ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,569 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
18 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
See you don't understand how debate works. Let me explain.
1. You made a point
2. I challenged that point for further clarification by asking questions. Allowing you to either solidify your point or give me the opportunity to poke holes in it.
3. You clarified your point and you were right in how you clarified it. FB's process is better but not necessarily "way" better but that is semantics
4. You then began to call me a troll and an #######.
5. Good job. 🙄
My point was that nuking a story is worse than allowing it but not amplifying it. I made no claims about the quality of the fact checking itself as it was irrelevant to the point I was making.
You did the whole “just asking questions” cowardly BS about the vetting instead of just expressing your own position, and then pretended it was a good faith debate instead of just the childish exercise in trolling that it was.
-
11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
And FB could end up nuking it in the end anyway correct?
One man's debate is another trolling.
There is no fool-proof form of content moderation. Every system is going to have flaws.
I said I think it’s better not to delete or block things while they are being vetted. You decided to be a troll about it. That’s not a debate, it’s just performative assholery.
-
7 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
No clue. So when you said it’s way better than Twitter you were speaking out your ass. Thanks.
No, I was saying that allowing the posting of links while they are being vetted is better than completely nuking the links.
But you knew that, you’re just being a troll. That, or you can’t read.
Thanks.
-
9 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
Dance puppet dance. Who are these internal fact checkers and what is their process? And what is the process of the initial flagging of the post?
Dunno I don’t work at Facebook. What are they? -
2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
Who is doing FB vetting and what is their policy?
According to TechDirt, Facebook’s policy when something is flagged as a potential misinfo op is to allow it to be shared but not to boost it through the algorithm until Facebook’s internal fact checkers had reviewed it. -
2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
If you want to say companies can have their own TOS and remove things that violate them...that's fine. But the moment you have these same companies removing content at the specific request of the government and/or government agencies then thats clearly not ok. It's a clear first ammendment violation. It's quite fascist to be honest.
The guy that
@ChiGoose linked to had so much hand waving gobbledygook it puts chigoose himself to shame.
Well then it’s a good thing that Taibbi stated that the government didn’t request the items to be taken down!Also, what your call gobbledygook is what most people call facts and logic. But I’m not surprised you had difficulty parsing it.
-
5 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
And what you’re saying is what’s the problem. It’s not government intervention. It’s media intervention but that intervention tends to lean one way along the political spectrum.
The article points out the Facebook’s policy in similar situations is to allow the posting of the link but not boost it through algorithms until it’s vetted.
That seems way better than Twitter’s nuking policy.
-
45 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
So a quick skim of that and Taibbi said there was no government involvement in the laptop story?
Yes, Taibbi explicitly states that there was no evidence of government involvement.
Basically, Twitter had a really bad moderation policy (nuke suspicious info until it’s vetted) were warned about potential election interference by the FBI, and when they saw the laptop story, they invoked their (bad) policy.
This immediately backfired due to the Streisand Effect and was such a bad call that not only did a prominent Dem Congressman reach out to them to say blocking the story was bad, but they ended up reversing course within a day.
-
If anyone is interested in what really was happening with Twitter and the Hunter Biden story, this is the best explainer.
-
As we saw in the other midterm races, normie Republicans did fairly well while Trump republicans were soundly rejected.
Any chance the GOP takes a lesson from that or do they go back to the well for Trumpism?
-
21 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
This if ***** crazy. As of last look over 3,000,000 votes counted and only 800 separate the two!
Most of the outstanding vote count is in the Atlanta area. Warnock is going to end up winning by around 3 points. -
55 minutes ago, Wacka said:
Fetterman still isn't recovered. After my stroke in 2014, I didn't drive for a year. I remember being in the bed in the nursing home in rehab watching a SF Giants game (I lived in the SF area then). I knew it was a baseball game and it was the Giants but all the players looked like they were standing in a line. My brain couldn't process the visual signals correctly. I saw the same thing for a world cup game. Luckily, his lasted only a few days but I didn't know if it would. I could have been like that the rest of my life.
