Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

Overheal

markodaly wrote: »

Blue Lives Matter all of a sudden.

Irony of ironies, the people who were waving blue lives matter flags, wore the shirts, had the patches, all bate the **** out of cops, shoved through them, maced them, threw stones, crushed them against doors, etc.

jill_valentine

listermint wrote: »

Think you might have over reached there. She merely made the point they spend alot of money doing it. In fact theres an entire building in Dublin with hundreds of staff working all the time doing it.


You can hold that factual information and still think Facebook needs to be broke up for disrupting impressionable people's with lies fed via AI.

Indeed. I think Facebook does need to be broken up, I think it's a horror show. I don't use it, and advise people not to.

But if we're pretending not to understand why its app is still on app stores and Parler isn't, there's the answer. Facebook had a (lousy) functional moderation infrastructure. Parler doesn't as its USP, and refused to implement one as a condition of staying up.

listermint

markodaly wrote: »

Really? You mean to say, the last 4 years was worth it, because now the Democrats are in the seat of power (with a razor-thin margin in the Senate).
It was all worth it, for what?

A very very odd comment tbh.

History is not kind to parties who hold all levels of power in the US. Odds on that the midterms in 2022 will see the Democrats given a kicking because the Democrats will overreach.

Because it's exposed the GOPs core for all to see. It's really tore it completely wide open. The GOP over reach in the judicial system and everywhere else really makes it easy for the Dems to basically do what they need to do now.

And the GOP will still be reeling from this week in 2022 . There will be back peddling across the board.

The notion that normal conservatives want their capital taken is laughable and the notion that the loopers will reign their votes in to normal candidates.


They're broken. It's great to witness.

markodaly

jill_valentine wrote: »

Grand, none of this has anything to do with the point of my post though. Feel free to scroll back to remind yourself of what ye were pretending to ask about.

The point of your post? You mean when you were espousing Facebook and their moderation and their upstanding morality as opposed to parlour?

Parlour just bad, but Facebook, who lived streamed the murder of over 50 people, they are good!

Is that the logic here?

For Forks Sake

Foxtrol wrote: »

This gem from Parlor today. Can't work out whether it is a law enforcement group, media, or a troll that will just release it all.

https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/1348005014317522948?s=20

listermint

Sand wrote: »

I think it says more about your anti-establishment views that you think anything which actually discomforts the establishment is out of bounds.

Christ, the USA emerged from the Boston Tea Party - a violent mob refusing to pay taxes to the legitimate government.

Feels like you don't understand the Boston tea party .. and also are confused about anti establishment.


This is great material though. Keep going.

Overheal

markodaly wrote: »

The point of your post? You mean when you were espousing Facebook and their moderation and their upstanding morality as opposed to parlour?

Parlour just bad, but Facebook, who lived streamed the murder of over 50 people, they are good!

Is that the logic here?

The sweet and short of it is, as of January 8,2021, these app stores have exercised their TOS to require the apps to provide robust content moderation. That applies equally to FB.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

Acknowledgement of my point.

I'm not trying to point score of you. You don't need to defend it to me. Just take it away and think about why you believe Rittenhouse (in justifiable fear of his life while being chased by a mob) is a murderer and that guy who gunned down an unarmed protestor is not. Are you suddenly the guy who defends the temples of the establishment? Is invading a police station now justifiable for being killed in your view?

Maybe link the dissonance back to what your social media, mainstream media and corporations are telling you to think. I predicted what you would think because of what they think. Your argument is not with me.

We already know for a fact that some of the people in the building intended to hold politicians hostage and possible even kill them.... So it's actually reasonable to assume they were in danger in this scenario. You're engage in a false equivalence, you're so infatuated with hating black lives matter that you're ignoring how ridiculous your argument is.

Sand wrote: »

What you're not grasping is you're suddenly on the other side defending the police shooting of an unarmed military veteran.

Your principles spin depending on what CNN tells you is outrageous.

