|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Sept 8, 2024 12:22:12 GMT
I don't recall either getting in the way of the peaceful transfer of power, even if Gore had a legit gripe re: the Roger Stone and his Brooks Bros thugs. I don't recall Trump getting in the way of the peaceful transfer of power either. What is your point? Just because he didn't do the crime himself doesn't mean that he's not guilty of inciting others to do it. You're such a trump slaves that you will defend him to the bitter end. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Sept 8, 2024 12:25:46 GMT
Duh.. I ignore all your lies.. except to ridicule you for attempting to pass them off as facts ..
Clearly you don't. You have been following me around like a lost puppy dog since I have come back. You must have missed me.  Following you around!! Dude we had almost forgotten your existence. Can you point to a single thread where people were worrying about you not posting? You are a fucking loser! |
|
|
|
Post by stugatze on Sept 8, 2024 14:22:13 GMT
WTF is the matter with this guy? ______________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Cades little Quisling, .. Vance was DELIBERATELY taken OUT of CONTEXT by the TOTALLY f-ing CORRUPT liberal socialist news media! 
Your liberal news media allies are the biggest f-ing LIARS on the planet,  .. next to the democrats themselves. 
They got caught taking Vance out of context, and they were called out for their dishonesty, and SHAME on YOU,  because,.. you are no better than the lying f-ing liberal news media, either. 
|
|
|
|
Post by CadesCove on Sept 8, 2024 14:28:23 GMT
WTF is the matter with this guy? ______________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Cades little Quisling, .. Vance was DELIBERATELY taken OUT of CONTEXT by the TOTALLY f-ing CORRUPT liberal socialist news media!
Your liberal news media allies are the biggest f-ing LIARS on the planet, .. next to the democrats themselves.
They got caught taking Vance out of context, and they were called out for their dishonesty, and SHAME on YOU, because,.. you are no better than the lying f-ing liberal news media, either.
Rather than just say he's taken out of context, why don't you explain why it's out of context and show us where? |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 8, 2024 15:25:55 GMT
They are occurring with more frequency so I wouldn't say they are a tiny risk. To compare, note the complete absence of corrupted elections in the US.
Every single election we have is "corrupted" if we have an eye towards democracy. We have two political parties that have historically done everything in their power to stamp out democracy. And every single election going back decades has had accusations of malfeasance in the process.
Queshank
Accusations are one thing, to some degree that's part of a marketing campaign. But I'll agree the parties do things to keep 3rd parties or more fringe candidates from getting the nod. That's part of the political process and is not what I am talking about when I mention corruption. I'm thinking more about printing phony ballots, changing votes over satellites, hacking vote counts, etc. That's the corruption that is a tiny risk- the thing we don't have to worry about. School shootings, on the other hand, are trending up and even if the over all fatality numbers don't compare to yearly gun crime numbers, its still not a tiny risk when you're thinking about a room full of dead kids. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 8, 2024 16:22:26 GMT
Clearly you don't. You have been following me around like a lost puppy dog since I have come back. You must have missed me. Following you around!! Dude we had almost forgotten your existence. Can you point to a single thread where people were worrying about you not posting? You are a fucking loser! I was living rent free in your head after I left recently too! ROFL libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/396994/thread |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 8, 2024 16:48:35 GMT
There are over 115,000 schools in the United States.
We have shootings at how many every year?
Is tiny a small enough descriptor?
Queshank
You are seriously fucked up.
And how fucking seriously dumb are you that you can't tell I'm illustrating the point that just because something is a "tiny risk" doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about it.
Context still matters in this post nuance world your ilk has created.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 8, 2024 16:53:07 GMT
Every single election we have is "corrupted" if we have an eye towards democracy. We have two political parties that have historically done everything in their power to stamp out democracy. And every single election going back decades has had accusations of malfeasance in the process.
Queshank
Accusations are one thing, to some degree that's part of a marketing campaign. But I'll agree the parties do things to keep 3rd parties or more fringe candidates from getting the nod. That's part of the political process and is not what I am talking about when I mention corruption. I'm thinking more about printing phony ballots, changing votes over satellites, hacking vote counts, etc. That's the corruption that is a tiny risk- the thing we don't have to worry about. School shootings, on the other hand, are trending up and even if the over all fatality numbers don't compare to yearly gun crime numbers, its still not a tiny risk when you're thinking about a room full of dead kids.
The fact that you think a corrupt political process is "part of the process" is part of the entire problem.
Room full of dead kids or not, 1 room out of a million is still a "tiny risk."
