POTUS-DONALD TRUMP-and U.S. Politics catch-all

[Whatever]

There should be a law that makes people accountable for their lies.

Well, online anonymity has to disappear then.

Online freedoms are going to be clamped down on and restricted in the aftermath of this. It's inevitable, and it's not just going to be the bad ones that will apply to. Senate Democrats signaled that way and Republicans before this were wanting digital media reform anyway (just a different type of reform). Already read a thing this morning the EU Parliament acted in this sphere.

The EU reforms are awful. They achieved none of the actual outcomes they were after and effectively made the problems they were trying to fix work.

If you outlaw ‘lying’ then you are going against the 1st Amendment - now the government can arrest you for what you say. Freedom of speech is dead - now only speech that is ‘true’ is free.
So who becomes the arbiter of what is true? The Trump appointed judges? Trump himself? Do we set up a Truth Commission or perhaps a Council of Public Safety? Is it Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey that decides?

Truth isn’t clear cut. What are things that all people can agree is true? Man walked on the moon? The earth is round? The theory of evolution? Jesus is lord? Trump incited a riot?

In reality, truth is usually subjective. Sometimes it comes down to different viewpoints seeing a ‘fact’ very differently. It’s a slippery slope.

Do you want ‘lying’ to be a crime when Donald Trump gets to decide what is true?

Was thinking about this this evening. If misinformation should be removed by platforms, all these things and people that post them should in theory be forcibly removed to remain logically consistent:

-9/11 Truthers
-we never landed on the moon people
-pretty much all JFK conspiracy theorists
-everyone that disputed the 2000 and 2004 elections in the U.S.

How do you prove that these are lies or misinformation? If someone genuinely believes them, is it misinformation?

This push for censorship is futile and will only result in empowering someone that nobody will want empowered.

"Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie, if you believe it."

[Waratah]

I'm of the view "deplatforming" works largely. Particularly if it stops people who should be in positions of high power and consequence spewing misinfo unchallenged/unregulated.

Calling bans from twitter, a glorified private forum, "censorship" is nonsense.

Several years ago, perhaps more, a few venues in Melbourne cancelled talks by anti-vaxxers, and a veteran poster (karahi, who was not an anti-vaxxer) expressed concern about free speech. I asked him at the time if he would be denying free speech to a door-knocking Seventh Day Adventist by declining to ask him into his home.

Of course not. Free speech means you can say (mostly) what you like without being arrested. It obliges no-one to listen, or to give you a platform to publish or broadcast your views, least of all private enterprises who may set conditions of entry, have reputations to protect, and who may be liable for what they allow. To imagine your freedom of speech is being denied if banned for ignoring those conditions of entry is to fundamentally misunderstand what free speech means and how it works.

Censorship is different but the critical difference is whether you are being censored by a government/ruling authority or by private enterprise. There may be good (and legal) reasons in either case and in both cases, at least in advanced nations, they're mostly a matter of civi/legal responsibility.

'Deplatforming' is not about ideology as much as self-interest. When it's from a ruling authority it's dangerous. When it's from a commercial organisation it's just about money. That's how capitalism works.

[Floppykid]

A simplistic way of thinking about it I heard is, if a bunch of guys are talking about overthrowing the state in your corner shop, you have every right to ban them so your shop doesn't get SWAT'd.
Even if they are buying a token mars bar with each visit.

[towny]

How do you prove that these are lies or misinformation? If someone genuinely believes them, is it misinformation?

This push for censorship is futile and will only result in empowering someone that nobody will want empowered.

Morning,Towns.

Did you really just ask, 'If someone genuinely believes [something], is it misinformation?', as if reality was just a matter of belief?

Mate! Howzit?!

I did ask that. For example, if someone had said in March that wearing a mask would have a measurable impact on its infection rate, because they really thought this was true, would this be classed as misinformation?

After all, even after March the WHO and Dr Fauci were staring stated that masks were not effective.

