Skip to main content

Poll

New Twitter

Good thing?
[ 1 ] (20%)
Encouraging?
[ 1 ] (20%)
Disheartening?
[ 0 ] (0%)
A sign of the Apocalypse?
[ 0 ] (0%)
(Other) :troll:
[ 0 ] (0%)
Beer! :beer:
[ 3 ] (60%)

Total Members Voted: 3

Topic: The twits on Twitter (Read 377 times)

The twits on Twitter

Well, the deal is done! Elon Musk "owns" Twitter, and he seems quite comfortable with the old advice: "You break it, you've bought it!" Of course, he's an odd duck... He bought it, first. Now everyone else fears that he's going to break it!
To quote an old acquaintance: Oh noes!
The various reactions to the news don't surprise me, at least, those coming from the usual  suspects. Commentators Right and Left are aghast and bemused. (By "commentators" I mean "Thought Leaders" and "Influencers" and other inconsequential people of note...:)[1] As well they should be!
I don't know what -if any- brand of politics Elon adheres to; and I don't particularly care. He has stated openly that he'd like the Twitter site to be a public forum, an open space for the expression and examination of opinions... From my perspective, that would be a great improvement — if he can implement the changes needed to re-form its culture.

I know few of us here are part of the Twitterverse, but  -and actually because of that fact- I'd like to ask:

Please vote!

  • Up to 5 categories at a time
  • As often as you'd like
  • (Change your vote anytime)
Yes, I've reverted to my idiosyncratic style of punctuation!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #1
It'll take a few more months. ;)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #2
And...a few more :beer:'s? :)

CapX has a good article — about the "nuts and bolts" of the deal... Highly recommended!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #3
Twitter has completely passed me by. I see its posts only when embedded or linked to in net press.

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #4
(I have to confess: I do the same... :) )
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #5
Ron DeSantis’s presidential campaign launch on Twitter Spaces was hyped by Elon Musk as “groundbreaking”, and extensively advertised as a new frontier for “free speech” in politics. Instead, the results were a disaster.

The tech genius that Elon is, even after the total failure of getting an audiofeed out under his own account and then barely managing to get it out under a different account, said, "Nothing like this has been done ever before." Really? What has not been done ever before? A technology fail? An audiofeed? An announcement for presidential campaign broadcast online? All of this has been done before.

It's just Elon being his normal self, inventing things that have been done before. Thus far, Elon Musk fanboys have credited him for inventing electric cars, space travel, and online payments (and internet and AI and tunnels), now they can also credit him for inventing, idk, audiofeeds? presidential elections?

Before his bid for presidential candidacy, DeSantis was ahead in the polls, astronomically ahead of Trump. Quite amazing for someone who had not even officially entered the race. The polls turned around a month ago. With this kind of campaign launch, things will get worse for DeSantis, not better.

DeSantis will have to redo the whole campaign launch thing somewhere else a second time. Or maybe he'll have to do nothing, because according to me, Trump won't make it anyway (his witch hunt lawsuits will catch up with him).



Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #6
Trump won't make it anyway (his witch hunt lawsuits will catch up with him).
Yeah. I still remember how many "commentators" predicted that Trump had no chance in '16. And the Durham report puts the focus of the "Russian Collusion" fiasco back where it's always belonged: On Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and the Obama administration...
The various "lawsuits" will, I predict, prove no more than a nuisance to Trump and his campaign.

DeSantis had an interesting day yesterday; but the flubbed Twitter Spaces announcement won't really matter. Whoever next "falls into the orchestra pit" will obviate the gaffe.

Musk has egg on his face... But, as usual, ersi, your personal animus colors your analysis. What Musk's company SpaceX has accomplished is really quite remarkable. (Not throwing away booster rockets is a game-changer!) And don't forget that the Soyuz still crash-lands... :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

 

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #7
The Russian Collusion investigation was not a fiasco. Mueller Report discovered enough direct contacts between Russian agents and Trump's campaign, in addition to known Trump's connections with Russia. There are political reasons why this line of investigation will probably not be pursued against Trump, not the least because it would make Putin more hip across the world.

The theft and coverup of confidential White House documents will certainly catch up with Trump. Also his tax evasion and other business practices. And his pussy-grabbing behaviour already has. Moreover, all Trump's efforts to claim election rigging by Democrats have died by now and his own rigging is catching up with him. This may already suffice to remove him from the race. If the January 6 line is pursued too, it will be more than enough.

