cause a lot of damage.
Yes lefty anarchist incitement caused some real damage this summer. But eventually there was a crackdown by local governments (Portland, for one example, unfortunately took way too long.)
But none of them were anything near the level of involving the narcissist psychopath President of the country and a resulting physical attack on the event that represents our entire voting system and our main symbol of self-governance.
You're either for government or you're not. "Both sides do it' has nothing to do with it, is not a valid argument here, just a deflection. Twitter waited way too long, just like the mayor of Portland with his pretend play acting anarchist kiddies and their small number of serious agitator leaders. Anarchists have to be marginalized, including presidents practicing anarchy stoking for personal psychological benefit.
by artappraiser on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 2:31pm
You would have to define what you mean by extremism? After all, its in they eye of the beholder. I whole-heartedly in the rule of law. I support freedom speech. That doesn't mean that if there is direct link between your speech and the results then you should be held to account. However, if someone infers something from you speech that you did not call for then you cant''t be held accountable. If that where the case anyone could go out and do something illegal and blame it on some speech someone gave.
In this specific instance Trump did not call for violence. No one seem to provide any evidence to support this assertion. It border on a "post hoc ergo proper hoc" argument and is lazy.
I am for government until government oversteps its authority.
by Jeff (not verified) on Sun, 01/17/2021 - 6:39pm
I totally get where you are coming from. But Twitter can still do what it wants with its printing press. And you can get your own.
And if someone thinks that violence that harmed them was incited on your printing press, if Section 230 was protection was removed (as Trump wanted) well even if there was no prosecution, they could sue you for damages, see where that goes. Still undecided as far as I've read, more of a to be continued...
what is "social media" Constitutionally anyways? a newspaper with a publisher and editors? or a public wall where you can post broadsides? a public or private utilty? all to be decided..
by artappraiser on Sun, 01/17/2021 - 7:24pm
if you ever come back, Jeff, what I and Facebook and Twitter et. al. mean by violent extremism is pretty well sampled here in this Daily Beast article. It's really not that hard to draw a line, we all know hardcore porn when we see it too. I presume that even if you like hard core porn, you like that its at a site catering to it, and are glad Instagram and Facebook are not overwhelmed by it. Again, it's capitalism, if there isn't enough snuff porn or violent extremism for your tastes on the big social media sites, you can always start your own, and find a funky little scuzzy provider to host it because the big ones aren't into that branding. I bet you like capitalism, no? (Kinda related read the other day how Iran was getting pissed about bitcoin mining using up all its electricity...they just shrug if kicked out of one place and find another place.)
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/20/2021 - 1:40am
"I notice no one was able to actually post any evidence."
There's a game people passing through often like to play. They don't express their ideas and support them with good arguments and evidence. Instead they ask a question which is essentially a task to write a blog with links and evidence to prove some point. If we choose not to complete the task you assign us you claim the evidence doesn't exist. I'm not getting paid to be your research assistant nor am I getting paid to write blogs to your specifications. Think what ever you like if you ever bother to think at all.
I see this all the time on gaming forums. Someone will start a topic with a statement followed by Prove me wrong. Paladins are the worse class in World of Warcraft. Prove me wrong. Botters have ruined the economy on wow classic. Prove me wrong. I expect that sort of nonsense from gamers since there's a large number of no life loser morons doing nothing but playing games who don't have a rational thought in their head. But that sort of crap doesn't work here.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 7:28pm
as far as I'm concerned, this just happened again to me on Dagblog. Except it's like worse because it's like: I am not going to flip over to where you posted on topic and read it, I want you to redo the whole fucking thing as another post so I can read it right here in reply to me and then we can argue over all the same stuff ad nauseum until we die. But this time, make it at 3rd grade reading level. It will be so much re writing and arguing, you won't have time to read and analyze the new news which proves things are more complex than we all first assumed. This then serves the primacy of spending eons of time arguing simplistic talking points, the simpler and more emotional the better.
I know little of gaming world, but I imagine the games have gotten way too complex for some tastes and abilities and they would like it so much if everything went back to Pong.
by artappraiser on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 7:52pm
There is a parallel to this strategy in my working environment. When someone avoids responsibility by demanding proof that they have failed, they are fired shortly afterwards.
by moat on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 8:24pm
You wasted more time on that than posting something easily available in the public domain. Either you're fond of lecturing people or really can't post the part in Trump's speech where he called for violence.
by Jeff (not verified) on Sun, 01/17/2021 - 6:41pm
You are not defending Trump in a court of law where culpability is bound up with the need to separate statements like "hang Mike Pence" from "I hope Mike does the right thing."
If Trump has no responsibility for who acted in his name, does he not have to castigate them severely enough that none of that number can continue with their intentions and think they have his blessing?
by moat on Mon, 01/18/2021 - 5:21pm
Well, Jeff - here's the speech
I'm sure it won't be enough for you
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1347908845281095680.html
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/17/2021 - 10:45pm
What was the inciting statement? You could have just posted a link to a dictionary, after all, most of the words Trump used are int he dictionary.