My point is that who decides something is misinformation? It’s a hypothetical in response to some posters’ wish that lies and misinformation be subject to legal remedy. I do not support this view.

[Anonymous 1]

How do you prove that these are lies or misinformation? If someone genuinely believes them, is it misinformation?

This push for censorship is futile and will only result in empowering someone that nobody will want empowered.

Morning,Towns.

Did you really just ask, 'If someone genuinely believes [something], is it misinformation?', as if reality was just a matter of belief?

Mate! Howzit?!

I did ask that. For example, if someone had said in March that wearing a mask would have a measurable impact on its infection rate, because they really thought this was true, would this be classed as misinformation?

After all, even after March the WHO and Dr Fauci were staring stated that masks were not effective.

My point is that who decides something is misinformation? It’s a hypothetical in response to some posters’ wish that lies and misinformation be subject to legal remedy. I do not support this view.

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is communicated regardless of an intention to deceive.[1][2] Examples of misinformation are false rumors, insults, and pranks. Disinformation is a species of misinformation that is deliberately deceptive, e. g. malicious hoaxes, spearphishing, and computational propaganda.

[Waratah]

How do you prove that these are lies or misinformation? If someone genuinely believes them, is it misinformation?

This push for censorship is futile and will only result in empowering someone that nobody will want empowered.

Morning,Towns.

Did you really just ask, 'If someone genuinely believes [something], is it misinformation?', as if reality was just a matter of belief?

Mate! Howzit?!

I did ask that. For example, if someone had said in March that wearing a mask would have a measurable impact on its infection rate, because they really thought this was true, would this be classed as misinformation?

After all, even after March the WHO and Dr Fauci were staring stated that masks were not effective.

My point is that who decides something is misinformation? It’s a hypothetical in response to some posters’ wish that lies and misinformation be subject to legal remedy. I do not support this view.

Couldn't be better, mate.

It's already illegal in most places to lie in some circumstances. In court under oath for example. But that has to be proved. No-one is going to be arrested for being wrong in good faith, even if they really believe it, and no-one is suggesting that should be the case.

It's not a free speech issue. You're free to be misinformed. You're even free to lie in most circumstances, but you're not free from the consequences.

[Flyin Ryan]

The EU reforms are awful. They achieved none of the actual outcomes they were after and effectively made the problems they were trying to fix work.

If you outlaw ‘lying’ then you are going against the 1st Amendment - now the government can arrest you for what you say. Freedom of speech is dead - now only speech that is ‘true’ is free.
So who becomes the arbiter of what is true? The Trump appointed judges? Trump himself? Do we set up a Truth Commission or perhaps a Council of Public Safety? Is it Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey that decides?

Truth isn’t clear cut. What are things that all people can agree is true? Man walked on the moon? The earth is round? The theory of evolution? Jesus is lord? Trump incited a riot?

In reality, truth is usually subjective. Sometimes it comes down to different viewpoints seeing a ‘fact’ very differently. It’s a slippery slope.

Do you want ‘lying’ to be a crime when Donald Trump gets to decide what is true?

Don't Courts of Law deal every day with trying to establish the truth? That wouldn't be new.

They're not doing that. Probably end up being some algorithm that as YouTube showed harms the innocent just as much as the guilty.

Few years ago a middle school student (13 or so) at my wife's school she was a counselor at setup a fake sccount of "a parent of a girl at the school" accusing my wife of strip searching young girls. (My wife was investigating allegations of cutting, which would involve the girls changing clothes in another room putting on shorts.) The school district in the end investigated and said it was all bullshit, local digital newspaper publishes this. But the page on Facebook was still up. I reported this fake page to Facebook 5 or 6 times. They never took it down. Whether it's still up or not, I don’t know, it's been a few years and I've forgotten the name.

Well that is just rank behaviour, abetting rank behaviour, on FB's part. Did you threaten legal action?