The entire camp of Repubs is in such a bad shape that Biden can win. In my opinion, DeSantis should also be removed from the race due to crimes, same as Trump. The crime of DeSantis is touring Texas' immigrants around illegally, sufficient to demonstrate his unsuitability to office.

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #8
Your animus has consumed your intellect! You read the Mueller Report? (You can say Yes. Rest assured I won't believe you...) In his testimony before Congress Mueller stated baldly that he had no idea who or what Fusion GPS was!
And, to think, he was recently the FBI Director...

You're like the "lovebirds" Strzok and Paige...
What will you say, if and when Trump is elected to the presidency in '24? :)

(Next, you'll tell the world again that Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman in the world! But as Comey said, "Noone at DOJ would prosecute the case..." The subtext: Because Obama was implicated.)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #9
From January 6th events it is known that you don't even believe your own eyes, so obviously you will not also believe when I quote the Mueller Report. Whatever. I'll quote it for myself.

The report spells out four very quirky "considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation" which run as follows.

"First, [...] we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

"Second, [...] we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."

"Third, [...] we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes."

"Fourth, 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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. [This report] does not exonerate him."

In summary, the report's scope is deliberately narrowed so as to avoid prosecuting the sitting president. Logically, this also means that he is not exonerated either. Still, the facts speak for themselves and could be pursued if wanted. Unfortunately you do not do facts at all and prosecutors do not want to pursue them for other reasons. Anyway, the Trumpite narrative that the Mueller Report found nothing and exonerated him is flatly-squarely false.

Edit: I notice you have high hopes for the Durham report. The facts are that all indictments raised based on it have resulted in acquittal. It's a 100% dead end. It is true that, in comparison, the Mueller report has not been tested in courts at all, but there are bigger reasons for this. Namely, the subject matter would make Trump and Putin look like international badass gangstas, gaining them both more popularity regardless of the outcome, which is the exact opposite what is needed these days.

Stormy Daniels case alone would suffice to lock Trump up. After all, Michael Cohen, who had a mere errand boy role in the case, served time for it, so the main actor can definitely be locked up too for at least as long.

What will you say, if and when Trump is elected to the presidency in '24? :)
My opinion/impression of USA has been at the rock bottom since W's era. It cannot sink any lower. But no, Trump will not be elected again. Even supposing that he managed to survive to the end line and miraculously gather more popular votes than Biden,[1] this time the political establishment will be certain to perform a counter-coup and remove him from office before he gets into office. Rest assured, things will not be allowed to go that far.
Remember that Hillary got more popular votes than Trump! Oh, I forgot already, you do not do facts. My bad.

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #10
Still, the facts speak for themselves and could be pursued if wanted. Unfortunately you do not do facts at all and prosecutors do not want to pursue them for other reasons
Yeah: Like Comey's "exhoneration" of Clinton. Ignore the law, ignore the evidence, use political phrasing to accomplish the objective!
In the Clinton case, the objective was Clinton's being found not culpable.
In the Trump case, the objective was to urge an unfounded impeachment...

Durham pursued the facts.
From p305 (after a long list of gaffes by Crossfire Hurricane investigators and supervisors, Durham writes this:
Quote
Given the foregoing, and viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the Crossfire
Hurricane investigators, it seems highly likely that, at a minimum, confirmation bias played a
significant role in the FBI's acceptance of extraordinarily serious allegations derived from
uncorroborated information that had not been subjected to the typical exacting analysis employed
by the FBI and other members of the Intelligence Community. In short, it is the Office's
assessment that the FBI discounted or willfully ignored material information that did not support
the narrative of a collusive relationship between Trump and Russia. Similarly, the FBI
Inspection Division Report says that the investigators "repeatedly ignore[ d] or explain[ ed] away
evidence contrary to the theory the Trump campaign ... had conspired with Russia .... It
appeared that ... there was a pattern of assuming nefarious intent." [note 1749] An objective and
honest assessment of these strands of information should have caused the FBI to question not
only the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, but also to reflect on whether the FBI was being
manipulated for political or other purposes. Unfortunately, it did not.

