Shopify Removes Trump Stores, Citing President's Support For Violence (cnet.com) 478
Shopify has removed stores affiliated with President Trump from its platform, citing a violation of its policies that prohibit users from promoting or supporting organizations that foment violence. CNET reports: "Shopify does not tolerate actions that incite violence," a spokesperson said in a statement. "Based on recent events, we have determined that the actions by President Donald J. Trump violate our Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits promotion or support of organizations, platforms or people that threaten or condone violence to further a cause." Earlier today, Facebook blocked Trump's account indefinitely.
Twitter, Snapchat, and Twitch also disabled Trump's accounts.
Twitter, Snapchat, and Twitch also disabled Trump's accounts.
Trump's raised over half a billion in donations (Score:5)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Trump's raised over half a billion in donations (Score:4, Funny)
Considering the competence of the people he tends to hire I would expect that half a billion to disappear down a rat hole very soon.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lol, the Trumpkins are out on force modding... Anyway, yeah he'll end up spending a not insignificant portion of it on legal expenses over the next 5 years too.
When he had the office of US President to shield him it was probably mitigated to some degree, but being without a doubt the most hated man in the world as a private citizen is...not going to be fun for that oaf. If he's dumb enough to eat out he will be eating more sperm and phlegm than food most of the time, and that's going to be one of his minor
Re:Trump's raised over half a billion in donations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trump's raised over half a billion in donations (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, yeah he'll end up spending a not insignificant portion of it on legal expenses over the next 5 years too.
He should seriously consider encouraging his cabinet to 25A his ass, so Pence can take the job for a few days and pardon him. It wouldn't shield him from state charges, but it would cover most everything he could have done while president.
His ego won't allow that, though.
It's not his ego, it's money (Score:3)
He's going to grift those 74 million that voted for him till his dying day. Hopefully enough join him to split the nut job vote and torpedo the Republican party. Then the rest of us can split the D
Re: (Score:3)
You think Pence would pardon that piece of shit? Not a chance.
This. Consider that Pence may have 2024 aspirations. Pardoning Trump wouldn't look good. (It didn't for Ford, after he pardoned Nixon.)
Re:Trump's raised over half a billion in donations (Score:4, Insightful)
You think Pence would pardon that piece of shit? Not a chance.
This. Consider that Pence may have 2024 aspirations. Pardoning Trump wouldn't look good. (It didn't for Ford, after he pardoned Nixon.)
Especially after Trump sent a crazed mob after him, while his wife and daughter were in the chamber with him. Trump never sought out his whereabouts or if he was ok. Trump threw him under the bus, after pointing the bus right at him. Multiple sources say he was madder at Trump than he's ever been, and I believe it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There are grounds to reject at least some states like...
No, there aren't. There is no constitutional basis whatsoever for that. See https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org] for a detailed discussion of the constitutional issues.
Re: (Score:3)
I expect the court would have ruled otherwise. We could have than put the issue to bed. Its not reasonable there was ever intent for one person to be able to unilaterally reject the vote; but a lot of Trumps most fervent people need to hear that from SCOTUS.
Nope, they would just call them members of the Deep State, or captured by the establishment. Even Trump's SCOTUS judges.
Re: (Score:3)
That wouldn't be enough to convince Trump's followers. The only person that offers a valid opinion on anything, ever, is Trump himself according to some of his followers. Literally anything not coming directly from him is seen as a liberal commie conspiracy designed to hurt poor little Donald. We're way past reason now.
Re:Trump's raised over half a billion in donations (Score:5, Informative)
Even funnier is that half of those "Stop The Steal!" funds are already earmarked for paying off previous debt.
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
But a disclaimer on the website states that 50% of any donation will go toward the campaign's general election debt retirement and the other half toward the campaign's recount account, the Wall Street Journal first reported.
It's crazy how many people still fall for the obvious cons of an obvious con man.
Re:Trump's raised over half a billion in donations (Score:5, Insightful)
Even funnier is that half of those "Stop The Steal!" funds are already earmarked for paying off previous debt.
And sadly ironic were the many people storming the Capital building carrying "Stop the Steal" signs while literally trying to steal the election for Trump, at his urging.