Do you remember this part of the speech?
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
by Jeff (not verified) on Tue, 01/19/2021 - 10:12am
Are u an idiot in real life, or u just play one in this blog?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/19/2021 - 10:19am
Sen Maj Ldr (GOP) says Trump "provoked" crowd, while Rudy assumed crowd of 30k would all know his "Trial by Combat" didn't mean Rambo/Saving Private Ryan combat, while Trump says "peaceful" *1 time* in hour long speech about fighting and marching to Capitol Hill and Jeff knows to cherry-pick that line - who the fuck sent you, and why the fuck are you wasting our time saying stupid shit you know we won't and shouldn't believe?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/19/2021 - 5:20pm
Market research. Just like Resistance made us a focus group.
by moat on Tue, 01/19/2021 - 5:47pm
Guess i blew that one, eh?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/19/2021 - 8:00pm
It played out the way it played out. I don't mean to pin a tail on you.
But note how the trolls come around just when some messaging goes south.
by moat on Tue, 01/19/2021 - 8:16pm
Hey Jeff, WhiteHouse calling?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/18/2021 - 8:00am
Yeah but Trump stopped them before they zip tied Pelosi, or lynched Pence. Trump was very brave, some believe historically heroic, he saved dozens even scores of lives, but the fake news media and the Democrats never ever give him credit.
by NCD on Mon, 01/18/2021 - 4:43pm
The specific reason Trump was banned is because he lied saying that an election was stolen.
Do you agree that the election was stolen?
If you disagree with Trump, and consider Biden the legitimate next President, why should social media platforms to repeat a lie?
Trump is President, his words have weight
Are social media companies obligated to allow Trump to lie repeatedly
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 7:19pm
Off topic
What does being a Republican mean?
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 7:21pm
Find one and ask one.
by Jeff (not verified) on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 12:10pm
I have - it's about shitting yourself over "socialism" and other overhyped phobias, and forgetting all your values while you pant after a literal psychopath and do anything to win at all costs and own the libs. 10, 20 years ago maybe a different answer, but we are where we are.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 1:45pm
You are a Trumpet.
Thanks, for clarifying.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 2:33pm
You just quoted exactly what Rep Gaetz said during the Impeachment debate upthread. Is that you, Matt?
by moat on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 2:34pm
It's more like 3rd-5th graders coming up with something they think is clever to shock the teacher.
Usually boys, by the way. Gaetz seems especially emotionally delayed.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 2:59pm
Why isn't Hillary banned?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-ille...
by Jeff (not verified) on Tue, 01/19/2021 - 10:13am
Wow, even 4yrs later u don't know.
Is our children lurning?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/19/2021 - 10:18am
even the current impeachment is due process, he's getting waaay more in "fairness" than most citizens accused of misbehavior get:
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 2:47pm
And then they get to the trial and don't call witnesses.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 4:21pm
I suggest you brush up on how impeachment works, not how you would like it to work.
by Jeff (not verified) on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 5:07pm
Thanks, pretty sure I know as much as you, and was talking about the trial, not the impeachment.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 5:14pm
thanks for posting the George Conway clip. I heard about it and was interested. To me Conway's input on the issue is definitely always worth consideration--more so than other members of The Lincoln Project. The rest of them were mostly GOP political operatives, which have one kind of behind-the-scenes knowledge. He's different, he's a lawyer who had special access to interpret what's up with Trump being married to Kellyanne Conway.
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 1:59pm
White House just televised him reading a tightly scripted speech discouraging violence going forward. I ain't going to post as I saw it and listened to CNN commentary afterward. I'm sure you can find it if you want to see it.
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 6:39pm
this was part of the commentary on CNN-see the chyron in the photo-article probably coming soon:
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 6:43pm
two with trenchant commentary on that speech
:
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 6:46pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 8:29pm
excerpt from the middle of the article:
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 8:49pm
Haberman on the above:
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 8:52pm
Not completely
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 10:52pm
New: he is even more angry at Kevin McCarthy than at McConnell; he wants to stiff Rudy; he wanted to testify at the proceedings; Pence & others had to force him to do the video this evening:
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/13/2021 - 9:48pm
Harold N. Bornstein, Trump’s Former Personal Physician, Dies at 73
He attested that President Trump would be the “healthiest president ever,” but he was later expelled from his orbit.
Obituary by Katharine Q. Seelye @ NYTimes.com, Jan. 14, 2021
by artappraiser on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 12:51am
dupe, on purpose, of comment I posted elsewhere:
by artappraiser on Fri, 01/15/2021 - 3:44pm
Axios is doing a sort of miniseries, OFF THE RAILS, on Trump's spiral at the end. Here is a quote from and link to Episode 3 Descent into madness ... Trump: "Sometimes you need a little crazy" which I ran across because Maggie Haberman retweeted it:
by artappraiser on Sun, 01/17/2021 - 9:04pm