Taro T

No. There have been myriad people in the military that have looked into the allegations about Russian bounties and said there is no credible evidence of the bounties being offered. Your comparison is one of apples to outboard motor propellers. Biden's camp came out with a VERY qualified denial of the story immediately when the story came out. If he really didn't meet with the guy, why say it wasn't on his schedule rather than he didn't meet with him? Why not simply say he didn't meet with him? Why did Biden lash out at the CBS reporter that asked him about it without answering the question?

Ummm, your opinion is that they immediately put out a denial that didn't actually deny that the Burisma guy met w/ the VP rather than putting out an ACTUAL denial because they're hoping the story fades out? Don't suppose you have a reason for why a non-denial is better than a flat out denial IF the VP truly never met with the guy? Especially when we know it was the VP's threat to withhold loan guarantees that got the prosecutor investigating Burisma fired because the VP bragged about it and there is video evidence of him braggi g about it.

Considering the campaign still has yet, 3 days later, to make an actual denial denial, rather than their non-denial denial; the odds increase that the story is accurate. Which would increase the likelihood the info on the laptop is legit, which would be very bad for the former VP as that doesn't seem to be the most damning thing on the laptop.

Realize that having typed that out as briefly as it was stated that it could come across that way. Was simply trying to clarify to whomever post it was in response to, that though 45 had A tweet shouting "repeal 230," that many (most?) people that want to see changes to how Section 230 gets enforced DON'T want to see it repealed. But merely see a bit more fairness shown by the 800# gorillas that essentially have become monopolized communication conduits. Also, would definitely want to see what's proposed before endorsing anything (many "solutions" could wind up far worse than the current "problem"). And also expect that if Big Tech does continue to mess with ~1/2 of their product (let's facevit, the advertisers are their customers) somebody else will come along and take that product from them by not messing with them, so there may be no long term need for adjustments to regulations nor new laws needed overall. Plus, looks like Twitter might find itself facing lawsuits for violations of campaign finance laws, so who knows where this all leads. Hope this and the other post didn't detract too much from the purpose of your thread. Apologies if it did. And haven't proposed any solutions to your original Q's of this thread, because really not sure what the answers are & flat out don't have the bandwidth to help implement them anyway. The suggestions the old-timer have made seem reasonable. If you are looking for thoughts from a different perspective, maybe reach out to Kelly the Dog or TPS for their thoughts on the issue. They were very active on this board in the past and neither would ever be accused of being right wing. (And not making that suggestion to create even more work for you; simply making it because nearly all the lefties offering you advice have never seen this place when it wasn't perceived to be "a right wing circle jerk." Thanks again for this site & SS.

For the most part, the talk of "repealing" Section 230 isn't about doing away with section 230, but rather clarifying how/whether the social media companies should continue to recieve exemption from libel liability as if they were ISPs when they now are effecting editorial policies as if they are publishers which do not enjoy an exception from libel liability. Right now, they are having it both ways. They claim they are merely conduits but also they now effect editorial control. That's not right. And Paj has said they will be promulgating new regulations based upon existing laws.

Your timeliness is completely off. And Clinesmith's perjury is not the only evidence of malfeasance.

41 was a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign. Especially without Lee Atwater available to run his campaign.

Fair enough. But that a "bullshitter" like him can be considered honest shows just how broken the system is.

If he is a CIA source, it means he's contacting foreigners to spy on them FOR the USA. If he isn't one, then contacting foreigners could mean he could be doing something that might compromise our country. Our IC is supposed to provide the FISA judges ALL the info about a potential subject of a warrant (both positive & negative because the process is secret & the subject gets no say nor advocate) & rather than even do that they falsified the case against him to make it more compelling. You really don't see a problem with claiming one of our spies is possibly a black hat and then using that to spy on the President? (2 jump rule.) One additional question, if he was such an imminent threat to our country's national security that he could be legally spied on under the FISA system for a FULL YEAR, why 3 years later is he still walking around a free man?

The ONLY major US politician in at least 50 years and possibly EVER that got drummed out of an election for being a PLAGIAERISER is most commonly described as "honest?" Seriously? Did they poll anyone over the age of 40?

Horsehockey! Bush was leading before Perot quit & then most of those Perot voters switched to Clinton. When he got back in, he got some of those voters back, but not even close to what he had originally. Most of them stuck w/ Clinton once HRP came back.

A Biden win won't help the economy but it will help the Dow & the S&P as additional regulations make it tougher for new competitors to enter. Those companies will also be helped by better access to cheap Chinese labor.

As soon as Reid nuked the filibuster for everything but SCOTUS nominations the ball was rolling down the hill. Would be really interesting to know how things would've worked out had it been RBG retiring in '16 rather than Scalia dying then. Expect the R's would've let Garland have a hearing but don't know that for certain. But do know that each time 1 side ramps up the partisanship, the other runs ideas to up it another notch as soon as they can. Don't know how to scale it back short of 1 side having a ridiculous majority of 60+ & going back to the old 60 vote filibuster so that if they lose a smidge, the other side can have a say.

You've won. But don't let that stop you from pursuing your white whale.

Cool. Good to see that 2 weeks after you helped get DR banned that you are still on your little passive aggressive woe is me roll.

To the edit: yes, at least 1 poster that was banned from PPP back in 43's day was never banned from & stillposts today on TSW.

And for a 3rd time you ignore the non-denial denial & focus on the tangents. But it's easier to try the "look at the tangents, don't look at the substance" gambit.

Sadly, United States Senate is the 1 thing that might. (Though at this point, am expecting confirmation strictly on partisan lines, with the possible exception of Manchin voting to confirm.)

Focus on the photo with a bunch of Wiki blather and ignore the campaign's non-denial denial. Also, ignore all the other stuff about Hunter's trips to China & Ukraine and Biden admitting on camera that he pressured Ukraine to can the prosecutor investigating Burisma.

Yes, they are private and can do what they want. But they shouldn't be able to avoid libel suits by claiming they have no editorial discretion as to what their users put out and then act as publishers and edit the content of their users. They can't have it both ways.

Yes, the origin of how the e-mail came to light is suspect. But the non-denial denial by Biden sure does make it sound like the meeting between Joe and the Burisma exec that he thanked Hunter for arranging took place. "We have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place." Clearly, if it wasn't on the OFFICIAL SCHEDULE, it couldn't have taken place. BUT even if a meeting did take place, it didn't happen as the NYP stated it did. If the meeting really didn't take place, why not simply say categorically that it didn't? Joe's on record as categorically denying he ever spoke to his son about his son's business dealings even though there's photos of him & Hunter golfing w/ a Burisma exec. So, it's not like he & his campaign are above bald faced lying.

Let's hope it backfires.

Interesting. But don't really put too much weight to it as nations posture all the time. And China always ratchets up the rhetoric when we consider (and actually do) arms sales to Taiwan.

Realizing Biden doing anything to support his son from his official capacity as VP is still merely alleged; but this combined with the video of Biden bragging that he got the Ukranian prosecutor canned is a very bad look. Too bad the media will in all likelihood sweep this under the rug as well.

Yep. For the 1st time in ages they have 2 full lines worth of top 6 skaters & for the 1st time since at least the early '90's 2 of those are arguably in the top 5 at their position. Fix the goaltending & if healthy, this should be a playoff team.