US Election 2020 - Pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
24,916
t3f7s3b8z0l51.jpg
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
41,700
The history we teach could do with some revising.




 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
49,122


Yes, so what's your point? This stuff isn't taught in schools. Most kids just reflexively believe that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.
 

Brenden_E

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,407
Yes, so what's your point? This stuff isn't taught in schools. Most kids just reflexively believe that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.
Are you for real? His point is a white man is the chief inventor of the lightbulb. Latimer contributed to longer-lasting bulbs, but he didn't invent the lightbulb.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
49,122
Are you for real? His point is a white man is the chief inventor of the lightbulb. Latimer contributed to longer-lasting bulbs, but he didn't invent the lightbulb.

Yeah it's not really accurate to say Lewis "invented" the light bulb, but neither is it at all accurate to say that Edison invented it. It was a largely collaborative affair and Lewis's contribution was significant. Edison's contribution to the light bulb was also significant but he didn't come up with the concept.
 

Sl8er

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
8,708
What I saw is a metric **** ton of doctored, out-of-context propaganda. The Kamala video for instance is totally taken out of context and her interview with Stephen Colbert says nothing about violent protests or riots.

Well then, I don't know what to tell you.
Maybe you should email stephen colbert and and his team and ask him to remove the clip from his channel, because it's "out of context".

Here is the "doctored, out-of-context propaganda" clip from colbert's verified check-marked youtube channel:
The late show with stephen colbert.jpeg


...and her interview with Stephen Colbert says nothing about violent protests or riots.

Of course it doesn't, because they were intentionally calling violent riots "peaceful protests".
They did it, so that people like you can, now, turn around and say exactly what you just said ;)
This is why it's important to note the way "these people" use language...and exactly why they made a point of intentionally calling it "peaceful protests" when it obviously wasn't.
The problem, though, is that we live in the age of the internet.
The age where everyone has access to what's really going on (live reporting on the streets with hours of documented video footage)...and so, virtually everyone has been calling
them out on it...and so, their attempts at intentionally misnaming it "peaceful protests", have failed so spectacularly.

The riots had been going on for about a month-and-a-half at the time of this interview.
I mean, at this stage people were murdered already.
(David Dorn was murdered in a "peaceful protest" on June 3rd.)
This is just an undeniable fact, there's no way around it.

Biden staff donate to group that pays bail in riot-torn Minneapolis
"Campaign staff for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden are advertising their donations to a group that pays bail fees in Minneapolis after the city’s police jailed people protesting the killing of a black man by a white police officer."

Celebrities blasted for donating to protester bail fund as rioting, violence escalate
"Steve Carell, Seth Rogen, Janelle Monae among contributors to Minnesota Freedom Fund"

The "news"

(Remember, this was when they were calling riots "peaceful protests" )

Straight from the Multnomah County District Attorney website:

"The prosecution of people exercising their rights to free speech and assembly in a non-violent manner takes away from the limited resources that we have to prosecute serious crimes and to assist crime victims,” said District Attorney Mike Schmidt.
...
The Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office will presumptively decline to prosecute a case where the most serious offense is a city ordinance violation or where the crime(s) do not involve deliberate property damage, theft or the use or threat of force against another person."

Multnomah Co. DA’s office won’t prosecute many arrested in Portland protests
Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt announced on Tuesday that his office will not prosecute many protesters who have been arrested during recent Portland demonstrations.
Schmidt said his office will presumptively decline to prosecute those whose most serious accusation doesn’t involve deliberate property damage, theft or the use or threat of force against someone else. Charges that fall under that category include interfering with a peace officer, second-degree disorderly conduct and rioting, among others.




Problem was that they were letting almost all, not just "some", go.
So they lied -in the sense that they were letting rioters go who were involved with and responsible for assaults / attacks on cops / property damage / arson / etc.

Have a read through Andy Ngo's twitter feed. There are literal lists (public information obtained from the cops) of people who committed various violent acts not covered in the DA's list,
that were summarily let go again. (One of which -would've been prosecuted had the DA not taken this stance- went on to murder someone.)

If none of this was true...we have to ask why the cops pretty much threw in the towel / stopped arresting people.
(The moment people were taken in, the prosecutors let them go...so there was no point in, for the most part, arresting anyone anymore.)

‘We would prefer not to make arrests at all,’ Portland Police Chief Chuck Lovell says after DA decides to drop many protest cases
"Portland Police Chief Chuck Lovell said Tuesday his officers prefer not to make arrests during demonstrations but that 'some people use the gatherings as an opportunity to commit crimes.'
His remarks came in response to an announcement by Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt that his office won’t prosecute many of the hundreds of people facing misdemeanor charges over more than 70 days of "protests" in the city.
Police have arrested more than 30 people in the last several days as some have set fires in and around police buildings, blocked streets, lit fireworks and thrown things at officers. Police have responded by declaring disturbances and pushing the crowd back with physical force and impact munitions. They declared riots Saturday and Sunday nights."



