US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, The Shredder, ActualCracker and 120 others
Click to expand...
John.Doe said:
1. The plaintiffs demand Alex Jones provide certain documents during the discovery phase, which is routine in civil cases.
2. Alex Jones responds with documents A, B and C. He replies that Document D is in the custody of Google, since its a Google record he cannot access.
3. The plaintiffs complain that Alex Jones never produced Document D, which is again in the custody of another party.
4. Alex Jones tells the Judge and plaintiff that they should request Document D from its current legal custodian, Google.
5. The Judge declares that because Alex Jones did not raid Google HQ with Seal Team Six to retrieve Document D, that he will penalize Alex Jones for the failure to produce Document D.
6. The Judge decides that, for failure to produce a document Alex Jones cannot legally access, he will punish Alex Jones with the highest penalty available at civil trial.
7. The Judge declares that, due to the above, Alex Jones now has a default judgement against him and is guilty. The plaintiffs win automatically, without any trial of ability for Jones to defend himself.
8. A new trial, for penalty only, is arranged, where Jones cannot defend himself, his attorneys are not able to defend him, and he must be struggle sessioned until a sufficiently poisoned jury finds a penalty of billions.
Click to expand...

That is not what happened. It is a plain lie originating with Jones himself that he was unable to retrieve his data.
  1. The plaintiffs claimed Jones was promoting a conspiracy theory about Sandy Hook and using feedback from Google Analytics to craft his message for maximum profit. Thus the plaintiffs demanded Google Analytics data be turned over.
  2. The judge agreed and directed InfoWars contact Google to request retrieval of that data, as Google is required by law to supply.
  3. When the documents were due, InfoWars stated that they refused to communicate with Google, as Google is part of the conspiracy and therefore can't be trusted to supply the data without tampering it first to make Jones look bad.
  4. The judge decides that, since InfoWars had demonstrated a prior pattern of refusing to comply with discovery requests and waiting until the request was due to present their excuse, fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
EDIT: The story I posted is in the court filings. The story @John.Doe posted is not.
 
Last edited:
  • Dumb
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Fetch!, Moomalade, Netizennameless and 20 others
John.Doe said:
It was a setup from the start.
Click to expand...
Just going to add on to this.

Jones was being charged in a civil trial for defamation. Which by definition means that "Jones said X and this caused us $Y in damages." It turned into the circus @John.Doe describes because Jones was unable to produce a bunch of his own records that he said X even though the plaintiff had their own record of Jones saying X anyway. Otherwise there wouldn't be a case at all in the first place. Nevermind again about the Google thing it isn't like a radio show host is legally required to record and catalog every single time he was ever on air.

Nothing about it was legitimate. It was process shenanigans from beginning to end.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: byuuWasTaken, spiritofamermaid, Yamagata Aritomo and 14 others
HandsomeDan said:
That POS really should be burned at the stake in public in shame for that horrific vaccine musical number (he actually did several) he did on his show, that will forever be the one of the lowest points in "entertainment" ever.
Click to expand...
No, the lowest point in entertainment will be foreverially (tied up and enjoying it) known as Skibidi Biden:

 
  • Horrifying
  • Islamic Content
  • Like
Reactions: Yamma Damma, Fetch!, AspieNextDoor and 25 others
Permanent Resident Cope said:
Why did he do it?
Democrat vs. Republican? Just because he could? A favor to Hillary Clinton (so she could pick the Justice upon winning the 2016 election?)
Click to expand...
He did it for the soul of the country. Had Garland been appointed, Obama's wettest of wet dreams, flipping the Supreme Court to the left via a 5-4 majority would have been a reality and the Democrats/left would have full control over the Supreme Court so it could rubber stamp their agenda and pretty much ensure that it would be 20-30 years at the earliest before the GOP could regain control over the court.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: byuuWasTaken, spiritofamermaid, DOUBLE_WHEEL and 9 others
Pascal's Wagie said:
No, the lowest point in entertainment will be foreverially (tied up and enjoying it) known as Skibidi Biden:
View attachment 6649897
Click to expand...

I still can't believe that I used to be a fan of Steven Colbert.

He is a malignant tumor of a human being.

Skibidi Biden is his most desperate moment. However, I still think his covid vaccine shilling is the lowest point of entertainment. Colbert would make the Soviet Union proud with the amount of propaganda.

