|
Condiv posted:whoa this is definitely a trustworthy source sneakster They really bury the lede that the woman writing this account eventually had a restraining order taken out against her by Ellison. So by her own admission, some of the facts of this whole thing did appear before a judge, but didn't really turn out the way you'd think it would given the allegations being made. The way she just presents it as something that just happened out of thin air, rather than discussing whatever evidence was submitted for the order is pretty hinky too, but I'm still waiting and seeing.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:edit: that "newspaper" is credited to the Republican representative's son, based on the PO box of the publisher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Emmer Condiv posted:whoa this is definitely a trustworthy source sneakster Condiv posted:are you serious? can you get out of here islamophobe? you're not really adding anything at all to the discussion
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:If I'm quoted by the World Socialist Daily as calling Oliver North a criminal, its still true even if its in an ideological publication. just get out
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:You might have to think awhile since it was at least two years ago and it's white people making poo poo up to justify why they hated a black guy so it might have gone into the memory hole all that garbage goes in. If the GOP had been willing to make up fake scandals to attack Obama on, they probably would have given us those instead of mustardgate and the tan suit controversy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If the GOP had been willing to make up fake scandals to attack Obama on, they probably would have given us those instead of mustardgate and the tan suit controversy. You mean like the Birther thing? That's the loving definition of fake scandal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:The entire point of a court existing is that at least one party is acting in bad faith. Saying this is pretty dumb, independent of the argument that the public should apply the same standards of proof as actual courts (which is also dumb). It is particularly dumb given the intended comparison to the context of criminal court, where we deliberately structure the question as being one of whether or not the government specifically has met its burden of proof, so as to avoid intensely coercive situations like entry of a not guilty plea being perjury in event of a conviction, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Just because someone puts a quote online, doesn't mean someone said it. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You mean like the Birther thing? Sidney Blumenthal was a GOP operative now I guess. You'd think they'd have better scandals than one only believed by the chuds
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You mean like the Birther thing? eviltastic posted:Saying this is pretty dumb, independent of the argument that the public should apply the same standards of proof as actual courts (which is also dumb). It is particularly dumb given the intended comparison to the context of criminal court, where we deliberately structure the question as being one of whether or not the government specifically has met its burden of proof, so as to avoid intensely coercive situations like entry of a not guilty plea being perjury in event of a conviction, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You mean like the Birther thing? That wasn't a scandal, that was just a racist conspiracy theory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
No True Scandal He had to respond to it and a significant chunk of the (stupid) country still thinks he wasn't born here, I think it counts. And while the GOP didn't "create" it they certainly fanned the flames and Trump rode on that success of fear of The Other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:....thats not even a fake scandal, its just baseless racist insinuations. So to be clear, you going to run from the thing that you said that I quoted, specifically this: quote:The entire point of a court existing is that at least one party is acting in bad faith. which was dumb, and you are not defending because you have apparently realized it was dumb?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No True Scandal it wasn't, it had almost no actual effect for him other than general racism that always hurt him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If the GOP had been willing to make up fake scandals to attack Obama on, they probably would have given us those instead of mustardgate and the tan suit controversy. Lmbo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
calling birtherism a 'scandal' is like saying vince foster was a 'scandal' and not just 'a conspiracy theory peddled by people for the base that already hates the president'
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
I could google a bunch of poo poo from back then about Obama but that takes work and you're dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:'a conspiracy theory peddled by people for the base that already hates the president' I feel like we're talking past each other here because to me, this is what a fake scandal is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I feel like we're talking past each other here because to me, this is what a fake scandal is. ok maybe. See to me a 'fake scandal' is something like the ACORN poo poo, a thing where there was actual political ramifications that came from complete bullshit. For me 'lovely talking point' isn't a scandal because Obama never had to actually 'answer' for birther poo poo because basically the only people swayed by it were already the same kinda people who'd see a black man in politics and go 'that motherfucker isn't like us'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Questionable allegations from a contemporary article not scanned from something published out a Republican state senators nephews bathroomMain Paineframe posted:That wasn't a scandal, that was just a racist conspiracy theory. eviltastic posted:So to be clear, you going to run from the thing that you said that I quoted, specifically this: WampaLord posted:I feel like we're talking past each other here because to me, this is what a fake scandal is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/danielmarans/status/1029125958693998593?s=21
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That wasn't a scandal, that was just a racist conspiracy theory. Fast and Furious? Audacity of Taupe? Benghazi? There was a new fauxtrage every week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:If I'm quoted by the World Socialist Daily as calling Oliver North a criminal, its still true even if its in an ideological publication. Lol the " some of my best friends are black" defense , but with booty calls.amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:In a criminal case, the state could be lying, hence the increased standard of evidence. In a civil case, it wouldn't be brought to court if someone wasn't lying. That people make poo poo up is why due process exists. As to the first sentence: no, the increased standard of evidence is not because the state might lie. That's dumb and wrong. It is because of the gravity of the power being exercised by the state. That is why the question is whether the government has met its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a crime. It is possible for the state to be factually correct in accusing someone of a crime, but under circumstances where it should still lose. We have made the decision that if it is possible to hold reasonable doubts as to someone's guilt, we do not want the state to punish them under criminal law. The possibility of prosecutorial misconduct is only a part of that rationale. Where the state is not exercising that authority, we do not hold it to that standard in making its decisions, even if it might