[bold added]

Remember that Hillary got more popular votes than Trump! Oh, I forgot already, you do not do facts. My bad.
Of what importance is the popular vote? It's like saying your horse didn't finish the race — but look how pretty the jockey's uniform is!
 Hell, Lincoln himself only got 39%...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #11
Durham pursued the facts.
100% false. Everything that Durham has taken to court has failed, which is a rare achievement for such reports. But most things that he denounces and criticises he does not recommend any charges against anyone or changes to current procedures, so those are empty denouncements.


Of what importance is the popular vote?
It's a good question to Trump. He's the one who has been going on forever how he received more votes than any president ever and, if it appears otherwise, it is because Democrats rigged the elections. It's the same guy who also said, "I need 11 000 votes, come on, give me a break!" in multiple phone calls during counting. So, yeah, what importance is the popular vote? I don't care, but election rigging is another actual crime in the books. The establishment needs to time one of the several available options correctly to take Trump off the race. They will.

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #12
100% false. Everything that Durham has taken to court has failed, which is a rare achievement for such reports.
As I expected, you haven't read the report. (I don't blame you: It's a tedious read...) But, no, it is not that rare an achievement. Specially in today's political climate...
Attorney General Garland has no shame!
The reckoning will have to await a new administration.

From page 5:
Quote
Conducting this investigation required us to consider U.S. criminal laws, the
Constitutional protections our system provides to individuals, and the high burden placed on the
government to prove every element of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." Moreover, the law
does not always make a person's bad judgment, even horribly bad judgment, standing alone, a
crime. Nor does the law criminalize all unseemly or unethical conduct that political campaigns
might undertake for tactical advantage, absent a violation of a particular federal criminal statute.
Finally, in almost all cases, the government is required to prove a person's actual criminal intent
- not mere negligence or recklessness- before that person's fellow citizens can lawfully find
him or her guilty of a crime. The Office's adherence to these principles explains, in numerous
instances, why conduct deserving of censure or disciplinary action did not lead the Office to seek
criminal charges.
There's more, of course...about politics.

The establishment needs to time one of the several available options correctly to take Trump off the race. They will.
Indeed, that is their intent. By hook or by crook, so to speak!
I look forward to your disappointment. :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #13
You are quoting empty words from Durham. Those words are empty because they are a restatement of general legal principles, nothing specific to the actual investigation, nothing specific about any person or action. Sheer blather.

Compare with one of the conclusions of the January 6 report:

Quote from: p. 690
The Select Committee has referred Donald Trump and others for possible prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 2383, including for assisting and providing aid and comfort to an insurrection.

As you (obviously don't) know, lesser actors, such as leaders of Oath Keepers, have been successfully prosecuted and locked up under this very point. Locking up Trump for the same is just a matter of finding a brave prosecutor. There are no other obstacles. But they'd prefer to lock him up for something lesser, e.g. suppose he fails to cough up the $5m he owes to E. Jean Carroll. Or Stormy Daniels. Or tax evasion. These are preferable options for the establishment than to take him down for his hardest offenses like election rigging and insurrection.

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #14
Quote from: p. 690 The Select Committee has referred Donald Trump and others for possible prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 2383, including for assisting and providing aid and comfort to an insurrection.
Why go to all the trouble of a trial? Oh, wait: We did that!

But there's still "Russian Collusion"! Ask Rep. Adam Schiff, late chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence: He's seen the evidence! (He's been saying so for years...) :)

"Stormy" Daniels has, to date, paid upwards of $5m to Trump in legal fees. (Remember: Her original lawyer is serving a prison sentence...) The recent "rape" trial was a travesty; the decision will be appealed successfully.[1] And Bragg's case in NY will fall apart without doing any real damage to Trump's campaign.
The Georgia trial will go nowhere...

You are right, ersi, that the establishment will do everything it can to prevent a Trump second term.
But to no avail, I predict.

It will prove very interesting when Durham testifies under oath before Congress! (Remember Mueller's performance? :) )
At worst, it'll cost Trump some money...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #15
But there's still "Russian Collusion"! Ask Rep. Adam Schiff, late chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence: He's seen the evidence! (He's been saying so for years...) :)
The collusion indictment is the least desirable for the establishment. It would highlight that foreign powers can meddle with American elections. The establishment does not wish to remind the world of it.

But election rigging is possible to pursue, because Trump himself keeps constantly reminding everyone of it. His phone calls are still in memory. If smaller things fail to silence Trump, I predict that his election rigging will be promptly taken up and prosecuted swiftly.