 
  • Islamic Content
  • Agree
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Yamma Damma, donutdave, Fetch! and 25 others
MirrorNoir said:
He did it for the soul of the country. Had Garland been appointed, Obama's wettest of wet dreams, flipping the Supreme Court to the left via a 5-4 majority would have been a reality and the Democrats/left would have full control over the Supreme Court so it could rubber stamp their agenda and pretty much ensure that it would be 20-30 years at the earliest before the GOP could regain control over the court.
Click to expand...
Correct. If there is ever a liberal majority on the Supreme Court, it's over.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Yamma Damma, byuuWasTaken, Mantis Toboggan M.D. and 12 others
HodgePodgeRogerDodger said:
I’m pretty sure the next Democratic nominee will be Whitmer. For a few reasons, if @Gehenna and @Jaimas want to criticize my points go at it.

1. Her term is up in 2026 and she can’t run again. That’s two years to get donors, workshop messages, and try to mimic Trump’s 2024 campaign.

2. She’s the DNC co-chair and headed Kamala’s campaign. It’ll likely be turned into a positive talking point that Whitmer helped make Kamala’s campaign competitive

3. She’s been set up for a while by the DNC. She gave the response to Trump’s 2020 state of the Union and she’s a progressive aligned with Ducksworth and gave homage to Pelosi and Schumer.

4. She won reelection by a bigger margin than her first election. (Ignore that two Republican candidates were eliminated via a signature campaign fuckup that pretty much was political sabotage and the other was convicted of Jan 6 bullshit).

5. She is a woman. The Democratic Party donors want a woman president more than they want to win. I think this is due to the teachers union, billionaire divorcees, and making abortion their big goal.

I don’t think Newsom will have his looks in 4 years and 4 years of fighting Trump will make him look awful should Trump achieve 1/10 of what he is promising, especially if Trump gets on lowers energy costs.

Pritzker is fat and I would not have sex with him. Also, he has no term limits as governor and no one will vote for a big fat guy like him. He’s not Rob Ford.
Click to expand...
Whitmer's too tainted by Covid and the FBI staging a fake kidnapping to get her reelected.

If the need a woman, they might as well run Elizabeth Warren, who at least has populist street cred and a known commodity. And while Warren is a cunt, she's openly a cunt and doesn't hide it whereas Whitmer is an Umridge type cunt who who hides it under "good publicity" and will do all sorts of evil shit to avoid the consequences of her cunt behavior.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Yamma Damma, AustinTXShitlord, byuuWasTaken and 9 others
Absolutego said:
There will literally never be a better time to retire, as she keeps insisting she really wants to do, than midway through a Trump administration. She has a perfect brown sockpuppet and a senile corrupt idiot to take the heat for the party's current struggles.
She really is a lich who cannot conceive abandoning power. If anything, the potential to use 2026 as a reset opportunity and pinky swear to the American public that Democrats are different now by picking new leadership is in the party's best interests.
Click to expand...
A while back it was leaked that Nancy's wanted to retire for ages but (((they))) won't let her because A. Her heir apparent lost his seat to AOC and B. They need her to tard wrangle the progressives since the guy she ultimately anointed her successor as head Democrat in the House had no fucking clue how to tard wrangle.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Fetch!, AmateurComedicTaxidermist, Slur.EXE and 11 others
MirrorNoir said:
A while back it was leaked that Nancy's wanted to retire for ages but (((they))) won't let her because A. Her heir apparent lost his seat to AOC and B. They need her to tard wrangle the progressives since the guy she ultimately anointed her successor as head Democrat in the House had no fucking clue how to tard wrangle.
Click to expand...
I get that she got boned by Weiner getting #MeToo'd but there is literally no better project she could dedicate herself to for the next few years than grooming a successor (hell, I'm skeptical the House would vote in a rookie but she could even try to find a person in the SF area to replace her and even make a leadership run) and giving the party some kind of pivot for better electability.
It's weird that I actively want them to lose and am still frustrated at how badly they're blowing it.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Yamma Damma, Fetch!, byuuWasTaken and 9 others
StarkRavingMad said:
I still can't believe that I used to be a fan of Steven Colbert.
Click to expand...
He was a different guy back then. He did his Colbert Report show he made fun of Fox news but it had a friendlier message to it, like he was just lampooning people he simply disagreed with. The Colbert of today doesn't have that element of friendliness to him, he's a bitter and angry alarmist. Turned into the very thing he was trying to parody all those years ago.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: DeagleNationRefugee, WhiteBoySummer, 6thRanger and 98 others
Frederica Bernkastel said:
California had a serious independence movement years ago, but the usual suspects denounced it as a "Russian government psyop."
Click to expand...
California has a movement to split into two or more states (one of which would be the very red state of Jefferson). There was a ballot proposal blocked by some faggot judge. But California has never taken any serious steps toward seceding. It’s just liberal fantasy by some insane people.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Yamma Damma, byuuWasTaken, spiritofamermaid and 6 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back