I talked to a lawyer I knew through my rugby team for "free legal advice". He said she had not been damaged materially since the school district took no action against her so there was no case. Plus, I was only going to do it if my wife wanted to, and she didn't (never expected her to go for it to be honest, she deals with shit from young teenagers all the time, but my sole goal was to protect her). I was never going to sue Facebook, for one I can't afford that. I was going to sue the girl in the hopes of get rid of the page now/public admission of the scheme. Her mom had no money I know from my wife so she would've forced her daughter to retreat immediately, and then the suit can get dropped. I was concerned about it's not a small town but still a town, my wife has a job where she gets to deal with all the young teenage children in that town, and concerned for her reputation which she has to have to do her job. The article was in a newspaper, said it was all bullshit, there's still people that are going to believe it and think the school district is just protecting their own.

Here's the article:
http://www.inkfreenews.com/2018/02/08/w ... ial-media/

They lied about taking action against the student. They let it go because she was going up to the high school in a few months. I'm pissed off at them as well because once one girl gets away with this, so will others, they just showed they don't have a spine to protect their employees, and I'm pissed off at my wife's teachers' union. The point of a union is to protect its members, and they were nowhere to be found.

[Flyin Ryan]

Well, online anonymity has to disappear then.

Online freedoms are going to be clamped down on and restricted in the aftermath of this. It's inevitable, and it's not just going to be the bad ones that will apply to. Senate Democrats signaled that way and Republicans before this were wanting digital media reform anyway (just a different type of reform). Already read a thing this morning the EU Parliament acted in this sphere.

The EU reforms are awful. They achieved none of the actual outcomes they were after and effectively made the problems they were trying to fix work.

If you outlaw ‘lying’ then you are going against the 1st Amendment - now the government can arrest you for what you say. Freedom of speech is dead - now only speech that is ‘true’ is free.
So who becomes the arbiter of what is true? The Trump appointed judges? Trump himself? Do we set up a Truth Commission or perhaps a Council of Public Safety? Is it Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey that decides?

Truth isn’t clear cut. What are things that all people can agree is true? Man walked on the moon? The earth is round? The theory of evolution? Jesus is lord? Trump incited a riot?

In reality, truth is usually subjective. Sometimes it comes down to different viewpoints seeing a ‘fact’ very differently. It’s a slippery slope.

Do you want ‘lying’ to be a crime when Donald Trump gets to decide what is true?

Was thinking about this this evening. If misinformation should be removed by platforms, all these things and people that post them should in theory be forcibly removed to remain logically consistent:

-9/11 Truthers
-we never landed on the moon people
-pretty much all JFK conspiracy theorists
-everyone that disputed the 2000 and 2004 elections in the U.S.

How do you prove that these are lies or misinformation? If someone genuinely believes them, is it misinformation?

This push for censorship is futile and will only result in empowering someone that nobody will want empowered.

Well, it's going to happen. Sorry, a majority of votes in both houses are going to vote for it with varying degrees of support from both parties. The left are using the same "law and order" rhetoric conservatives used and also were used to justify G.W. Bush-era "War on Terror" restrictions.

Your best bet is it's just a toothless piece of legislation.

Biden wants to impose a Domestic Terrorism bill, which unless they severely limit to say only the seat of government which makes it incredibly toothless, that's going to take quite the legalistic gymnastics to make that law apply to the Capitol raid and not say protesters tearing up federal buildings, state buildings, municipal buildings, police stations, broadcasters, etc. that all happened last summer. It's amazing how many elected politicians have zero foresight.

[towny]

A simplistic way of thinking about it I heard is, if a bunch of guys are talking about overthrowing the state in your corner shop, you have every right to ban them so your shop doesn't get SWAT'd.
Even if they are buying a token mars bar with each visit.

I think there is a key difference. Twitter enables anyone to public’s information to the world, and because of the internet’s innate nature, that the dominant platform wins the whole market, it means that being booted off Twitter can be a really big deal.

