ChiGoose

If you are seriously still comparing Jan 6th and the 2020 protests, you are not a serious person.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

While very little of my criticism of Musk buying Twitter has been about content moderation, something to keep in mind when seeing news about advertisers pulling out of Twitter is that, for social media companies, the users, the content they create, and therefore, the content moderation policies, are the product. The content moderation policies define the content that will be allowed on the site and that in turn is used to entice advertisers to the site. Since most brands are small-c conservative, the more bland and boring the content is, the less reluctant they will be to put their branding around it. On the other extreme, in a wild west of no moderation, you end up with something like 4Chan or 8Chan with an unending stream of racism, vitriol, and violent language. For most social media companies, the goal is to draw the line somewhere between Club Penguin and 8Chan. Give your users freedom to post but keep the content clean enough to avoid chasing away advertisers. Different people will have different ideas on where to draw the line, and that's fine. Different sites will draw it differently, it's mostly a matter of opinion. I think one of the issues that Twitter is currently experiencing is that Musk is talking as if he wants to go the 8Chan route, but Twitter is still suspending tweets and accounts, so there is confusion on what is actually the new content moderation policy. Companies like GM aren't going to want to see their logo next to a bunch of posts with the n-word in them, so they suspended their ad buys. Of course, if the content moderation policy is made more clear and Twitter enforces it, GM might come back on. Or maybe they won't. That's up to them, because we live in a capitalist economy. If Musk had moved more slowly and deliberately, clearly defining the new moderation policy and demonstrating that he had the ability to enforce it, he likely wouldn't be having these problems, even if he loosened up the moderation to appease those on the Right. By moving fast and breaking things in an established company with existing contracts and relationships, he's shot himself in the foot. He may still recover, but this isn't some grand conspiracy, it's just the obvious consequences of his words and actions.

Are you having a stroke?

That might be the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this board, which is pretty impressive, honesty. I’ve never seen you speak out against the Armenian genocide, therefore, you must support it.

When have I equated 8Chan to SpaceX or Tesla? When have I advocated for Musk, Twitter, SpaceX, or Tesla to be cancelled? I haven’t done any of what you’ve accused me of, but that won’t stop you from lying nor the gullible from believing your ludicrous claims.

How many major companies advertise on 8Chan?