[rant] And, yes, he lost -- according the current election laws of the various states, laws which were all upheld by their state courts, state supreme courts, federal courts and US supreme court with no legitimate proof or evidence that those laws were violated. If you don't like the way *state* presidential elections are conducted, lobby those states to change their current laws -- something people like *all* the House and Senate State/US Representatives should know, especially Senator Josh Hawley (R) Missouri and Senator Ted Cruz (R) Texas who both clerked for the US Supreme Court. (Sorry, still tired and a little punchy from staying up all night watching people storm the Capital building and the US Congress Electoral Vote Count and Republican Electoral Vote Count Theater last night.) [/rant]
Re:Trump's raised over half a billion in donations (Score:5, Interesting)
[rant] And, yes, he lost -- according the current election laws of the various states, laws which were all upheld by their state courts, state supreme courts, federal courts and US supreme court with no legitimate proof or evidence that those laws were violated.
It's actually a bit deeper than that.
Joe Biden was elected on December 14th. All of that hullabaloo on November 3rd had nothing to do with it, from a constitutional perspective. The Constitution doesn't say anything about a popular vote for president, national, statewide, by district, or any other sort. It says that the state legislatures appoint electors. The fact that all states (and DC) happen to use a popular vote to decide how to appoint electors does not change the fact that the real election of president is done by the electoral college. Yes, we've gotten accustomed to thinking of the EC as a mere formality. It is not. Not according to the fundamental law of the land.
Now, if some state has bad election policies and processes that enable fraud, that's a problem, but it's purely a state problem. No other states have any say in it, nor does Congress[*]. It's up to the citizens of that state to push their legislature to define a better process for appointing electors and if they won't, to vote them out and vote in someone who will. If the citizens of that state like fraud and like effectively disenfranchising a majority of their voters -- or even if they want to disenfranchise all of them and use a coin flip to pick the outcome -- that is completely and totally fine, constitutionally. At least with respect to appointment of electors who will elect the president.
Another potential problem is that state legislators might define a process for appointing electors -- e.g. via a popular election with particular policies and procedures -- and then the executive branch of the state responsible for executing that process could break state law by using a different process. In that case, the proper recourse under the Constitution is to the courts, same as any other case where the state government failed to follow state law. If the state courts don't handle the case correctly, or if, as happened in Pennsylvania, it's the state Supreme Court that ordered the executive branch to break the law, then the aggrieved citizens of that state (note: Not the losing candidate, nor anyone in any other state) should appeal to the federal courts.
This is how it works under our Constitution, unless it's changed via amendment. It doesn't matter if states had wildly fraudulent elections (they didn't, but it wouldn't matter if they did), once the state's electors cast their ballots, it's over. There's no mechanism for re-running the electoral college vote. And if someone outside of the state wants to change the choice of electors before they vote, they're out of luck. If someone in the state wants to, they'd better get either the courts or the legislature to handle it.
.
[*] Note that many Republicans have been arguing that Congress does have a role in verifying the integrity of the popular elections, and they cited Article I Section 4 of the constitution, which authorizes Congress to regulate the Time, Place and Manner of elections. What they failed to notice, or ignored, is that that section applies only to elections of Representatives and Senators. Congress does not have any authority to regulate the popular elections for president because according to the Constitution, no such thing exists. Only an Electoral College election. What Congress should do is to verify the integrity of the elections for Representatives and Senators. Given that those elections are conducted at the same time and on the same ballots as the presidential popular votes, properly-securing the votes for Congress will do the same for the popular votes for president. But they would perform that duty by questioning and investigating the elections of members of their own houses, not by disputing the presidential outcome.
Re: (Score:3)
[*] Note that many Republicans have been arguing that Congress does have a role in verifying the integrity of the popular elections, and they cited Article I Section 4 of the constitution, which authorizes Congress to regulate the Time, Place and Manner of elections. What they failed to notice, or ignored, is that that section applies only to elections of Representatives and Senators. Congress does not have any authority to regulate the popular elections for president because according to the Constitution, no such thing exists. Only an Electoral College election. What Congress should do is to verify the integrity of the elections for Representatives and Senators. Given that those elections are conducted at the same time and on the same ballots as the presidential popular votes, properly-securing the votes for Congress will do the same for the popular votes for president. But they would perform that duty by questioning and investigating the elections of members of their own houses, not by disputing the presidential outcome.
Of course, none of those Representatives and Senators elected on November 3rd on the same ballot as Trump have argued that their own elections were fraudulent, only his. So they would be looking for fraud in elections that they do not allege to have been fraudulent in an attempt to prove fraud in a different election.
Re: (Score:2)
It's crazy how many people still fall for the obvious cons of an obvious con man.
Not really, I have lived through several periods where people kept telling me there is no such thing as a real estate bubble.
Re:Trump's raised over half a billion in donations (Score:5, Funny)
Even funnier is that half of those "Stop The Steal!" funds are already earmarked for paying off previous debt.