I agree that Fetterman isn’t recovered. I don’t think that’s a surprise. My point is that this is something someone can recover from while many on the board are acting like he’s brain dead.
I’m also happy to hear you were able to recovery from your stroke and I’m sorry to hear you had to go through that.
-
Oh good. Let’s weaken our military because of a bunch of little babies.
They already have to get something like a dozen vaccinations to join up. But the poor snowflakes are drawing the line at COVID?
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Doc said:
LOL! It's been 6 months. The dead areas of his brain aren't recovering. But no matter, he's already been voted-in by the equally braindead people of Pennsylvania. He's perfect for them.
Hey, it’s still better than voting for Trump.-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Post CVA limitations are NOT just
auditory processing issues
Don’t create false equivalencies.
.
I understand that there are other issues that arise from strokes. And while I wish Fetterman’s team would release more information, what we do have are that his doctor expects him to make a recovery.
We will see if that ends up being true but in the meantime, I find a lot of the comments about it on this board to be gross.
-
6 hours ago, Doc said:
Now do Fetterman.
That’s gross. Auditory processing issues aren’t the same as cognitive issues.-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
What? So Ukrainians can’t go to church and pray for an end to the madness? Come on Alf. I’m guessing you’re against anyone putting Russian dressing on their salads.
The Russian Orthodox Church under Kirill is essentially an arm of the Kremlin.I would think there is a difference between banning religions you don’t like and banning foreign agents of an enemy nation that has invaded your country.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:
Goose, it’s obvious you’re a lawyer or in the legal profession. I have to ask. If they search your home on a warrant, are they entitled to take anything other than what the warrant was for? Not trying to be political here…I really don’t know.
They are supposed to take what is within the bounds of the search warrant.However, law enforcement personnel aren’t lawyers. So if the warrant says “documents” they are going to grab any documents that could possibly be relevant. If there are personal documents intermingled with government documents, those personal documents would actually be in scope because they could show intent to a jury. However, if the agents took something way out of scope, like a car, that would be something that Trump might be able to get back (more on how in a bit).
From there, the prosecutors will do a review of what was seized. In this case, they also used a filter team (also known as a “taint” team). These are DoJ lawyers who are not involved with the Trump case but understand the law and potential privilege. They will review documents for potential privilege and flag anything that should not be passed to the prosecution.
Once the prosecutors have the evidence, they can review it, talk to witnesses, etc. Eventually, they will have to make an indictment decision. If they decline to indict, they have to return everything. If they indict, that opens Trump up to additional rights as a criminal defendant. At that point, there is an official case on a judicial docket and his layers can file motions seeking to bar certain evidence from the trial. If something was seized improperly, this is when his lawyers would argue that before a judge in an effort to have it excluded from trial and/or returned to Trump’s possession.
Between when the search is conducted and when an indictment is issued, people have very few rights to get their stuff back. That seems unfair (and maybe it is) but part of the rationale is that if targets knew where the investigation was headed, they could seek to conceal additional evidence or tamper with potential witnesses before the DoJ could talk to them. You would need a REALLY good reason to get it back (like if you weren’t the target but instead a third party who was tangentially related and some of the items taken are critical to your business).
If, however, the search was egregious, the target can file a motion to that effect. To be successful, they need to meet the four Richey elements. The first and foremost is a callous disregard of constitutional rights.
If the search was not egregious, but the government seized property and has held it without resolution (indictment or declination) for a long period of time, the target can file a Bivens motion alleging that the delay is an infringement on their rights.
In Trump’s case, his lawyers did not allege a callous disregard of constitutional rights, as is required by Richey. Nor did they file a Bivens motion. I don’t think they even challenged the legitimacy of the search warrant itself (which is good because they would lose that one pretty quickly). They are apparently trying to assert that Trump has the rights of an indicted person during the pre-indictment phase solely because he is a former president.
When pressed by the 11th circuit panel (two Trump appointed judges and one from George W. Bush), Trump’s attorneys could not cite a single case that backed their theory. That is a *really* bad look before an appellate court. Case precedent is incredibly important, and not having a single precedent in your favor means you’re probably going to lose.