And one of the reasons school shootings are trending up is because of your emotional reaction to the "room full of dead kids." As you've seen me point out literally dozens of times in the past ten years. The fact that we all sit here and talk about school shootings ad nauseum is a part of the 'process.'
“We suggest that the media cry to cling to ‘the public’s right to know’ covers up a greedier agenda to keep eyeballs glued to screens, since they know that frightening homicides are their No. 1 ratings and advertising boosters,” she said.
“Unfortunately, we find that a cross-cutting trait among many profiles of mass shooters is desire for fame,” she said. This quest for fame among mass shooters skyrocketed since the mid-1990s “in correspondence to the emergence of widespread 24-hour news coverage on cable news programs, and the rise of the internet during the same period.”
At what point are we going to stop focusing on clowns like Alex Jones and start deplatforming the people who are actually leading to more deaths?
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 8, 2024 17:03:42 GMT
Accusations are one thing, to some degree that's part of a marketing campaign. But I'll agree the parties do things to keep 3rd parties or more fringe candidates from getting the nod. That's part of the political process and is not what I am talking about when I mention corruption. I'm thinking more about printing phony ballots, changing votes over satellites, hacking vote counts, etc. That's the corruption that is a tiny risk- the thing we don't have to worry about. School shootings, on the other hand, are trending up and even if the over all fatality numbers don't compare to yearly gun crime numbers, its still not a tiny risk when you're thinking about a room full of dead kids.
The fact that you think a corrupt political process is "part of the process" is part of the entire problem. Yes and no. Yes, we should try to limit gerrymandering, the barriers to 3rd parties, voter disenfranchisement efforts and whatever else we can to make the process more fair. I'm with you on that. These are risks worth worrying about. I would also be in favor of experimenting with ranked choice voting. But I don't believe this problem of the politicalization/gamification of the rules is something we can do away with totally. It is the nature of things. Any system of rules will most likely have some way of being gamed, and doubly so when the players themselves are in charge of crafting the rules. I am all in with you on looking at ways to reduce the edge people get by gaming the rules but I don't expect this problem to fully go away and see it as internal to the political process itself rather than an example of corruption. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Sept 8, 2024 17:14:51 GMT
The fact that you think a corrupt political process is "part of the process" is part of the entire problem. I would also be in favor of experimenting with ranked choice voting. Hell fucking yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 8, 2024 17:17:25 GMT
The fact that you think a corrupt political process is "part of the process" is part of the entire problem. Yes and no. Yes, we should try to limit gerrymandering, the barriers to 3rd parties, voter disenfranchisement efforts and whatever else we can to make the process more fair. I'm with you on that. These are risks worth worrying about. I would also be in favor of experimenting with ranked choice voting. But I don't believe this problem of the politicalization/gamification of the rules is something we can do away with totally. It is the nature of things. Any system of rules will most likely have some way of being gamed, and doubly so when the players themselves are in charge of crafting the rules. I am all in with you on looking at ways to reduce the edge people get by gaming the rules but I don't expect this problem to fully go away and see it as internal to the political process itself rather than an example of corruption.
At the very least we can go after the big targets that are the root of all evil. Our political parties. No?
One down. One to go.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 8, 2024 17:48:45 GMT
Yes and no. Yes, we should try to limit gerrymandering, the barriers to 3rd parties, voter disenfranchisement efforts and whatever else we can to make the process more fair. I'm with you on that. These are risks worth worrying about. I would also be in favor of experimenting with ranked choice voting. But I don't believe this problem of the politicalization/gamification of the rules is something we can do away with totally. It is the nature of things. Any system of rules will most likely have some way of being gamed, and doubly so when the players themselves are in charge of crafting the rules. I am all in with you on looking at ways to reduce the edge people get by gaming the rules but I don't expect this problem to fully go away and see it as internal to the political process itself rather than an example of corruption.
At the very least we can go after the big targets that are the root of all evil. Our political parties. No?
One down. One to go.