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
But a disclaimer on the website states that 50% of any donation will go toward the campaign's general election debt retirement and the other half toward the campaign's recount account, the Wall Street Journal first reported.
It's crazy how many people still fall for the obvious cons of an obvious con man.
Nah, that can't be right.
Since when does Trump pay back a debt??
Re:Trump's raised over half a billion in donations (Score:5, Insightful)
Damnit ! (Score:5, Funny)
Now where am I going to get official Trump, "Make America a Third-World Banana-Republic Again" merch? China? Oh, wait ...
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, you beat me to it!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Love you used weasel words "moving towards".
But it doesn't matter, you wouldn't recognize a socialist nation if they bent you over a table.
If you call 911, they don't charge you for 90% of police or fire services. Yeah, if you want a private detective or fire insurance it will cost you. But somehow those free emergency services are not socialism. Because a crook that steals from you might rob another and fire's spread. And immediate service without thought of payment ensures that less work is needed.
Bu
Re: (Score:3)
Okay fine (Score:2, Insightful)
Selective application of an otherwise unobjectionable set of rules is, on the whole, harmful.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They need do no such thing. If anything more companies should go all in on further marginalizing the Trump brigade. Kick them off social media, stop selling their "merch", stop providing DNS/hosting services for them, etc...
This will probably send more of them out on their little shooting/bombing rampages but at least we can get this shit over with and move on to real life.
What's double-plus funny is the Whitehouse just made a statement condemning the violence. So are the Trumpers going to decide that now T
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But then they also need to remove all antifa-aligned stuff (may have already removed a few, don't recall), and BLM, Nation of Islam, PLO, riot bailout funds, and everyone else. Selective application of an otherwise unobjectionable set of rules is, on the whole, harmful.
I'm generally not a fan of reactionary bans like this in the first place, where it's clear they do not enforce their policies equally for across the political spectrum.
But I'm feeling pretty okay with this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Okay fine (Score:5, Insightful)
When's the last time Antifa and BLM forced their way into the Capitol during a session of Congress?
Re: Okay fine (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't British Lives Matter do that in 1812?
[slow clap] Well played sir, well played.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I mean as recently as 5 months ago BLM, antifa was trying to burn down the U.S. Federal courthouse in Portland, OR. And not just one time either, they were at it for like 3 or 4 weeks.
Re: Okay fine (Score:5, Insightful)
More lies. You have no facts to back up your inane slander.
But that's not the fucking point. The outrage over huge numbers of unjustified police murders and the petulant fit thrown by a losing ex-president are not the same.
There was no voter fraud, 60+ lawsuits showed that. Your side needs to stop fanning the flames of violence, whatever you think some other side has done.
Stop it. Come back to sanity. For the sake of our country, if you are even American, stop.
Re: (Score:3)
There was not a single hearing â" none of the cases were reviewed on merits (or lack thereof). Some technicality or another was invoked by the courts to refuse to hear the matter each time.
Given that Lindsey Graham gave a speech [rev.com] confirming that there was no fraud, I think we can assume that there wasn't significant fraud.
They said there's 66,000 people in Georgia under 18 voted. How many people believe that? I asked, "Give me 10," and had one. They said 8,000 felons in prison in Arizona voted. Give me 10. I got one. Does that say there's ⦠Thereâ(TM)s problems in every election. I don't buy this. Enoughâ(TM)s enough. Weâ(TM)ve got to end it.
Re: (Score:3)
This claim about voting fraud is disputed.
The claims about voter fraud are disputed in the same way the moon landings are disputed. Some utter fuckwits will dispute them.
No, they did not. There was not a single hearing â" none of the cases were reviewed on merits (or lack thereof). Some technicality or another was invoked by the courts to refuse to hear the matter each time.
And here's proof you're a liar.
https://www.wsav.com/wp-conten... [wsav.com]
Maybe, for the sake of the same country, you shouldn't have sabota
Re: Okay fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost everyone knows that. And here's another fun fact: being dismissed for lack of standing means you're a really incompetent lawyer. It would have been entirely possible to file many of these suits via a proxy who *would* have had standing. But noooo, the AGs etc didn't want to do that, they wanted to showboat. And then got kicked out for blindingly obvious reasons such as "this has got fuck-all to do with you, you complete muppet".
Re: Okay fine (Score:5, Informative)
When "both sides" act lawlessly and dangerously, "both sides" need to be condemned. Selective application of an otherwise unobjectionable set if rules is, on the whole, harmful.