have an incentive to lie. This is for the same reason we do not generally apply such a rigorous standard. Everyone, government or private individual, must make decisions where it is reasonable to have doubts about it. Reasonable doubts are, by definition, reasonable to have. It is not possible to make all decisions from a position of certainty. I am sure you know all these things, but are eliding them because it directly undercuts the comparison you would like to draw. As to the second, no, this is also completely wrong. Not every civil suit involves perjury. Yes, people sometimes make stuff up. No, it is not impossible for two opposing sides to each maintain a position in good faith. It happens all the time. Hell, litigation can even be required between two sides when they are in complete agreement as to what happened, because of the ramifications related to a third party. This is basic stuff that you seem to be completely unaware of. Due process does not consist solely of the hearsay rule being applied or whatever analogy you are trying to draw here, it consists of being given notice and a fair chance to litigate the person's side of the dispute. This is necessary because the entire point of the system is to resolve a dispute, not just to protect from lies. Where the consequences of resolving that dispute are not particularly grave or otherwise the system wouldn't effectively resolve disputes, those evidentiary rules you seem to be referencing are sometimes relaxed (e: with the rest of the process, like discovery), such as you might see in small claims court. This also directly undercuts the comparison you would like to draw. When I consider whether or not Al Franken or whoever is someone who has sexually harassed or otherwise mistreated another person or persons, I am not exercising the authority of the state to investigate and punish crimes, and I am doing so without the opportunity for discovery or a chance for either of us to be awarded damages or attorney fees. For obvious reasons, I shouldn't have a shot at doing those things. It is therefore silly to hold me to the standards applied in those circumstances. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Aug 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
If McCain makes it through the elections and AZ elects a Democratic governor -- is there anything besides  stopping someone from changing party affiliation to R so they can be selected to fill this seat?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:...my not-girlfriend is Muslim Well I have millions of not-girlfriends who are Muslim and I think you suck!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:If McCain makes it through the elections and AZ elects a Democratic governor -- is there anything besides i don't think there's anything actually stipulating when a nominee would have to have been a member of the same party as the previous office holder but there is an avenue to challenge in court the nomination don't think anyone (garcia i guess?) would be ballsy enough to try that though. probably just appoint some well known moderate goper past their prime that doesn't really want the job, or cindy i guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1029120236044341249
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:i don't think there's anything actually stipulating when a nominee would have to have been a member of the same party as the previous office holder but there is an avenue to challenge in court the nomination This is why the Dems will always succ
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
i mean the az republic would lose it's goddamn mind and give Republicans two years to mobilize on we must take back ARIZONAS GREATEST HEROs Senate seat provided the courts didn't just stop it to begin with in this hypothetical scenario of a dem winning which is by no means a sure thing (though ducey has not had a great summer of news stories)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
...president jones?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
that's what the title for head of city council there is yeah
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I feel like we're talking past each other here because to me, this is what a fake scandal is. There were others, too. The whole rev. Wright thing, palling around with terrorists, Michelle's 'whitey' tape. My personal favorite was the whole 'terrorist fist bump' thing. It was the perfect prelude for how dumb things would get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:that's what the title for head of city council there is yeah Oh ok. I am disappointed, I was hoping this was a case of "crazy person claims they now rule the world."
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I feel like we're talking past each other here because to me, this is what a fake scandal is. Well, it's extremely weird to compare poo poo like pizzagate and spirit cooking to things like domestic violence allegations or sexual assault accusations. HootTheOwl posted:Fast and Furious? Those were all real things that were merely blown way out of proportion by an opposition party desperate for any excuse to score political points - much like Russiagate. That's not really comparable to deciding that domestic violence and abuse allegations are straight-up fabricated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No True Scandal sexpig by night posted:calling birtherism a 'scandal' is like saying vince foster was a 'scandal' and not just 'a conspiracy theory peddled by people for the base that already hates the president' I was going to go with crisis actors at the false flag school shootings, but I think they both fall under this definition of 'scandal'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
And this is why I don't buy into the russia poo pooquote:By agreeing to appear on two Sputnik programs, Changa gained something hard to find: a bigger platform to broadcast her political views. But Changa’s association with Sputnik may put her credibility at risk, while furthering Russia’s effort to create chaos in the US. Condiv fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Aug 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
I think you might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater with regard to the Russia stuff, since there’s pretty clearly some truth in it, but this is a really good article. It’s pretty nauseating how badly donut twitter (and its mainstream counterparts) treats POC leftists like Bri Gray. Third Way twitter is super racist, who knew.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
Yea Russia probably did some poo poo but statistically hostile nations like Russia and China and all ALWAYS 'do some poo poo' when we're having elections, just like we do poo poo when they are. If this was just 'hey we have some flaws we'd like to finally patch up since technology is advancing and it's so much easier for rando hostiles to just buy some bots or poo poo to spread 'don't vote for hillary she's going to jail' bullshit and that's not ideal' it'd be fine, but the idea that Russia changed votes or had a greater impact on the campaign than the whole 'america is already great, how about 12 dollars an hour' and not campaigning in major parts of the 'blue wall' is just some liberal alex jones poo poo to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
  almost as if there's some sort of double standard or something
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
loving hell its the primary today and I didn’t realize I’d have to pick a governor candidate too fuuuuuuuck Edit: fuuuuck I should’ve looked at this last week there’s so many dudes The state treasurer race makes me suspicious, the lady that’s been endorsed by OR and WFP doesn’t actually seem like the best of the three.  Actually all three of these seem... bad. Also I am super torn on who to vote for for governor fuuuuuck Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Aug 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 16:01
|
|