You're pretty much ignoring what the situation was. In fact you've so far downplayed the killing of a police officer. You've claimed politicians were cowards for not offering themselves up to hostage takers... You've basically making some incredibly stupid claims while ignoring the reality.

jill_valentine

markodaly wrote: »

The point of your post? You mean when you were espousing Facebook and their moderation and their upstanding morality as opposed to parlour?

Parlour just bad, but Facebook, who lived streamed the murder of over 50 people, they are good!

Is that the logic here?

You are very free to scroll back to my original post and check for any bits where I even vaguely imply I think Facebook is good. That was not the question ye were pretending to ask.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

What you're not grasping is you're suddenly on the other side defending the police shooting of an unarmed military veteran.

Your principles spin depending on what CNN tells you is outrageous.

Again, please stop making me personally the central argument of your posts. I literally don't even know who you are, and ditto.

markodaly

listermint wrote: »

Because it's exposed the GOPs core for all to see. It's really tore it completely wide open. The GOP over reach in the judicial system and everywhere else really makes it easy for the Dems to basically do what they need to do now.

You mean when the Democrats lost 3 seats at the SCOTUS (was it worth it)?
But the Democrats can do what they want?

I know some MAGA Trump supporters are deluded but come on!
Remember when Obama was elected in 2008, with a super majority in the House and Senate?
How did that work out in the end?

It's great to witness.

Clearly, for you the end justifies the means. At least you are honest about it.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

What you're not grasping is you're suddenly on the other side defending the police shooting of an unarmed military veteran.

Your principles spin depending on what CNN tells you is outrageous.

It wasn't the police it was the secret service.

Did they know at the time that she was unarmed as she tried to gain entry to the chamber where the VP was?

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

Literally any response to your post would be acknowledging that you spoke, it is not an affirmation of your allegation. You claim to possibly still know what I believe, today, about the case, when I have literally not thought about the boy in months. If you hadn't noticed, there's been a contest election eating up the vast majority of that headspace.

So, as I said, it's entirely baseless, I don't even know my own position because I don't know what else has developed in the case in the last 3-4 months.

So if you're suddenly undcertain Rittenhouse is a mass murderer, why are you so certain Babbet is a domestic terrorist?

I know what the common denominator is - social & mass media narratives that you consume. You're in a bubble. You say what they say. Again - I'm not trying to point score. I'm trying to help you.

the siege of the US capitol.

Sounds like the title of a hollywood movie. Washington Has Fallen!

Can the representatives of the US people be sieged by the people they represent? Apparently so. You ever wonder how that is possible?

jill_valentine

Sand wrote: »

What you're not grasping is you're suddenly on the other side defending the police shooting of an unarmed military veteran.

She was not unarmed. She broke a million laws she knew inside and out, in order to breach a protected government space she once literally swore oaths to defend against such breaches.

She and her cohorts presented an immediate threat to the life of the Vice President of the United States. You can wear yourself out performing backflips to distract from that, but you'll get few takers.

Overheal

listermint wrote: »

Because it's exposed the GOPs core for all to see. It's really tore it completely wide open. The GOP over reach in the judicial system and everywhere else really makes it easy for the Dems to basically do what they need to do now.

And the GOP will still be reeling from this week in 2022 . There will be back peddling across the board.

The notion that normal conservatives want their capital taken is laughable and the notion that the loopers will reign their votes in to normal candidates.


They're broken. It's great to witness.

Oh you. You've got a full bottle of mint schadenfreude today!

ToddDameron

Overheal wrote: »

Irony of ironies, the people who were waving blue lives matter flags, wore the shirts, had the patches, all bate the **** out of cops, shoved through them, maced them, threw stones, crushed them against doors, etc.

They most not have gotten the memo that the police were there to aid them and actively colluding with them. Terrible communication all round.

markodaly

Overheal wrote: »

The sweet and short of it is, as of January 8,2021, these app stores have exercised their TOS to require the apps to provide robust content moderation. That applies equally to FB.

Ah yea, I wonder if Apple or Google threaten Facebook to clean up their act when they live-streamed the murder of 51 Muslim, in Christchurch or be removed from their app store.

Did they ****.

Overheal

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It wasn't the police it was the secret service.

Did they know at the time that she was unarmed as she tried to gain entry to the chamber where the VP was?