Look at Trump - more than anything else, Twitter enabled him to win election to POTUS. Without it, he lacks much his political and social power. I hate the guy and think the world is a better place without him on SM, but what if he was blocked because Jack Dorsey didn’t like his politics? Even though that wouldn’t be illegal, it would be wrong. Right or wrong, he’s a Democratically elected representative and it’s wrong for someone to decide what who gets to be heard.

But.... I’m with you. When someone threatens democracy itself then a private company has to make a judgement call on what’s most important. So fark Trump.

[towny]

How do you prove that these are lies or misinformation? If someone genuinely believes them, is it misinformation?

This push for censorship is futile and will only result in empowering someone that nobody will want empowered.

Morning,Towns.

Did you really just ask, 'If someone genuinely believes [something], is it misinformation?', as if reality was just a matter of belief?

Mate! Howzit?!

I did ask that. For example, if someone had said in March that wearing a mask would have a measurable impact on its infection rate, because they really thought this was true, would this be classed as misinformation?

After all, even after March the WHO and Dr Fauci were staring stated that masks were not effective.

My point is that who decides something is misinformation? It’s a hypothetical in response to some posters’ wish that lies and misinformation be subject to legal remedy. I do not support this view.

Couldn't be better, mate.

It's already illegal in most places to lie in some circumstances. In court under oath for example. But that has to be proved. No-one is going to be arrested for being wrong in good faith, even if they really believe it, and no-one is suggesting that should be the case.

It's not a free speech issue. You're free to be misinformed. You're even free to lie in most circumstances, but you're not free from the consequences.

Yep. I’m with that. The initial topic was whether politicians or media should face charges for lying. As you say, they already do in certain circumstances. As much as I hate Tucker Carlson and 98% of the GOP, I believe that they should be free to bullshit their gullible f*ckstain supporters, because the unintended consequences would outweigh any gains.

I heard your life sucks and your boat isn’t even that awesome. Or maybe I got that completely wrong.....

[kiap]

I believe that they should be free to bullshit their gullible f*ckstain supporters, because the unintended consequences would outweigh any gains.

Maybe you're wrong. That word "believe" ... anyone can have belief, just like the aforementioned door-knocking Seventh Day Adventist. If it's not testable - if it is not based on anything much - then it's unsubtantiated belief, and worthless.

[Whatever]

Announced that the National Mall will be closed on Inauguration Day, so no crowd for Biden's inauguration, other than the National Guard and dignitaries.

Feds say the far right 'chatter' is off the charts. Something due to happen.

[towny]

I believe that they should be free to bullshit their gullible f*ckstain supporters, because the unintended consequences would outweigh any gains.

Maybe you're wrong. That word "believe" ... anyone can have belief, just like the aforementioned door-knocking Seventh Day Adventist. If it's not testable - if it is not based on anything much - then it's unsubtantiated belief, and worthless.

I agree.

[EverReady]

Announced that the National Mall will be closed on Inauguration Day, so no crowd for Biden's inauguration, other than the National Guard and dignitaries.

Feds say the far right 'chatter' is off the charts. Something due to happen.

Had a glance for the first time at them in a bit of detail on their 'open' forums and they are fantasist idiots but with access to guns and bomb making materials. They also have women willing to have sex with them for doing it or at least they think there is. I can only imagine what their closed groups are like. Rapey and murdery

[puku]

It's getting a little cerebral in here so to lighten things here is Stephen Colbert giving Mikey Pence the WAP treatment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWadLJcYRgY

[puku]

The shaudenfruede is strong about this one... indeed most beautiful and joyous.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-wo ... 7d85ecbe46

Beautiful, many people are saying.

In addition to not being paid, Rudy could be in trouble professionally too. On Sunday's 60 minutes program, both Raffensperger and Sterling said that Rudy flat out lied during the recent Georgia "hearing" and purposely showed an edited version of the "infamous" ballots in a suitcase video clip. They both said that Giuliani had the full tape that explained exactly where the ballots came from, how they got put under the tables and why they were retrieved when they were and that the full tape showed nothing untoward.