This held true when the rioters moved into the suburbs, harassing people at their homes any time from midnight through to 4am.
Keeping people awake with "Wake up motherfcker, wake up!"


(Do you honestly think this is what normal, everyday, Americans want?)

They aren't.
Yeah...they 100% are.
See above.

I did actually give you my interpretation of the 10th amendment complete with reference to external documentation. It feels like you're driving at getting me to admit something specific though, so maybe make your point instead of trying to get me to make it for you?
I'd like you to explain it in your own words, because:
1. I'm not sure you really know what it means. You repeatedly / falsely keep blaming trump for something he, by law, has no control over (that is, until he recently found a loophole) and;
2. I can copy and paste your owns words for when you, once again, claim that it's trump's fault. (Basically highlighting the doublespeak with your own words.)


I disagree with lots of it, but regardless it's just a fantasy list.
But it actually his a real agenda.
He put it out to the American public: "This is what I want to do."
All presidents had agendas in some form -including obama. The only difference is that the don's is in point form.
(Which is better, IMO. It's easier to read. It's easier to understand. It's to the point.)
Whether it's obtainable, remains to be seen. (We'll find out soon enough :D )

Do you hate trump that much that you can't even say:
"Cutting taxes so I have more take-home money, sounds good to me." or;
"Let's cut prescription drug and insurance costs so it's more affordable." or;
"Let's stop these career politicians who sit in their cozy government positions for decades upon decades and do nothing for the people, except take tax money and / or secure corporate jobs
(with astronomical salaries) so we can influence policies in our favor. IE "Drain the swamp." or;
"Let's put a priority on innovating some awesome new tech and get closer to living in the future." or;
"I sure would like to see the troops come home. IE. Stop the endless wars."
etc, etc.

"Fantasy list" or not, don't you think those are some good propositions?

You mentioned you "disagree with lots of it..."
So what exactly do you disagree with?
If you disagree with "lots of it" (which equates to "not all of it")...that would suggest that you agree with, at least, "some of it."
So what "some of it" do you agree with?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
41,700
Yes, so what's your point? This stuff isn't taught in schools. Most kids just reflexively believe that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.

Well he did - it's not incorrect history. His company got the patent first so he "wins" (of course all science is built off the work of others but history only remembers the main person). Biden is trying replace Edison with Latimer in the modern narrative about who invented the lightbulb - this is incorrect.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
49,122
Well he did - it's not incorrect history. His company got the patent first so he "wins" (of course all science is built off the work of others but history only remembers the main person).


I don't agree that making a specific patent equals inventing it. However I also believe it's inaccurate to state that Lewis invented it, it would be better to say he significantly contributed to the invention of the lightbulb. And it's important for modern history to include the hidden contributions of minorities and marginalized people.

But let's agree that Biden's statement is less than fully accurate. Is his point really something to get outraged about?
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
49,122
Well then, I don't know what to tell you.
Maybe you should email stephen colbert and and his team and ask him to remove the clip from his channel, because it's "out of context".

Here is the "doctored, out-of-context propaganda" clip from colbert's verified check-marked youtube channel:
View attachment 905406




Of course it doesn't, because they were intentionally calling violent riots "peaceful protests".
They did it, so that people like you can, now, turn around and say exactly what you just said ;)
This is why it's important to note the way "these people" use language...and exactly why they made a point of intentionally calling it "peaceful protests" when it obviously wasn't.
The problem, though, is that we live in the age of the internet.
The age where everyone has access to what's really going on (live reporting on the streets with hours of documented video footage)...and so, virtually everyone has been calling
them out on it...and so, their attempts at intentionally misnaming it "peaceful protests", have failed so spectacularly.

The riots had been going on for about a month-and-a-half at the time of this interview.
I mean, at this stage people were murdered already.
(David Dorn was murdered in a "peaceful protest" on June 3rd.)
This is just an undeniable fact, there's no way around it.

Biden staff donate to group that pays bail in riot-torn Minneapolis
"Campaign staff for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden are advertising their donations to a group that pays bail fees in Minneapolis after the city’s police jailed people protesting the killing of a black man by a white police officer."