The first federal charges against the terrorists have been filed [suntimes.com]. 55 people so far, and all options are on the table for people outside the group.
As a side note, the con artist has been frantically asking if he can pardon himself [cnn.com].
Also, one of the capitol police officers attacked by the terrorists has died in the hospital.
Re: Okay fine (Score:4, Informative)
I keep hearing headlines about a dead cop with no information about them in the story - just clickbait. Heart attack, stroke and injury from a fire extinguisher appears in comments, but nobody can definitely say.
Here's the latest story [cnn.com]/ After being physically attacked and injured by the terrorists, he returned to his office and collapsed. The death is being investigated by the DC Metropolitan Police Department's homicide branch, the US Capitol Police and their federal partners.
Re: Okay fine (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Okay fine (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just turned fifty. If I make it to 80, I will still be calling Y'all Qaeda terrorists and traitors. You hate democracy and turn to violence when you don't get your way at the polls. That's who you are. Own it. Live with it. Fuck you fascists.
Re: Okay fine (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a belief system in place, and facts and logic don't matter. They believe that they would win, there were even televangelist "prophets" who predicted a win (one of the craziest actually on the Trump "evangelical advisory" committee). When Trump lost, and the prophecies did not hold up, they stuck to the belief system. That meant the only explanation must be that the other side cheated. They needed no proof whatsoever except that the fact that they didn't win. This is not necessarily a religious belief system but the same style of thinking is in place. There's no way I could lose therefore the other guy cheated, QED.
Now this is not new. It used to be that every few years some Republican down in Orange County, CA would lose an election (primary or general, usually for state or county office) and then utterly refuse to concede and claim that people saw busloads of illegal immigrants brought over from Mexico to vote for the other side. I suspect some of them believed it. It's the reason why some states declare that they won't do a recount if the winning vote is more than x% because they know the losers will insist on continual recounts, and other states require the person requesting the recount to pay for it.
Well, I was going to turn this around and point to the example of the film critic who said was quoted that Nixon could not have won because she never met anyone who liked Nixon. Except that with some research it turns out she never actually said any such thing, it's just a story that's been told and repeated so often that everyone believes it, and gets trotted out every so often as "proof" of out-of-touch eastern seaboard liberals. As Abraham Lincoln was once quoted, "I never said any such thing!"
Re: (Score:2)
You committed voter fraud en mass and still lost. Judge after judge found no evidence of any fraud. Your lawyers wouldn't even say "fraud" in court because they knew they'd be disbarred for lying.
Re: (Score:3)
Clippy: "It looks like you're making an assertion with no evidence. Would you like help removing your head from your ass?"
Re: Okay fine (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what lowers trust in democracy is you trying to suppress votes for years. That, and the political violence you engage in when you lose fair and square.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh but it's totally normal for a candidate with a 19% approval rating to win in a landslide. Funny how one brand of voting machine is never attacked by the right wing...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Okay fine (Score:5, Informative)
So how many actually committed this fraud? Got any evidence? any estimate? Something that will stand up in court?
Oh! Oh! I know! I can tell you. Three people have committed fraud [newsweek.com]. All Republicans. All from Pennsylvania.
The Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania keeps asking the Lt Governor of Texas to pay up after a $1 million reward was offered [foxnews.com] for evidence of vote fraud. So far Texas has failed to pay up.
Re: (Score:2)
Burn down a Federal building? You mean Portland, where someone started a small campfire a block and a half away? And then protest organizers made they put it out? Yeah, I'm sure that was a real threat.
Look at how woke we are!! (Score:2, Informative)
We must be paragon of wokeness in this world.
Which tweets are "inciting violence"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone know what tweets from Trump are supposedly "inciting violence", at least what lists of tweets/articles I can find don't include any that sound like they do so in any meaningful way.
https://projects.propublica.or... [propublica.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he did in any legally defined sense of e.g. "incitement". It was more blatant irresponsibility and idiocy. It's like those morons who are cleaning their guns and shoot their spouse or kid. Not intentional murder but I'd still send them to prison for life, personally - that kind of dangerous stupid doesn't need to be walking around free.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And here appears to be the video that was blocked, while he's ranting about the outcome of the election to be sure, every other sentence is also a call for peace and for people to go home. Hardly an incitement/glorification of violence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Which tweets are "inciting violence"? (Score:5, Insightful)
while he's ranting about the outcome of the election to be sure, every other sentence is also a call for peace and for people to go home. Hardly an incitement/glorification of violence.