As Trump's enabler I hope he along with Wood and Powell get disbarred.

[Whatever]

Announced that the National Mall will be closed on Inauguration Day, so no crowd for Biden's inauguration, other than the National Guard and dignitaries.

Feds say the far right 'chatter' is off the charts. Something due to happen.

Had a glance for the first time at them in a bit of detail on their 'open' forums and they are fantasist idiots but with access to guns and bomb making materials. They also have women willing to have sex with them for doing it or at least they think there is. I can only imagine what their closed groups are like. Rapey and murdery

Do you have a link? 7 virgins? Saw a video today during the riot where one woman there with a megaphone giving specific instructions on where to go, which windows to break and enter etc. Seemed to have very good knowledge of the building. They need to find her and see where her knowledge comes from, and go up the chain.

Confederate flag guy identified now.

[Floppykid]

A simplistic way of thinking about it I heard is, if a bunch of guys are talking about overthrowing the state in your corner shop, you have every right to ban them so your shop doesn't get SWAT'd.
Even if they are buying a token mars bar with each visit.

I think there is a key difference. Twitter enables anyone to public’s information to the world, and because of the internet’s innate nature, that the dominant platform wins the whole market, it means that being booted off Twitter can be a really big deal.

Look at Trump - more than anything else, Twitter enabled him to win election to POTUS. Without it, he lacks much his political and social power. I hate the guy and think the world is a better place without him on SM, but what if he was blocked because Jack Dorsey didn’t like his politics? Even though that wouldn’t be illegal, it would be wrong. Right or wrong, he’s a Democratically elected representative and it’s wrong for someone to decide what who gets to be heard.

But.... I’m with you. When someone threatens democracy itself then a private company has to make a judgement call on what’s most important. So fark Trump.

I think we agree on a good bit, at least that the general principle doesn't apply to Trump given what he's incited and the fact he has other means of communicating to the public.


https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... 4560630784

Jared and Ivanka told the Secret Service not to use ANY of the half-dozen bathrooms in their home, so the federal government has been spending $3,000 a month — more than $100,000 to date — to rent a basement studio, with a bathroom, from a neighbor.

These f**king people.

[kiap]

I believe that they should be free to bullshit their gullible f*ckstain supporters, because the unintended consequences would outweigh any gains.

Maybe you're wrong. That word "believe" ... anyone can have belief, just like the aforementioned door-knocking Seventh Day Adventist. If it's not testable - if it is not based on anything much - then it's unsubtantiated belief, and worthless.

I agree.

Well you were right about there being consequences, including unwanted ones. Shit's moving more underground.
There is still a case for flushing out the mainstream, though. Free speech is a right but it's not consequence-free and unlimited.

[Floppykid]

I believe that they should be free to bullshit their gullible f*ckstain supporters, because the unintended consequences would outweigh any gains.

Maybe you're wrong. That word "believe" ... anyone can have belief, just like the aforementioned door-knocking Seventh Day Adventist. If it's not testable - if it is not based on anything much - then it's unsubtantiated belief, and worthless.

I agree.

Well you were right about there being consequences, including unwanted ones. Shit's moving more underground.
There is still a case for flushing out the mainstream, though. Free speech is a right but it's not consequence-free and unlimited.

I think there will always be fringe underground weirdos who get pushed further and further into secretive online spaces, it's up to authorities to infiltrate and observe that.

What needs to be, and can be, helped by de-platforming in my opinion is the mainstreaming of this shit. Most people don't have the wherewithal or time to get into the deepest recesses of the dark web/8kunchan whatever. They see it after it's been spread onto Facebook, Twitter, whatsapp, insta, Tiktok (for Gen Z'ers who are as dumb as any generation) etc. Getting those houses in order will hopefully put some of the toothpaste back in the bottle.