Celebrities blasted for donating to protester bail fund as rioting, violence escalate
"Steve Carell, Seth Rogen, Janelle Monae among contributors to Minnesota Freedom Fund"



(Remember, this was when they were calling riots "peaceful protests" )

Straight from the Multnomah County District Attorney website:

"The prosecution of people exercising their rights to free speech and assembly in a non-violent manner takes away from the limited resources that we have to prosecute serious crimes and to assist crime victims,” said District Attorney Mike Schmidt.
...
The Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office will presumptively decline to prosecute a case where the most serious offense is a city ordinance violation or where the crime(s) do not involve deliberate property damage, theft or the use or threat of force against another person."

Multnomah Co. DA’s office won’t prosecute many arrested in Portland protests
Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt announced on Tuesday that his office will not prosecute many protesters who have been arrested during recent Portland demonstrations.
Schmidt said his office will presumptively decline to prosecute those whose most serious accusation doesn’t involve deliberate property damage, theft or the use or threat of force against someone else. Charges that fall under that category include interfering with a peace officer, second-degree disorderly conduct and rioting, among others.




Problem was that they were letting almost all, not just "some", go.
So they lied -in the sense that they were letting rioters go who were involved with and responsible for assaults / attacks on cops / property damage / arson / etc.

Have a read through Andy Ngo's twitter feed. There are literal lists (public information obtained from the cops) of people who committed various violent acts not covered in the DA's list,
that were summarily let go again. (One of which -would've been prosecuted had the DA not taken this stance- went on to murder someone.)

If none of this was true...we have to ask why the cops pretty much threw in the towel / stopped arresting people.
(The moment people were taken in, the prosecutors let them go...so there was no point in, for the most part, arresting anyone anymore.)

‘We would prefer not to make arrests at all,’ Portland Police Chief Chuck Lovell says after DA decides to drop many protest cases
"Portland Police Chief Chuck Lovell said Tuesday his officers prefer not to make arrests during demonstrations but that 'some people use the gatherings as an opportunity to commit crimes.'
His remarks came in response to an announcement by Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt that his office won’t prosecute many of the hundreds of people facing misdemeanor charges over more than 70 days of "protests" in the city.
Police have arrested more than 30 people in the last several days as some have set fires in and around police buildings, blocked streets, lit fireworks and thrown things at officers. Police have responded by declaring disturbances and pushing the crowd back with physical force and impact munitions. They declared riots Saturday and Sunday nights."



This held true when the rioters moved into the suburbs, harassing people at their homes any time from midnight through to 4am.
Keeping people awake with "Wake up motherfcker, wake up!"


(Do you honestly think this is what normal, everyday, Americans want?)


Yeah...they 100% are.
See above.


I'd like you to explain it in your own words, because:
1. I'm not sure you really know what it means. You repeatedly / falsely keep blaming trump for something he, by law, has no control over (that is, until he recently found a loophole) and;
2. I can copy and paste your owns words for when you, once again, claim that it's trump's fault. (Basically highlighting the doublespeak with your own words.)



But it actually his a real agenda.
He put it out to the American public: "This is what I want to do."
All presidents had agendas in some form -including obama. The only difference is that the don's is in point form.
(Which is better, IMO. It's easier to read. It's easier to understand. It's to the point.)
Whether it's obtainable, remains to be seen. (We'll find out soon enough :D )

Do you hate trump that much that you can't even say:
"Cutting taxes so I have more take-home money, sounds good idea to me." or;
"Let's cut prescription drug and insurance costs so it's more affordable." or;
"Let's stop these career politicians who sit in their cozy government positions for decades upon decades and do nothing for the people, except take tax money and / or secure corporate jobs
(with astronomical salaries) so we can influence policies in our favor. IE "Drain the swamp." or;
"Let's put a priority on innovating some awesome new tech and get closer to living in the future." or;
"I sure would like to see the troops come home. IE. Stop the endless wars."
etc, etc.

"Fantasy list" or not, don't you think those are some good propositions?

You mentioned you "disagree with lots of it..."
So what exactly do you disagree with?
If you disagree with "lots of it" (which equates to "not all of it")...that would suggest that you agree with, at least, "some of it."
So what "some of it" do you agree with?

Yeah no I'm not responding to that wall of text. You know I have a job and a family right?
 

Emjay

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
15,016
What basic facts did I get wrong? You didn't point anything out. All mail-in votes are absentee votes, but absentee votes can also be dropped off. The ballot is still mailed to the absentee voter.

It's entirely incoherent to say absentee voting is fine, but mail-in voting isn't. Mail in-voting is absentee voting!

And the link you posted prove you wrong, Em.





The hypocrisy that I pointed out in the post - how'd you miss it?

How did I defend Pelosi? Just tilting at windmills as always.

Absentee ballots are solicited.
Mass mail in ballots are not.

That is not the same.

If there is hypocrisy, explain it. I don't live in lala land where things are the same when they are not.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top