Queshank
The devil is in the details and it depends on what we mean by "go after." I am all about aiming for better I just recoil from language that insinuates perfection is attainable, or that every movement away from idealism is corruption. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Sept 8, 2024 21:12:58 GMT
Following you around!! Dude we had almost forgotten your existence. Can you point to a single thread where people were worrying about you not posting? You are a fucking loser! I was living rent free in your head after I left recently too! ROFL libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/396994/threadOh boy! You are such a desperately fucking loser!! I just mentioned you as a nuisance that upped the forum value by being gone!!! Do mosquitoes "rent free" my mind, you fucking piece of shit, because I said that my new mosquito bomb got me rid of them for good! You are such a lying freak, it's unbelievable! Do the world a favor and drink bleach, you bastard, after all your idol trump is advising you to do it, moron!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 8, 2024 21:55:29 GMT
Oh boy! You are such a desperately fucking loser!! I just mentioned you as a nuisance that upped the forum value by being gone!!! Do mosquitoes "rent free" my mind, you fucking piece of shit, because I said that my new mosquito bomb got me rid of them for good! You are such a lying freak, it's unbelievable! Do the world a favor and drink bleach, you bastard, after all your idol trump is advising you to do it, moron!!! Too easy. All too easy. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by slefty on Sept 8, 2024 22:32:15 GMT
Accusations are one thing, to some degree that's part of a marketing campaign. But I'll agree the parties do things to keep 3rd parties or more fringe candidates from getting the nod. That's part of the political process and is not what I am talking about when I mention corruption. I'm thinking more about printing phony ballots, changing votes over satellites, hacking vote counts, etc. That's the corruption that is a tiny risk- the thing we don't have to worry about. School shootings, on the other hand, are trending up and even if the over all fatality numbers don't compare to yearly gun crime numbers, its still not a tiny risk when you're thinking about a room full of dead kids.
At what point are we going to stop focusing on clowns like Alex Jones and start deplatforming the people who are actually leading to more deaths?
Queshank
So censorship? Who decides? |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 9, 2024 3:36:14 GMT
At what point are we going to stop focusing on clowns like Alex Jones and start deplatforming the people who are actually leading to more deaths?
Queshank
So censorship? Who decides?
Weren't we all supposed to be cheering Alex Jones being deplatformed for ... something. Not sure what. Certainly weren't any deaths involved.
I'm just illustrating the hypocrisy in the people cheering that while not pushing for outlets that actually lead to more deaths to be deplatformed.
If we're gonna censor someone, seems like we should be censoring the ones who actually do damage, no? According to the experts?
But good to hear you agree that deplatforming Alex Jones was censorship.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by slefty on Sept 9, 2024 4:01:25 GMT
So censorship? Who decides
If we're gonna censor someone, seems like we should be censoring the ones who actually do damage, no? According to the experts?
Queshank
So let the "experts" censor? Experts in what? |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 9, 2024 4:24:12 GMT
If we're gonna censor someone, seems like we should be censoring the ones who actually do damage, no? According to the experts?
Queshank
So let the "experts" censor? Experts in what?
Well in this case it's the American Psychology Association determining that "media contagion" has led to a 30% increase in mass shootings over time.
From that we can determine that maybe if we really want to diminish the quantity of these types of shootings .. we should limit the amount of "media contagion."
Or ... we could focus on assault weapons. Ignoring some of the most deadly shootings have been done with pistols and the Columbine shooting that started it all was smack in the middle of the federal assault weapons ban. Yeah that sounds like a good plan!
2nd amendment or 1st amendment. Which should be sacrosanct?
Do I really need to point out I disagree with all forms of censorship after years of warning about the left's increasing love for censorship becoming dangerous? Since I started freaking out about 2017's NetzDG or opinion pieces at NPR and the NY Times rationalizing how free speech shouldn't actually exist? Or do you think I'm seriously making a policy proposal here rather than highlighting the foolishness of the "ban assault weapons" crowd?
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 9, 2024 4:28:58 GMT
At the very least we can go after the big targets that are the root of all evil. Our political parties. No?
One down. One to go.
Queshank
The devil is in the details and it depends on what we mean by "go after." I am all about aiming for better I just recoil from language that insinuates perfection is attainable, or that every movement away from idealism is corruption.
How about we just do away with the parties that have incentives and goals that run contrary to democracy and were discouraged by our Founders as the enemies of such?
One down. One to go.
Lest you misunderstand.
Democrats and their allies sue to keep RFK Jr. off the ballot in several states
Trump Says He Has ‘No Problem’ Including R.F.K. Jr. in Debates
But President Biden’s campaign has been firm in wanting the debates to be between only him and the former president.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Sept 9, 2024 6:50:28 GMT
The devil is in the details and it depends on what we mean by "go after." I am all about aiming for better I just recoil from language that insinuates perfection is attainable, or that every movement away from idealism is corruption.
How about we just do away with the parties... Everybody says that, all the time, since the dawn of participatory politics, and yet it will never happen... |
|