Let me compliment you: "I respect you a lot and you're a very nice guy despite the fact I think you're an f-ing moron."
Now please thank me for the compliment. And if you don't feel the desire to thank me then also question what a Trump supporter who is making a last ditch effort to save the "stolen election" would think when their leader reaffirms that the election was stolen.
Re: (Score:2)
Just being upset about something doesn't make you support violence. If someone says black people are oppressed and but you should remain peaceful then a bunch of people go out and riot, is it the originals persons fault?
I can believe that in Trump's mind that is possibly the truth that he believes, the election was stolen in his head, he is a nut job, and maybe he has even gas lighted himself into believing it. He lies to everyone else why not himself. After all he thinks he is smart as well, self made and
Re: (Score:2)
Continuing to lie about the election result and the validity of the result is what got us to this point. Calling it fraudulent leads to violence no matter what else he says.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why the video is being censored, of course. His actual words don't match the spin.
So are you saying that the riot in DC was a mere coincidence, unrelated to what Trump said?
I do agree that it wasn't just Trump, Giuliani also did his part by calling for "Trial by Combat"
Re:Which tweets are "inciting violence"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably when he told the angry mob “we love you” and “you’re very special people”. Instructing the mob to walk to the capital wasn’t a hot idea either. Hours later he tells people to go home and then still claims the election was stolen. Even Mike Pence is done with his shit. Pence had to shelter from the mob.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably when he told the angry mob “we love you” and “you’re very special people”. Instructing the mob to walk to the capital wasn’t a hot idea either. Hours later he tells people to go home and then still claims the election was stolen. Even Mike Pence is done with his shit. Pence had to shelter from the mob.
Hey, I think he should be removed based on this behavior, but do note that politicians and the news media have been glorifying violent mobs for much of the last year. This particular mob just happened to be the most offensive across the political divide that I can think of.
Coddling them as he did may have just prevented any continued Trumpism in the GOP.
Re:Which tweets are "inciting violence"? (Score:4, Insightful)
most people didn't go over the barriers nor inside building. Telling all protesters "we love you" is fine. protesting is protected right.
If he wants to say the election was stolen, that's fine.
No, it's not. Not as President. Not when over 60 court cases at the local, state, and federal level (including the Supreme Court) said otherwise. Not when recount after recount in the (very conveniently selected) states show the counts were correct. Not when down ballot Republicans across the board outperformed him (if you're gonna go fraud, why wouldn't you go in all the way?). Not when the states have already certified their electors and Congress has counted and certified those electoral votes. He needs to SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP. He killed people on Wednesday.
Re:Which tweets are "inciting violence"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone know what tweets from Trump are supposedly "inciting violence", at least what lists of tweets/articles I can find don't include any that sound like they do so in any meaningful way.
https://projects.propublica.or... [propublica.org]
I bet you get baffled in movies where the mafia boss instructs his henchmen "take him out" and then the henchman shot the person rather than taking them out to dinner.
Re: (Score:2)
Your link shows a bunch of tweets denying the outcome of the election and insisting that it was fraudulent.
Taken together with his speech those messages incited the violence yesterday.
Re:Which tweets are "inciting violence"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone know what tweets from Trump are supposedly "inciting violence", at least what lists of tweets/articles I can find don't include any that sound like they do so in any meaningful way.
https://projects.propublica.or... [propublica.org]
THey've all been deleted but somewhere I have screenshots. AT 2:26pm he sent a tweet blaming it all on Pence - saying that he let the election be stolen and that people needed to stand up and be strong and show congress that they mean business. He did not overtly say "go storm the capitol" but if you watch the video of his speeches and put them in context with his tweets over the last few months I think it's quite clear that he was trying to cause trouble. I would liken his behavior to shouting fire in a crowded theater. He didn't actually tell anyone to panic and trample people to death. But he is directly responsible for the trampling by causing the sequence of events that lead up to it.
What's changed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Before he was president he famously told security to rough up people being escorted from his rally. He's always been an abusive tyrant, and anyone that is is finally understanding it in the final 2 weeks of his presidency is either an idiot or a con-artist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mostly agree, but I would ask the question - how unlikeable must the other side be (left wingnuts) for people to flock to a piece of shit like Trump? And frankly that's half of his appeal to a lot of people - if the left wing is full of such hysterical hatred for him he must not be too bad.
Childish thinking, sure, but very human and we are all childish sometimes.