"Stormy" Daniels has, to date, paid upwards of $5m to Trump in legal fees. (Remember: Her original lawyer is serving a prison sentence...)
She owes $.5m, not $5m.[1] And it's legal fees for a dismissed case raised by a lawyer whom she had dismissed. Legal fees are owed to the other side's lawyers, not to the other side. Definitely it's a messy situation, but she is a messy person. Messing with Trump guarantees messiness.

Still, Michael Cohen was locked up in this affair, and once she manages to charge Trump on a similar basis, Trump will fall too. It's a matter of finding a diligent lawyer for her instead of another predator.

You are right, ersi, that the establishment will do everything it can to prevent a Trump second term.
But to no avail, I predict.
A few honest questions:
- How is it unclear that Trump is a criminal regarding to e.g. business fraud, tax evasion, election rigging, and insurrection? What kind of proof (besides a court conviction) would convince you? You don't believe your own eyes, so what do you believe?
- Why are you so eager to have a criminal lead the country?

Well, who am I kidding. The answer is of course: It's a partisan thing. He is not a Democrap!
I understand that it is just a difference of zeroes and zeroes mean nothing to you. But to bookkeepers and bankers there's a difference.

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #16
A few honest questions:
- How is it unclear that Trump is a criminal regarding to e.g. business fraud, tax evasion, election rigging, and insurrection? What kind of proof (besides a court conviction) would convince you? You don't believe your own eyes, so what do you believe?
- Why are you so eager to have a criminal lead the country?
First, I'd quibble with your use of the word "honest"! :)

What business fraud do you refer to? Over-valuing his properties in loan applications, perhaps? You know, better than I, that no bank tenders a loan without doing its own estimation of value of collateral offered.
Tax evasion? You mean not paying more in taxes than required by law? At any rate, tax evasion -as you term it- is not a crime.
Election rigging? You apparently think the word "find" is a synonym for "fabricate"... In your world, that may be so! (In which case, I'd ask when Al Gore will be getting out? :) )
Insurrection? Ask Nancy Pelosi about that... Oh, wait: She was unavailable as a witness to the impeachment trial — even 'though she was directly responsible for security at the Capitol. She (and the Mayor of DC) both rejected Trump's offer of Nation Guard. And to this day the FBI and the Capitol Police remain cagey about how many undercover officers were present, and what their roles might have been....
The protest did become a riot at one point; much less violent than most BLM protests the previous year. In fact, the only fatality was an unarmed protester shot by a government agent. If you've only read or seen edited versions of Trump's speech, shame on you!
But, as I've noted before, you have no shame: Your dislike of the man makes you see and believe the worst of him. Like Alvin Bragg running for Manhatten DA on the platform that he would indict Trump! He didn't know for what he would indict Trump... But animus is a strange beast:
That you see and believe the worst is more than enough for you! No evidence -let alone, proof- required; he's as guilty as sin, because of course he is!

You seriously ask why I'm eager to have a criminal run my country? Have you heard of Joseph Robinette Biden?

Yeah, I'd kinda like to see actual evidence and a conviction following a fair trial... (These concepts may be foreign, to you. Or are they just superfluous, when you don't like someone?) But as Beria had it, "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime."
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #17
So you went the stupidest route, trying to disprove Trump's crimes. An easy refutation of this route goes as follows: Think if a Democrat had done all that, would you denounce him or not?

In your case, the refutation is even easier: You denounce any and all Democrats simply because they are Democrats. Crime or virtue have no bearing in your considerations. Whenever you mention things like "fair trial" and "constitutional principle", it's exclusively to promote the power of Republicans or to cover Republican butt when they fail.

Trump is a massive failure. He does not stand for any principle you claim to stand for or any princple he himself claims to stand for. For example, you would claim to be against autocrats, I presume. Trump is a proud autocrat, as demonstrated by his actions.

It must be that for you only words matter. If the words are nice, e.g. somebody has the label "Republican" slapped on them, then things are fine. Actions do not matter at all. For me it is the other way round. Actions speak louder than words. Trump is convicted by his actions.

What business fraud do you refer to? Over-valuing his properties in loan applications, perhaps? You know, better than I, that no bank tenders a loan without doing its own estimation of value of collateral offered.
But if banks do their own estimation anyway, why over-value the properties in loan applications? You see, it IS a crime to over-value the properties in loan applications and under-value them in tax reports. The deeper point here is that you are not even denying the crime - you are justifying it! Why would you justify it? Trump did it, therefore it is all good.