Basically, all of the legal precedent and facts were on the side of the DoJ here. In fact, the 11th Circuit stated in its opinion:
”In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test, drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents. We choose the first option.”
So now, Trump has exactly the same rights you or I would have in this situation. If and when he’s indicted, he will be granted additional rights and privileges including discovery to obtain what the government has and depose its witnesses. He will also be able to argue that certain evidence should not be admissible at trial. All of this would happen before a judge in criminal court.
If the DoJ does not indict him, they will have to return all of his stuff (he will never get the government docs back as they are not his). If they drag their feet for a while (at least a year), he can file a Bivens motion to get it back.
Instead of Trump being treated differently or targeted for politics, this is actually a very straightforward case of a legal search warrant being executed against a private citizen.
The mainstream media will screw up the reporting because that’s how they do, but when you look at the pleadings and rulings, this one is pretty simple. Trump will either get his stuff back at the declination decision, or be able to challenge the evidence when he is indicted. He’s just not allowed to jump the gun like he is trying to now.
-
20 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
It's a shame, really, that this is happening. Had the government been more diligent and disciplined in their approach, they could have avoided the appearance of impropriety and tyranny at work. Turns out they can get court permission to storm the castle, organize and dispatch law enforcement officials armed to the teeth, spend hours on site, photograph documents purported to be classified, provide them to the press, and yet still gather an enormous number of documents unrelated to the seizure.
On top of that, they resist any objective review of the seized documents by an independent third party, in essence stating "You just gotta trust us.".
That is not at all what happened here and grossly distorts the facts and the law.
Not only did Trump’s lawyers not even allege that the search was in any way improper, but when the judge asked if they could find a single previous case that supported their positions they could not.
Simply put, you are not entitled to what Trump is asking for in the pre-indictment phase. Once indicted, you have expanded rights and access, but not before.
-
12 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
I can’t wait to see the discombobulated looks on the faces of liberal disciples when they can’t understand why their mind masters stop pressing to take Donny boy out because he’s more of an asset to their agenda as opposition than neutralized.
I’ll take “Things that won’t happen for $200, Ken.” -
3 hours ago, reddogblitz said:
I see. You're for unions and the ability to strike for better compensation except when you aren't. Its OK for lowly Starbucks and factory workers but not people who are important and have real leverage.
Put your big boy pants on and support the strikers if it comes to pass even if its inconvenient. If it really would cost $2,000,000,000.00 per day (not sure how accurate it is cuz I hear politicians tossing that number around), there would be tremendous pressure on the big bidness railroads to make concessions which is a good thing and kindof the point.
Because I’m not a childish keyboard warrior and so I can think about what would actually happen if they did strike.
Do you think the US public is going to be on their side? Or is the corporatist media going to convince everyone that the workers are greedy and the new record high inflation is all their fault?
Because that’s the easiest question in the world.
-
-
2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:
Same goes for maternity/paternity leave. Once this thing got rolling in the 80s/90s every company I worked for had it or started doing it. Even the last company I worked for with 200 employees. Would love to see the statistics on that too if @ChiGoose has any.
My company offers paid parental leave but you have to work there for a full year to qualify. My wife’s company does not. We are both salaried professionals.
-
7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
That figures seems rather high to me. Those are FULL TIME employees? Are they hourly? Or salaried?
Now with regards to the portability of sick leave, as an employer I disagree with your position. That sick leave wasn’t accrued/earned while working at my company. But just to show you that I’m not a slave driver, we allow sick leave and vacation to be accrued virtually indefinitely. Unused vacation time you are compensated for upon exit but not sick time.
14% of full-time employees do not have paid sick leave. As far as I can tell, it does not breakdown between hourly and salaries. Though I would argue that’s irrelevant anyway.
And I’m glad that you have generous benefits. My argument is that it would be beneficial to all of us if all American workers had some baseline of paid sick time.
Also, if anyone is looking for details on the railway dispute, I found this explainer to be incredibly helpful:
Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave
Recap of what the media is telling you about the J6 hearings. Aka liars telling you more lies about what liars are saying on capitol hill..
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Yes, it’ll be released.