Re: (Score:3)
how unlikeable must the other side be (left wingnuts) for people to flock to a piece of shit like Trump
Not at all, seeing as people flocking around Trump are delusional idiots. They can make up their own reasons in their mind -- no unlikability of the other side is necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of logic? A lot of what drove Trump to victory in 2016 is that he was a political outsider. There has been a big sentiment that things have gone off the rails in government, that "regular people" don't have someone out there fighting for them. Why that someone should be Trump has me a bit confused. As standing up for the little guy was never part of his brand.
There is a fairly large industry of hyperbolic talk show hosts that design headlines and talking points specif
Re: (Score:3)
Biden will be the cold oatmeal President.
I don't think you realize just how appealing that is after spending 4 years with the overflowing toilet President.
I'm ready for cold oatmeal for a long time.
Lame Duck (Score:3)
I wonder how much of all this, from both directions, is caused by this 'lame duck' stage of his presidency.
Meaning, both his willingness to commit to violence for his supporters - go for broke, you might say with their willingness to follow his lead - and of these companies to cut him off only this far in.
Of course the same might have been said earlier, when all his own appointed judges told him nothing he was providing counted as valid evidence for any of the claims he was making.
So, yeah, on balance it's likely the actual physical threat to the lives of major politicians in his own party. It is more than a few steps beyond his usual level of psychopathy.
But he has done a 'good' job of making psychpathy in intention and methodology seem 'normal' over time, both for media, and especially his supporters.
So I'm still left wondering "his is THIS your limit?", after so many layers of betrayal of every even selfish motivations for these companies.
I think if he'd gotten some more focused formerly-blackwater mercs in that group, many of these companies would still be pretending it's business as usual, if it looked like he might have pulled off a successful terror campaign to topple democracy.
But that's seemingly what a large portion of our nation wants in a leader.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
The capital police who opened up the barriers to let these assholes in who were shouting HANG MIKE PENCE are in deep shit now. They endangered many powerful people.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Selfie cop is screwed. But those 5 guys standing just inside the House Floor door with nothing but Glocks and batons against hundreds of rioting insurrectionists? Those are the true patriots of the day.
It's a private company. That's just fine. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. You'll never figure out anything with your "both sides do it" attitude and whataboutism when confronted with evil. One can do the same thing with non-partisans vs. partisans. It doesn't get you anywhere. Eventually you have to deal with shades of gray and see which side is darker. Not choosing is a choice, too.
We have lost our way. (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this really what we want? The company has all the rights to do this, but do we really we really want to separate everyone down a party line? Do we want to persecute people if they don't believe how we believe? My father in law once let it slip around me, "ya I can't talk to him, he's a Trumper" Really? We can't talk to people who have different political views? Not even talk to them? How small and petty can you be. This is like a child. But this is an example of this. Why can't we control our emotions/feelings at all? And here's the kicker: That sounds about as non-diverse as you can imagine. The very thing everyone is preaching is being destroyed by the "conform or I hate you" mentality. If we all think and act the same, we have NO diversity.
Lets be clear: Anyone who is objective must wonder why if this was done to President Trump, then what about all the other groups/elected officials who did the exact same thing for the last 4 years. This is total political moves. This is garbage even if you don't agree with him.
Anyone who comments back and doesn't comment (for example: urging people to harass people of the other view when going out to dinner) on both sides has no objectivity and is fooling themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
completely ok and called for.
trump is to be shunned, by everyone with any kind of moral compass.
those that do not immediately shun him, should be shunned themselves.
there is no other side: you are with REAL law and order or you are a trump pussy, racist asshole.
the whole world is shunning trump. don't even TRY the whataboutism. history is not on your side.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind talking to Trump fans (and I do, to one old friend who thankfully values our friendship over the politics of another country), but the problem is the same as one has talking to conspiracy theorists - it's a real uphill battle against mountains of made-up bullshit.
Every time my friend sends me an article, I try to refute it, and four times out of five I can. But why do I have to do this? Because anything on the internet can be made into a semi-plausible story which will earn media outlets cli
Re:We have lost our way. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It won't help. They didn't go "nothing to see here". These people WANT to believe, and NOTHING will change their minds. There is no possible investigation that will get them to change their minds. Unless it shows exactly what they want, it'll just be "the Deep State".
State election commissions in multiple States *DID* investigate various claims -- from dead people voting, to non-residents voting, to mishandling of ballots, you name it.
Georgia did a hand audit, aka recount, of paper ballots. They did a machine recount because the vote was close. At most they found a couple of overlooked memory cards [ajc.com], but the outcome was never close to changing.
Counted the PAPER ballots -- 5 million of them, with no machines involved, yet still people are pointing to edited videos bitching about machine counts and Dominion voting systems.