Tax evasion? You mean not paying more in taxes than required by law? At any rate, tax evasion -as you term it- is not a crime.
Tax evasion IS a crime! People sit locked up because of this. Most notoriously, this is what Al Capone was locked up for.

IRS has internal investigations about why IRS allowed Trump to evade taxes, so IRS knows that Trump has evaded taxes. If IRS were consistent, not covering up for rich and pretend-rich dudes, it would report itself to the police.

Election rigging? You apparently think the word "find" is a synonym for "fabricate"... In your world, that may be so! (In which case, I'd ask when Al Gore will be getting out? :) )
Ha, again not even denying the crime! The crime is okay for you because Trump did it. But Trump did more than "find me 11 000 votes!" He set up false electors, some of whom are now under criminal investigation. Any reason why Trump should not be under criminal investigation? Just the political cover-up reason: It is undesirable to make Trump accountable for anything he did in office. Better to have Trump go down with something silly and mundane like pussy-grabbing prior to office.

Insurrection? Ask Nancy Pelosi about that...
Or ask those who have already been convicted of it. Again, the only reason why Trump is not on trial for this is that a conviction of a former president would indicate that the office of the president has some accountability. Nobody in either political party wants this.

You seriously ask why I'm eager to have a criminal run my country? Have you heard of Joseph Robinette Biden?
Indeed, I understand. For you it's no problem to have a crooked criminal in the office. You just want it to be your crooked criminal - and even better when he is an autocrat to boot.

Yeah, I'd kinda like to see actual evidence and a conviction following a fair trial... (These concepts may be foreign, to you. Or are they just superfluous, when you don't like someone?)
The actual evidence is in front of you. Take a look! There are people in Trump's circle who have been convicted based on it. Insurrection: A growing line of leaders of Oath Keepers, Proud Boys etc. Stormy Daniels hush money: Michael Cohen. Tax evasion and fraud: Trump's corporations, even though somehow not Trump personally. But if Trump's corporations are guilty, how is it fair to assume Trump is free of guilt?

Yup, I get it. All these trials are unfair - because they are against Trump. A fair trial can only be in favour of Trump :lol:

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #18
You denounce any and all Democrats simply because they are Democrats.
I'd sure like to see an example or two... But let me cite a few possibilities for your consideration:

Lyndon Johnson. Responsible for "the Great Society" which decimated the American black family... (Counter-example, New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who saw and decried it!)
Jimmy Carter. Allowed the Iranian revolutionaries to hold American diplomats hostage for 444 days, and micro-managed a botched rescue by our military... Oh, and his answer to an OPEC embargo was to advise Americans to don sweaters!
Bill Clinton. If nothing else[1], he promulgated the idea of Hillary as "the world's smartest woman"! Her first foray into "real" policy was an attempt to remake the health care economy; but, as luck would have it, she couldn't even follow the law in selecting and convening her experts... Bill's "two-fer" would haunt the U.S. for decades.
Bill also declined to take out Osama bin Laden after he declared war on the U.S. But, hey, no problem! The sheik didn't do us much harm...
How do you imagine Hillary Clinton hasn't gone to jail? As FBI Director Comey said: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." Ya can't, ya just can't prosecute a Clinton!
Obama. His sheen shone brightly, for a while. But he quickly managed to racialize law enforcement, "evolve" on the question of Gay Marriage, and via administrative lawmaking enshrine Trans Ideology™ at the Department of Education. (I wasn't surprised: I was familiar with his record as a state senator; I'd read his editorial written upon his becoming editor of the Harvard Law Review, and knew his record of scholarly publication...)
Joe Biden. He was a tool as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, performing like a chimp at the hearings for both Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. I'd let him slide for his plagiarism; his hero Ted Kennedy had -among other foibles[2]- similar proclivities early on. What I found unforgivable was his treatment of the semi driver who happened to be coming down the road when young Joe's wife, infant in arms, drove into the intersection by running a stop sign... Of course, Joe repeatedly lied about the guy, to garner more sympathy. That's just Joe!
Rather than list my other problems with Biden I'll simply repeat what his boss, Obama, once said: "Never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up!"