[kiap]

^ Yep

[towny]

I believe that they should be free to bullshit their gullible f*ckstain supporters, because the unintended consequences would outweigh any gains.

Maybe you're wrong. That word "believe" ... anyone can have belief, just like the aforementioned door-knocking Seventh Day Adventist. If it's not testable - if it is not based on anything much - then it's unsubtantiated belief, and worthless.

I agree.

Well you were right about there being consequences, including unwanted ones. Shit's moving more underground.
There is still a case for flushing out the mainstream, though. Free speech is a right but it's not consequence-free and unlimited.

Underground....

Yes, but underground isn’t nearly as effective as Twitter would ever be. Also, I’m pretty sure the Feds have backdoors to most of the big messaging apps. They wouldn’t have anything on WeChat but doubt they’d use a tool of the CCP.

Free speech should be right to say anything you want without fear of arrest. That’s not free from consequences - you can lose your job or have your Twitter account canceled for being an arsehole. The exception for arrest being if your speech is actually part of a crime - for example, if you are harassing someone ot conspiring to commit a crime. In such cases, the speech itself is the primary evidence of the crime.

[EverReady]

You should be allowed say whatever you want to English people though. I think that sort of stuff gets over looked

[towny]

I believe that they should be free to bullshit their gullible f*ckstain supporters, because the unintended consequences would outweigh any gains.

Maybe you're wrong. That word "believe" ... anyone can have belief, just like the aforementioned door-knocking Seventh Day Adventist. If it's not testable - if it is not based on anything much - then it's unsubtantiated belief, and worthless.

I agree.

Well you were right about there being consequences, including unwanted ones. Shit's moving more underground.
There is still a case for flushing out the mainstream, though. Free speech is a right but it's not consequence-free and unlimited.

I think there will always be fringe underground weirdos who get pushed further and further into secretive online spaces, it's up to authorities to infiltrate and observe that.

What needs to be, and can be, helped by de-platforming in my opinion is the mainstreaming of this shit. Most people don't have the wherewithal or time to get into the deepest recesses of the dark web/8kunchan whatever. They see it after it's been spread onto Facebook, Twitter, whatsapp, insta, Tiktok (for Gen Z'ers who are as dumb as any generation) etc. Getting those houses in order will hopefully put some of the toothpaste back in the bottle.

Agree. SM platforms get paid for eyeballs - so it’s in their interests to feed you info you’ll like. This is the big difference between old media. Old media was supply driven. If you didn’t like the paper you could buy another but the options weren’t endless. As papers make their money through advertising and subscriptions, they tend to create content that’s popular to a big cross section. So, without regulation they would provide non-offensive content.

But Facebook, et al are demand driven. Facebook and YouTube’s business model incentivized them into feeding freaks freaky shit. If weird shit gets you off, Facebook works it out and feeds you more. And more. Into the rabbit Warren you go. And you get to meet other nutjobs, which normalizes your weird shit and provides an echo chamber that sends you deeper. And if they find that someone that watches anti-vaxxer videos also likes fake moon landing and ‘deep state’ conspiracy stuff, then they will send every anti-vaxxer shit about the moon and Trump the god king. So it works to aggregate the freaks into a giant freak party, now known as the GOP.

[towny]

You should be allowed say whatever you want to English people though. I think that sort of stuff gets over looked

Goes without saying.

[ovalball]

You should be allowed say whatever you want to English people though. I think that sort of stuff gets over looked

Of course - just as long as you don't criticise our Puddings.

[C69]

You should be allowed say whatever you want to English people though. I think that sort of stuff gets over looked

Of course - just as long as you don't criticise our Puddings.

Suet, Black, White or Steak and Kidney?

[ovalball]

You should be allowed say whatever you want to English people though. I think that sort of stuff gets over looked

Of course - just as long as you don't criticise our Puddings.

Suet, Black, White or Steak and Kidney?

I was thinking more Spotted Dick or jam roly poly.