How can the machines matter if the count of the paper ballots, the mitigating control, matches? No machines involved and the count is the same?
The U.S. Federal Gov't does not run elections in this country. Elections are the purview of the States. They are managed and run by the States. The Feds have no right to step in on a State's election, especially one legally certified by a State.
The COURT system is where challenges are held, and Trump's challenges were like 1 win (telling PA to keep doing what they're already doing) and 60+ losses.
Re:We have lost our way. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, every GA ballot [ga.gov] was hand recounted. Every *race* was not examined, but all 5,000,585 ballots were hand counted. [ga.gov]
Chain of custody questions [cbs46.com] were investigated and found not correct [nationalreview.com]. They were based on people ignorant of procedure, and a snippet of video. The review of the entire surveillance video showed nothing improper.
Many cases were tossed because there wasn't evidence to bring. There was speculation -- "this MIGHT have happened", or there was no supporting evidence. For example:
"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here," Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge (Pennsylvania) panel.
Or from Arizona [forbes.com].
Back to PA:
Regarding a lawsuit filed last week seeking to have the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas invalidate more than 2,200 supposedly "defective ballots" that were counted after a review by the Board of Elections, lawyers for the Trump campaign agreed to sign documents saying that there was zero evidence of fraud or misconduct when it came to said ballots. Per Law & Crime, attorneys for both sides signed a "joint stipulation of facts - an instrument meant to provide the court with facts relevant to the case that are undisputed by either party in the action - which clearly disavows any claims that voting in the commonwealth's fourth-largest county was affected by any fraudulent conduct." The joint statement literally reads: "Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots." Additionally, both sides agreed that election observers from each party were allowed full access to view the precanvassing and canvassing processes.
MANY cases were tossed on simple merit. What was called "iron clad evidence" in social media and press conferences, turned out to be more along the lines of kindergarten macaroni sculpture clad.
Claims of dead people voting, illegal felons voting, and people who moved voting were investigated and found NOT to have happened other than in a small few possible cases per State. Not that tens of thousands claimed.
How many of those tossed cases were judged on merit? One side says none of them were, the courts refused to hear the evidence, and the other side says the cases were tossed so there must not have been anything to them.
This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of simple fact that can be determined by actually looking at the rulings of each case. The people claiming the courts are just turning a blind eye to evidence are wrong. Factually incorrect, not just of differing opinion. They just refuse to do the legwork and check the actual court results because it will contradict their strongly-held belief. They WANT to believe, facts be damned.
Re:We have lost our way. (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at it this way.
When you have half of the electorate that feels that maybe something is not valid, then thatâ(TM)s a concern for our republic
-- https://www.usnews.com/news/be... [usnews.com]
If half the electorate in Australia thought the elections were invalid would the Australian Government (or State Governments) go 'Nothing to see here' or would they go 'We need to hold a public inquiry and provide certainty here.'
Even if you discount all of the cited issues the response from Congress has been deeply divisive and done nothing to quell the very deep concerns that many people have.
I Think someone is projecting here - I don't think half the country believes that something is invalid - but even if they do it does not actually necessarily mean there is a problem. See you could, for instance, have a manipulative person who spends over 6 months trying to tell people IN ADVANCE that there is going to be fraud. That type of person may be an egomaniac who has trouble accepting personal defeat or failure and may wish to have something to blame his problems on if he doesn't receive the acceptance and praise that he craves. If such a person were in a position of power and authority and were further enabled by others who are just hoping to ride his coattails into a 2024 presidential bid, then perhaps you might end up in a situation where half a country feels cheated. But that doesn't actually mean that they were cheated. It means that they were lied to and mislead. And the really sad thing is that we literally have 62 lawsuits from Trump - all publicly accessible. Not a single one alleges fraud. No - the best Trump could come up with is "well they voted by mail during a pandemic and I don't like that." Or as Hawley pointed out last night "They passed a law letting anyone vote by mail and we waited until it didn't work in our favor to contest the law instead of contesting the law a year ago when it was passed. We think you should throw out all those votes because we aren't happy with them." It's absolutely pathetic and these people ought to all be expelled from office for this kind of behavior
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't about political debate, this is about incitement. Incitement is a crime, has been for a very long time and "on the internet" makes no difference.
Re: (Score:3)
My father in law once let it slip around me, "ya I can't talk to him, he's a Trumper" Really? We can't talk to people who have different political views? Not even talk to them?