You're big on guilt by association, too, I see... Let's leave that for another time. (Perhaps you'd like a similar list of Republicans from me? :) )
Trump was a boy scout, in comparison! :) But on the bright side: Kids got the new word "Lewinski"...
Including manslaughter...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #19
Yup, got it. You have objections when Democrats do policy. In contrast, when Republicans do crimes, you have praise and admiration.

One thing comes close to a crime though:
As FBI Director Comey said: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." Ya can't, ya just can't prosecute a Clinton!
Are you pretending to be outraged over this? This is exactly the way how Trump is still not behind bars - the establishment has decided to refrain from prosecuting. And his crimes - insurrection and election rigging - are much bigger than Hillary's - an email server. You are free to pointlessly disagree.

(Perhaps you'd like a similar list of Republicans from me? :) )
No, not a similar list! What I want is a list of crimes, first of all in order for you demonstrate that you have an idea what a crime is. And yes, preferably crimes by Republicans that you find objectionable, so as to prove that you are not hyperpartisan.

As things stand now, you are hyperpartisan and you have no clue what a crime is. Hint: What I listed for Trump are all crimes in lawbooks. They are actions and behaviour that get people behind bars - and you see people going behind bars around Trump for those things. Also, they are things you defended merely because Trump did it. I thought it hardly possible, but your cluelessness is increasing.

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #20
One thing comes close to a crime though:
As FBI Director Comey said: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." Ya can't, ya just can't prosecute a Clinton!
Are you pretending to be outraged over this?

Quote
Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written.

Barack and Hillary were both guilty; for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18), for obstruction of justice, and (You'll like this one the best:) [1] Surely a "high crime and misdemeanor"!

Instead of being prosecuted in the appropriate venues, they were turned loose to concoct and promote The Russian Collusion Hoax™...[2] And in the process destroy America's trust in the FBI, the FISA courts, the DoJ, Congress and most of the media! What accomplished politicians they were.

Am I outraged by this? You bet I am.
Aha! Finally, the perfect instance to use my peculiar combination of punctuation and emoticon!
How's that for "election interference," my friend? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #21
So, to continue:

Richard Nixon. I "remember" watching him debate JFK, and thinking he'd won! When he actually won in'68, I was old enough to understand what he was doing to our economy: His formative years were under FDR and a war-time "command and control" system that would have suited any Communist. But, aside from his botched handling of our pull-out of Viet Nam, his most damning sin was naively believing Maoist China would moderate under the influence of quasi-free markets...[1] I'm quite sure, ersi, that you believe "Watergate" was a serious crime! But that's because you're not a serious person. Nixon's sin in that fiasco was his loyalty to hapless underlings.
But I'm not sure his continued presidency would have been good for the country, anyway.

Ford. Speaker of the House of Representatives before being elevated to the Vice Presidency (thanks to the egregious Agnew, whose only saving grace was speaking the words “nattering nabobs of negativism,” which Patrick J. Buchanan wrote) and thence to the Presidency, was a true patriot!

Reagan. He got too old in office... Sad, really. (You'd think others would learn from his example.) He got rolled by "Tip" O'Neill on his "amnesty" bill; and Republicans have -ever since- distrusted their Democratic colleagues. So our immigration quagmire isn't that hard to understand.
Also, he had his "Wall": He did not dismantle the federal Department of Education, as he'd promised![2]

G.H.W. Bush. The country would have been better off had Carter taken him up on his offer to stay at CIA, where he was accomplishing much. He was not a conservative — but like many savvy politicians he could "play one on TV," and he was earnest! A care-taker sort of president; managed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait better than anyone could have hoped; including Saddam.

G.W. Bush. As I've said before, his hankering to get revenge on the man who arranged the assassination attempt on his dad in Saudi Arabia led him to the Neocon adventurism that was the Iraq War; Afghanistan was -should have been easy — no occupation, only dire and real threats. But what you, ersi, call The Establishment (I call it that, too) had other ideas.
The shock of 9/11 galvanized a predisposition...

You're right, I mostly think in terms of policy and perfidy, when it comes to their "crimes"... Would you have had Britain do without Churchill during WW II — had he been a kleptomaniac? (Actually, I suspect you would. Like I said before: You're not a serious person.)
Perhaps it raises me in your esteem, that I always thought the impeachment of Wm. Jefferson Clinton was misbegotten angst?