There’s a difference between saying something should be investigated and saying someone should be prosecuted. The list of contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign is extensive. It would have been insane not to investigate: “D. Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials b. Contacts with the Campaign about WikiLeaks d. WikiLeaks’s October 7, 2016 Release of Stolen Podesta Emails e. Donald Trump Jr. Interaction with WikiLeaks 2. Other Potential Campaign Interest in Russian Hacked Materials a. Henry Oknyansky (a/k/a Henry Greenberg) b. Campaign Efforts to Obtain Deleted Clinton Emails IV. RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT LINKS TO AND CONTACTS WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN A. Campaign Period (September 2015 – November 8, 2016) 1. Trump Tower Moscow Project a. Trump Tower Moscow Venture with the Crocus Group (2013-2014) b. Communications with I.C. Expert Investment Company and Giorgi Rtskhiladze (Summer and Fall 2015) c. Letter of Intent and Contacts to Russian Government (October 2015- January 2016) i. Trump Signs the Letter of Intent on behalf of the Trump Organization” ii. Post LOI Contacts with Individuals in Russia d. Discussions about Russia Travel by Michael Cohen or Candidate Trump (December 2015-June 2016) i. Sater’s Overtures to Cohen to Travel to Russia ii. Candidate Trump’s Opportunities to Travel to Russia 2. George Papadopoulos a. Origins of Campaign Work b. Initial Russia-Related Contacts c. March 31 Foreign Policy Team Meeting d. George Papadopoulos Learns That Russia Has “Dirt” in the Form of Clinton Emails e. Russia-Related Communications With The Campaign Trump Campaign Knowledge of“Dirt” g. Additional George Papadopoulos Contact 3. Carter Page a. Background b. Origins of and Early Campaign Work c. Carter Page’s July 2016 Trip To Moscow d. Later Campaign Work and Removal from the Campaign 4. Dimitri Simes and the Center for the National Interest a. CNI and Dimitri Simes Connect with the Trump Campaign b. National Interest Hosts a Foreign Policy Speech at the Mayflower Hotel c. Jeff Sessions’s Post-Speech Interactions with CNI d. Jared Kushner’s Continuing Contacts with Simes 5. June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower Setting Up the June 9 Meeting i. Outreach to Donald Trump Jr ii. Awareness of the Meeting Within the Campaign b. The Events of June 9, 2016 i. Arrangements for the Meeting ii. Conduct of the Meeting c. Post-June 9 Events 6. Events at the Republican National Convention a. Ambassador Kislyak’s Encounters with Senator Sessions and J.D. Gordon the Week of the RNC b. Change to Republican Party Platform 7. Post-Convention Contacts with Kislyak a. Ambassador Kislyak Invites J.D. Gordon to Breakfast at the Ambassador’s Residence b. Senator Sessions’s September 2016 Meeting with Ambassador Kislyak 8. Paul Manafort a. Paul Manafort’s Ties to Russia and Ukraine i. Oleg Deripaska Consulting Work ii. Political Consulting Work iii. Konstantin Kilimnik b. Contacts during Paul Manafort’s Time with the Trump Campaign i. Paul Manafort Joins the Campaign ii. Paul Manafort’s Campaign-Period Contacts iii. Paul Manafort’s Two Campaign-Period Meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik in the United States c. Post-Resignation Activities B. Post-Election and Transition-Period Contacts 1. Immediate Post-Election Activity a. Outreach from the Russian Government b. High-Level Encouragement of Contacts through Alternative Channels 2. Kirill Dmitriev’s Transition-Era Outreach to the Incoming Administration a. Background b. Kirill Dmitriev’s Post-Election Contacts With the Incoming Administration c. Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev Meet in the Seychelles i. George Nader and Erik Prince Arrange Seychelles Meeting with Dmitriev ii. The Seychelles Meetings iii. Erik Prince’s Meeting with Steve Bannon after the Seychelles Trip d. Kirill Dmitriev’s Post-Election Contact with Rick Gerson Regarding U.S.-Russia Relations 3. Ambassador Kislyak’s Meeting with Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn in Trump Tower Following the Electionl 4. Jared Kushner’s Meeting with Sergey Gorkov l 5. Petr Aven’s Outreach Efforts to the Transition Team l 6. Carter Page Contact with Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich 7. Contacts With and Through Michael T. Flynnl a. United Nations Vote on Israeli Settlements b. U.S. Sanctions Against Russia” Thats a LOT of contact between the Russians and the Trump campaign. And it resulted in several people being indicted and convicted of crimes. But as I noted, Mueller couldn’t find any actual agreement between Trump and Russia. So no indictment post-presidency (though Mueller did note that Trump should have been impeached for Obstruction of Justice, which he very clearly committed). If you can read through all of those connections and still think it was inappropriate for the FBI to investigate them, then you’re just a partisan.

Probably the most important part for understanding the report is in the intro: ”In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”—a term that appears in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actionsthatwereinformedbyorresponsivetotheother’sactionsorinterests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Essentially, because “collusion” is not a crime defined by statute, Mueller instead investigated through the lens of conspiracy, which requires an agreement. He then laid out dozens of connections between the Trump Campaign and Russians. But he was unable to find that they made an agreement to work together. So what you have is a campaign that was crawling with Russians but because the Special Counsel was unable to identify an actual agreement between the parties, it wasn’t a clear violation of the law.

What are you talking about?

Yes. That it would be a dereliction of duty not to investigate.