[message #2527204]

You should be allowed say whatever you want to English people though. I think that sort of stuff gets over looked

Of course - just as long as you don't criticise our Puddings.

Suet, Black, White or Steak and Kidney?

Spotted dick.

Sticky toffee is the new spotted dick.

[Gavin Duffy]

Who's most likely to play trump in the fillum?

[message #2527204]

Who's most likely to play trump in the fillum?

Mr Burns

[Whatever]

A simplistic way of thinking about it I heard is, if a bunch of guys are talking about overthrowing the state in your corner shop, you have every right to ban them so your shop doesn't get SWAT'd.
Even if they are buying a token mars bar with each visit.

I think there is a key difference. Twitter enables anyone to public’s information to the world, and because of the internet’s innate nature, that the dominant platform wins the whole market, it means that being booted off Twitter can be a really big deal.

Look at Trump - more than anything else, Twitter enabled him to win election to POTUS. Without it, he lacks much his political and social power. I hate the guy and think the world is a better place without him on SM, but what if he was blocked because Jack Dorsey didn’t like his politics? Even though that wouldn’t be illegal, it would be wrong. Right or wrong, he’s a Democratically elected representative and it’s wrong for someone to decide what who gets to be heard.

But.... I’m with you. When someone threatens democracy itself then a private company has to make a judgement call on what’s most important. So fark Trump.

I think we agree on a good bit, at least that the general principle doesn't apply to Trump given what he's incited and the fact he has other means of communicating to the public.


https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... 4560630784

Jared and Ivanka told the Secret Service not to use ANY of the half-dozen bathrooms in their home, so the federal government has been spending $3,000 a month — more than $100,000 to date — to rent a basement studio, with a bathroom, from a neighbor.

These f**king people.

I genuinely hope for the day that they have to share a toilet with their cellmates. Jared's dad knows the protocols.

And now: Donald Trump Jr. is about to join his sister Ivanka in being interviewed [by the DC Attorney General] about how millions of taxpayer dollars were funneled to Trump. Also wants to talk to Junior about incitement to riot. Fingers crossed, with all these investigations/law suits some of them have got to stick surely.

[Floppykid]

Who's most likely to play trump in the fillum?

Brendan Gleeson did him well enough I was lead to believe?

[BokJock]

You should be allowed say whatever you want to English people though. I think that sort of stuff gets over looked

Of course - just as long as you don't criticise our Puddings.

Suet, Black, White or Steak and Kidney?

fudge English black pudding.

Stornoway Rulz

[TheFrog]

The shaudenfruede is strong about this one... indeed most beautiful and joyous.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-wo ... 7d85ecbe46

Beautiful, many people are saying.

In addition to not being paid, Rudy could be in trouble professionally too. On Sunday's 60 minutes program, both Raffensperger and Sterling said that Rudy flat out lied during the recent Georgia "hearing" and purposely showed an edited version of the "infamous" ballots in a suitcase video clip. They both said that Giuliani had the full tape that explained exactly where the ballots came from, how they got put under the tables and why they were retrieved when they were and that the full tape showed nothing untoward.

As Trump's enabler I hope he along with Wood and Powell get disbarred.

He should be free to lie [/Towny]

(Sorry Towny, couldn't resist but as I said you raise valid points which would need to be taken into account when drafting a law. Misinformation is one thing, disinformation is another. I have got to say, I think Trump could plead "Misinformation" arguing that he truly believed in the "steal". I think he actually convinced himself he was robbed. He is nuts).

[TheFrog]

Announced that the National Mall will be closed on Inauguration Day, so no crowd for Biden's inauguration, other than the National Guard and dignitaries.

Feds say the far right 'chatter' is off the charts. Something due to happen.

Had a glance for the first time at them in a bit of detail on their 'open' forums and they are fantasist idiots but with access to guns and bomb making materials. They also have women willing to have sex with them for doing it or at least they think there is. I can only imagine what their closed groups are like. Rapey and murdery

Do you have a link? 7 virgins? Saw a video today during the riot where one woman there with a megaphone giving specific instructions on where to go, which windows to break and enter etc. Seemed to have very good knowledge of the building. They need to find her and see where her knowledge comes from, and go up the chain.