Mixed reports that he was capitol police on special detail (probably assigned to a senior leader)

ToddDameron

jill_valentine wrote: »

She was not unarmed. She broke a million laws she knew inside and out, in order to breach a protected government space she once literally swore oaths to defend against such breaches.

She and her cohorts presented an immediate threat to the life of the Vice President of the United States. You can wear yourself out performing backflips to distract from that, but you'll get few takers.

Could you post a link to something that shows she was armed, I thought it was widely reported she was unarmed?

Kaybaykwah

Sand wrote: »

What you're not grasping is you're suddenly on the other side defending the police shooting of an unarmed military veteran.

Your principles spin depending on what CNN tells you is outrageous.

She was trained to defend the very place she stormed, and she asked for it. It was some kind of death wish, I suppose.

The fact that she is a veteran makes it worse, she is a traitor.

You dismissed the policeman's death in your first post about these events. The policeman in question was defending the space where Congress and Senate are sitting.

What are you grasping at?

Sand

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It wasn't the police it was the secret service.

Did they know at the time that she was unarmed as she tried to gain entry to the chamber where the VP was?

Oh so its up to the peaceful protester to prove they were unarmed now?

jill_valentine

ToddDameron wrote: »

Could you post a link to something that shows she was armed, I thought it was widely reported she was unarmed?

Only right wing whisper networks have claimed she was unarmed in an effort to present her as a martyr. The same reason she's described as a "San Diego Air Force Veteran", rather than a former member of DCs own security forces.

Her holster is visible in the footage of her body being removed from the building.

ToddDameron

jill_valentine wrote: »

Only right wing whisper networks have claimed she was unarmed.

Her holster is visible in the footage of her body being removed from the building.

Is there any reputable news stating she was armed? Genuine question.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

why are you so certain Babbet is a domestic terrorist?

I already told you: 18 US Code § 2331 (5).

You didn't answer my question about that: why do you think she is not a terrorist? Show your work, addressing the definition provided in federal statute please.

Can the representatives of the US people be sieged by the people they represent? Apparently so. You ever wonder how that is possible?

"How can human beings be brutally terrorized, kidnapped and executed by other human beings, if the other human beings elected the first human beings to perform a role? How silly would that be! hahaha!"

combat14

listermint wrote: »

Impossible to remove Facebook and Twitter...?

And as for Google it's a search engine. Use it for shopping and. Holidays and stuff.


Personal responsibility seems like a foreign concept to right leaning people.


Just mad...

google is alot more than just a search engine or an android operating system now

namloc1980

Sand wrote: »

Oh so its up to the peaceful protester to prove they were unarmed now?

Your peaceful protester had breached the US Capitol in an act of insurrection along with a violent mob intent on overthrowing the election. You're fooling nobody with your attempts to pretend she was something else.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

Oh so its up to the peaceful protester to prove they were unarmed now?

She wasn't peaceful

Sand

Sand wrote: »

Oh so its up to the peaceful protester to prove they were unarmed now?

Terrorist trying to get access to politicians in a building that was under lockdown as a result of the building's breach which she was a part of. It's not peaceful trying to knock down a barricaded door btw. Simple.

Overheal

markodaly wrote: »

Ah yea, I wonder if Apple or Google threaten Facebook to clean up their act when they live-streamed the murder of 51 Muslim, in Christchurch or be removed from their app store.

Did they ****.

In a very similar timeframe as here, about 4 days after the attack, Facebook began the process of revising their policies as a direct result of the shooting and viral streaming/upload activity.

https://about.fb.com/news/2019/05/protecting-live-from-abuse/

I doubt you would have heard about Apple/Google banning their apps since FB seemed reasonably proactive and willing to revise in the wake of the attack without public pressure. Parler seems pugilistic about the idea of having to moderate its content in a similar manner, in fact it markets itself off that selling point.

oldtimeyfella

I wonder if people here will be saying "he/she deserved it" the next time some dip**** criminal doesn't listen to cops orders to drop their weapon or put their hands where they can see them?

I guess we'll get more "fiery but most peaceful protests".