I get that you don’t understand how the law works, and if you still think the investigation was based on the Steele Dossier, then you’re certainly getting bad information from untrustworthy sources. But I would encourage you (and anyone who thinks the Russia investigation was a hoax) to read through just the table of contents in volume one. Anytime you see a member of the Trump campaign mentioned, switch it to the Clinton campaign. Anytime you see a Russian mentioned, switch it to China. And then ask yourself if you’d want those activities investigated.

Because laying down the record of facts for history is always the right thing to do, even if it doesn’t achieve justice. The Mueller investigation uncovered dozens of crimes and showed that the Trump campaign was absolutely swarming with Russian agents. Mueller couldn’t indict Trump, so he specifically stated that the proper remedy was impeachment. But impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one. So instead of looking at the facts that showed that the Trump campaign was willingly accepting help from Russian agents and that Trump himself 100% had obstructed justice, the Senate just voted on party lines because it was politically convenient. BTW: if you think the Russia investigation was started because of the Steele Dossier, you are wrong. And if people are still telling you that, you should recognize that they are not people to be trusted.

I agree that it is unlikely that they go full Australia to solve gun deaths. Instead, we are likely to continue to do absolutely nothing as innocent people are slaughtered because people stubbornly insist at looking at everything EXCEPT the cause of gun violence so we can’t even get to a serious discussion of potential options.

The thing that’s really frustrating about these discussions is that they only occur after mass shootings, which, while awful and far too frequent, represent only a fraction of gun deaths. If we truly valued lives, we’d have a discussion on all gun deaths and how they can be prevented. There are steps between “take all the guns away” and “muh freedoms” that would actually save lives. But it requires us talking about the actual issue and not scapegoating mental health as if we are the only country with mentally ill people.

Breakdown of the 11th circuit hearing on the NARA Lago case. DoJ seeking to either dismiss Trump’s suit currently before Judge Cannon or, alternatively, overturn the injunction she issued, which limits the DoJ’s access to documents seized from Mar a Lago. tl;dr DoJ very likely to succeed, at least on the injunction. https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-has-bad-day-eleventh-circuit

Of course not. What I’m saying is that they wouldn’t commit mass shootings if they didn’t have access to guns.

Call it whatever you want, but it’s certainly not pro-life.

Once again, the good guys with guns scenario almost never happens even in a country with guns everywhere. And thanks for bringing up Chicago, which actually refutes your argument. Most of the guns used in crime here come from Indian, Wisconsin, and other states. What Chicago proves is that we need effective national gun laws or else criminals will just buy guns in lax states to use in stricter states. There are potential solutions that don’t involve taking away everyone’s guns but we’ll never be able to implement them because “responsible gun owners” will continue to oppose them. So we’ll either just go on being a final embarrassment or it’ll finally boil over and the government will end up confiscating guns. All because the “2A” people simply don’t care if their fellow Americans are gunned down. Nope, still a gun issue. People who survive suicide attempts rarely end up dying by suicide. The attempt occurs during a drastically awful moment in their lives and if they get through that, they generally end up living a productive life. Non-firearm methods of suicide like pills or cutting end up in death something like 5-20% of the time. Firearm attempts are closer to 95%. Bottom line: if the person in crisis doesn’t have access to a gun in that moment, they most likely will not die by suicide.

Just a regular reminder that the forced birth crowd does not support action that would prevent elective abortions but instead implements laws that endanger the lives of pregnant women while also opposing anything that would help reduce gun deaths. They’re not pro-life, they are pro-death.

Well, this is all fiction. It’s the kind of myth people buy into without evidence because it sounds like common sense at first, but it’s actually wrong and not backed by data. States with looser gun laws have more gun deaths per capita. The “good guy with a gun” scenario plays out in about 1% of mass shootings. Most gun deaths are suicides.

Another day, another mass shooting in the only rich country where this happens.

Good luck finding one in the GOP caucus. McCarthy is probably the best chance they have.