Confederate flag guy identified now.

Nailed it man... these idiots are just like our jihadis back in France.

[Gavin Duffy]

The shaudenfruede is strong about this one... indeed most beautiful and joyous.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-wo ... 7d85ecbe46

Beautiful, many people are saying.

In addition to not being paid, Rudy could be in trouble professionally too. On Sunday's 60 minutes program, both Raffensperger and Sterling said that Rudy flat out lied during the recent Georgia "hearing" and purposely showed an edited version of the "infamous" ballots in a suitcase video clip. They both said that Giuliani had the full tape that explained exactly where the ballots came from, how they got put under the tables and why they were retrieved when they were and that the full tape showed nothing untoward.

As Trump's enabler I hope he along with Wood and Powell get disbarred.

He should be free to lie [/Towny]

(Sorry Towny, couldn't resist but as I said you raise valid points which would need to be taken into account when drafting a law. Misinformation is one thing, disinformation is another. I have got to say, I think Trump could plead "Misinformation" arguing that he truly believed in the "steal". I think he actually convinced himself he was robbed. He is nuts).

Giuliani's fall is a bit sad to see tbh, he was a genuinely serious operator back in the day.

[Sefton]

You should be allowed say whatever you want to English people though. I think that sort of stuff gets over looked

Of course - just as long as you don't criticise our Puddings.

Suet, Black, White or Steak and Kidney?

fudge English black pudding.

Stornoway Rulz

Morcilla
Stornoway
Bury
Some Irish white cack

[4071]

The shaudenfruede is strong about this one... indeed most beautiful and joyous.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-wo ... 7d85ecbe46

Beautiful, many people are saying.

In addition to not being paid, Rudy could be in trouble professionally too. On Sunday's 60 minutes program, both Raffensperger and Sterling said that Rudy flat out lied during the recent Georgia "hearing" and purposely showed an edited version of the "infamous" ballots in a suitcase video clip. They both said that Giuliani had the full tape that explained exactly where the ballots came from, how they got put under the tables and why they were retrieved when they were and that the full tape showed nothing untoward.

As Trump's enabler I hope he along with Wood and Powell get disbarred.

He should be free to lie [/Towny]

(Sorry Towny, couldn't resist but as I said you raise valid points which would need to be taken into account when drafting a law. Misinformation is one thing, disinformation is another. I have got to say, I think Trump could plead "Misinformation" arguing that he truly believed in the "steal". I think he actually convinced himself he was robbed. He is nuts).

Giuliani's fall is a bit sad to see tbh, he was a genuinely serious operator back in the day.

Sidney Powell is on his tail. She's got a new Telegram account and is off to a good start

[4071]

The shaudenfruede is strong about this one... indeed most beautiful and joyous.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-wo ... 7d85ecbe46

Beautiful, many people are saying.

In addition to not being paid, Rudy could be in trouble professionally too. On Sunday's 60 minutes program, both Raffensperger and Sterling said that Rudy flat out lied during the recent Georgia "hearing" and purposely showed an edited version of the "infamous" ballots in a suitcase video clip. They both said that Giuliani had the full tape that explained exactly where the ballots came from, how they got put under the tables and why they were retrieved when they were and that the full tape showed nothing untoward.

As Trump's enabler I hope he along with Wood and Powell get disbarred.

He should be free to lie [/Towny]

(Sorry Towny, couldn't resist but as I said you raise valid points which would need to be taken into account when drafting a law. Misinformation is one thing, disinformation is another. I have got to say, I think Trump could plead "Misinformation" arguing that he truly believed in the "steal". I think he actually convinced himself he was robbed. He is nuts).

This may be the first time in an impeachment that a President's lawyers could argue that he is not guilty on the grounds of insanity.