Actually, it's gotten to the point where there is a lack of common reality from which political views are based. By this I mean many Trump supporters do not base their support based on factual information but rather an emotional standpoint. You cannot argue with someone who supports someone not based on factual reality but on disinformation which they refuse to acknowledge as being false. It really is like trying to reason with someone who is in a cult because no amount of logic is going to change their
Big Tech is flexing is muscles (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been watching this from a distance for a while, and sometimes, distance gives clarity.
For me it is very, very obvious what's going on here. The tech companies are lashing out on the president who was a pain in their asses for so long. They could just wait for a few weeks for him to go away, but they've decided to instead give him a nice kick on the way out.
They wouldn't have dared to do that in the middle of his term.
They do it now because they're confident that he can't do them harm in the time he's got left and with his support among the administration breaking away.
It's a good one as well. Taking a very public but very much disliked figure and establishing that they can, in fact, block anyone they want. If they had taken someone else, there may have been a serious debate about how much they are publishers or broadcasters or public services and need to adhere to the same principles as newspapers, radio or television.
Now if they want to silence someone in the future, they can basically go: "We shut up the POTUS, bitch, what do you want?"
Wait, Trump had a Twitch? (Score:3)
Re: The Blood of Patriots (Score:5, Informative)
She died committing insurrection against the United States.
Re: The Blood of Patriots (Score:5, Interesting)
"She died committing insurrection against the United States."
And so everybody inside with her is guilty of felony murder.
Re: The Blood of Patriots (Score:2)
And at best, it was the blood of misguided patriots spilling their blood for a wannabe, petty tyrant.
Re:The Blood of Patriots (Score:5, Informative)
That’s why Ashli Babbitt was inside the Capitol making a racket.
Making a racket? How about breaking through a barricaded door guarded by capital police that were trying to protect public officials. She was literally pushing her way through the broken window of the door when shot. I have zero sympathy for her and her attempts to terrorize our elected officials into reversing the lawful election results.
Re:The Blood of Patriots (Score:5, Informative)
And a Capitol police officer has died of their injuries. This wasn’t a peaceful protest, and the Capitol police had every right to respond with deadly force. And I say this as someone against the militarization of police and think police tend to resort to violence too quickly. The patriots there that day were those handful of police or Secret Service officers putting themselves between our elected representatives doing their jobs, and a violent angry mob of thousands.
Re: (Score:3)
You're literally celebrating a deluded unarmed young woman being gunned down by police when she presented no threat whatsoever. You need to look at the depths of hate in your own heart, man.
Re:The Blood of Patriots (Score:5, Informative)
These people invaded a Branch of the US Government.
If it had been the whitehouse, not one of them would have left with their lives.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, from these who raided the police building complex in Portland, how many got arrested?
With 7 shootings throughout the existence of CHAZ, with multiple casualties, how many were arrested?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They should have shot them all, seditious insurrection is a disgrace.
So they should have taken out some machine guns, perhaps some big .50 caliber jobs, and just trained them on the people charging at the Capitol building and kept shooting until the Capitol grounds were awash with blood and twitching bodies bleeding out into lifelessness? That's what you are proposing.
Ironic, much? Responding to an article about certain merchandising being removed because of an association with promoting violence, by promoting violence.
What was the difference between the fringe left's Ca
Re:Trumpers (Score:4, Informative)
Only 5 people [foxnews.com] were arrested on January 6th for anything related to the "riots". And 47 more for breaking curfew.
On May 31st the ware about 1600 (sixteen hundred) arrests [france24.com]. That is the difference...
Re: (Score:3)
These dumb shits practically documented themselves doing the crime so it would be trivial to pick them up, seize their electronic devices, establish intent, discover other individuals involved and put them before a judge.
And since members of the Terrorist MAGA's don't wear masks in support of Trump, ID'ing them is even easier.
Re: May God Bless President Trump! (Score:3)
Why do evangelicals keep assuming Trump was sent from God, when everything about him points more towards the Antichrist?
Re: (Score:3)
Shopify has closed shops for a large number of small businesses for no reason other than differing political views. Nobody has the right force their beliefs onto others - this is no different than trying to force Sharia religious laws onto non muslims. Stupid primates keep repeating the same mistakes.
Trying to overturn democracy and install their person is apparently fine, but telling those people to go fuck themselves is like enforcing sharia law. I don't know if you're deluded or a stooge.
As others have pointed out (Score:4, Informative)
And no, I will not shut up. I will not stop pointing out how disingenuous people like you are. You've got google. So did the 2 or 3 people who modded you up. There's no excuse. Educate yourself.
Re: (Score:3)