Whenever we talk about American politics or American influence, I have to remind myself that you wish my nation -if not actual ill- at least a comeuppance and eventual but permanent fall from prominence on the world stage.
Much as the Neocons thought the influence of a modicum of political freedom would create "democracies" in cultures vastly different to our own!
Promised even his Senate-confirmed Secretary of Education, who was fine with that...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #22
Barack and Hillary were both guilty; for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18), for obstruction of justice, and (You'll like this one the best:) Surely a "high crime and misdemeanor"!
So here we have it. When it comes to Democrats, your standard is: Guilty if suspicious. But when it comes to Republicans, your standard is: If not convicted, then pure as angels - and pure as angels even if convicted!

Instead of being prosecuted [of obstruction of justice] in the appropriate venues, they were turned loose to concoct and promote The Russian Collusion Hoax™...
You care about obstruction of justice? But you did not care about it when Trump did it. Trump fired the FBI director Comey, among other things, because of his way of handling the Hillary email server investigation. That is, fired because of an ongoing investigation. This is obstruction of justice.

And, of course the way the way Russian collusion investigation was handled by Trump was obstruction of justice all the way. For example, William Barr had a memo defending Trump's witness tampering in that investigation. The relevant witness tampering by Trump, along with his Russia collusion, is detailed in Mueller report. As you (don't) know, Mueller report detailed the crimes, but decided to not render judgment.

Am I outraged by this? You bet I am.
:lol: sure, when Democrats appear to do it. When Republicans do it, no problem.

I'm quite sure, ersi, that you believe "Watergate" was a serious crime! But that's because you're not a serious person. Nixon's sin in that fiasco was his loyalty to hapless underlings.
And the burglary in DP HQ was no sin. Understood.

You're right, I mostly think in terms of policy and perfidy, when it comes to their "crimes"... Would you have had Britain do without Churchill during WW II — had he been a kleptomaniac? (Actually, I suspect you would. Like I said before: You're not a serious person.)
And you think you are serious for failing to identify a single crime? Well, yeah - it is a serious personal failing. I seriously wonder how it is possible to live beyond age thirty like this. Probably you developed this incapacity at a later point and did not have it earlier.

Whenever we talk about American politics or American influence, I have to remind myself that you wish my nation -if not actual ill- at least a comeuppance and eventual but permanent fall from prominence on the world stage.
I wish the same for Russia, if that helps. And for Russia first. In this life my ultimate wish is to have a peaceful border between Estonia and Mongolia.

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #23
So here we have it. When it comes to Democrats, your standard is: Guilty if suspicious.
I'd like to continue this... But your ability to ignore reality and accept Democrat Party narratives as Gospel makes that a pointless endeavor! :(

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a private email server in her private residence over which she communicated classified information with her boss, President Obama; when this was discovered and those emails subpoenaed, her lawyers selected some 30,000 emails for exclusion, and her various employees physically destroyed their phones and other devices... As FBI Director Comey and Obama said, she was "grossly negligent" in her handling of classified information. (Indeed, the FBI concluded that her server was hacked by foreign intelligence services...) But had "not intended to harm" the U.S., so she wouldn't be prosecuted.

I cited the relevant law... This is it:
Quote
(f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
And its wording is plain and clear[1]: She was guilty; nothing like "if suspicious," my friend.
Even Obama, the half-assed Harvard-trained lawyer would know...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The twits on Twitter

Reply #24
I'd like to continue this... But your ability to ignore reality and accept Democrat Party narratives as Gospel makes that a pointless endeavor! :(
You did not see the insurrection unfolding in front of you and even in hindsight you refuse any facts about it. This condemns you as a wilfully blind hopelessly brainwashed partisan sycophant.

I do not care anything about the Democrat Party. Lock Hillary up, if you want. Lock her up and never let her out, if you think there's a reason for it.

But here's the catch: Trump promised to do it. He was armed with the same allegations and investigations as you, but he did not do it. So, assuming Hillary should be locked up, Trump FAILED in a matter of national interest! Somehow you do not fault Trump for this. You fault Hillary. You do not fault the judicial system, but the criminal for failing to incriminate herself, confess prior to trial and go to prison by herself.

I fault the judicial system here. The law you cited, Trump should easily fall under it for his stealing of confidential documents and for famously tweeting info from his secret intelligence briefing. Trump has not been locked up for this dangerous breach of law - should be, but hasn't. A systemic problem with the judicial system.