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:
This didn't happen so its irrelevant to the discussion. Why are you talking broadly about the process in general?

It actually did happen. Jones claimed he never used Google Analytics. The plaintiffs discovered in a deposition a spreadsheet Infowars was keeping about Google Analytics data through 2019 that Jones claimed didn't exist.

If Jones was using it he wouldn't have had to engage with Google to get it. He would just login to his account and grab it.

His Google account was suspended. He had to contact Google to get anything from Google. He refused to contact Google after being ordered to do so. He did not notify the court that was going to refuse to contact Google until the day the documents were due, IIRC 30 days after receiving the order.

This specific case is both totally unreasonable and the Judge doesn't agree with that so railroads you anyway. Why you are unable to process this is a very interesting level of retardation.

The central point I have made, which you have never addressed, is that if a judge is being unreasonable and clearly trying to railroad you, your best hope is winning on appeal, and your best shot at winning on appeal is being as well-behaved in court as you possibly can. Being badly-behaved, like ignoring court orders, lying, and destroying evidence, will ensure your appeal goes as badly as possible. You have addressed my central point zero times. You have not even acknowledged my point.

Just address my central point here, and explain why you think---just stick to this one example---disobeying a court order will work out better for you than making a good faith effort to comply.
 
His Google account was suspended. He had to contact Google to get anything from Google. He refused to contact Google after being ordered to do so. He did not notify the court that was going to refuse to contact Google until the day the documents were due, IIRC 30 days after receiving the order.
His YouTube account would have been suspended. The Google Analytics account is not the same thing. They are not all tied together in this way as GA is a paid service. I am forced to deal with Google Analytics at work often enough is the only reason I know this. That Infowars adwords and that stuff even exists means they did not ban him from paying them for services.

It actually did happen. Jones claimed he never used Google Analytics. The plaintiffs discovered in a deposition a spreadsheet Infowars was keeping about Google Analytics data through 2019 that Jones claimed didn't exist.
If they had this spreadsheet the request for GA source data is even more subversive as they already had the finalized product. Railroading shenanigans indeed.
 
Last edited:
Yeah his simping for Keffals was disgusting, dunno if it was some epic shitposting or if he genuinely wanted that gash.

Probably the latter.
That nigga jerks off to Donkey Kong incest porn and brags about it. You know he would have been bragging about getting some e-celeb stinkditch for the rest of his life
 
That nigga jerks off to Donkey Kong incest porn and brags about it. You know he would have been bragging about getting some e-celeb stinkditch for the rest of his life
It’s weird in this day and age that I can hear democrats screaming about a dude fucking a couch and go “even if true… meh” while thinking of real horrors like the stink ditch fart throne or fat niggas jerking it to ape rape.
 
I'm always curious about word origins and looked up Chickenhawk recently, unfortunately wiki is one of the first places for this. Couldn't help but notice this at the end of the article

John Bolton,[8][9][10] Donald Trump,[11][12][10] Dick Cheney,[13] Newt Gingrich,[14][15] and Ted Nugent[16][17][18][19] are modern examples of those being called chickenhawks by critics.

Ah, yes, Donald Trump notorious war monger whose always talking about how we need to goto war.
 
In 100 years, history books will discuss just how strangely lucky the left has been in the past oh, 30 years or so. So many oddities and coincidences and things that just happened to go their way, every single time, often at extreme odds, and always when people stop paying attention.
 
He should definitely have hired better counsel then. Jones isn't poor so its kind of surprising. The one time I ever had to hire a lawyer the guy did exactly what I needed him to do and it didn't even cost that much money. All things considered.
This was also at the height of Trump's lawyers getting lawfared just for representing him, so maybe he had the best he could get to do it.
The whole thing is fucked from end to end, really.
 
Looks like The Hill's butchers are obsessed with Matt Gaetz. All the top stories are about him and the ethics report.

Slowly, though, they're moving towards Tulsi: "Gabbard selection flummoxes national security experts" (archive). The article is longer than average, so the spooks are very unhappy with this nomination.

Lol! They can't stop lying. For example Victoria Nuland was already forced to admit that there are (or at least were then) biolabs in Ukraine. It's not "disinformation".

 
He’s also accused of trafficking a teenage boy too. He’s a fag.
By internet autists lol

The FBI and House Ethics committee never investigated him for trafficking his at the time girlfriend's younger brother... because that's stupid af unless you're being autistic on the internet. They actually have the girl he allegedly fucked testifying for the committee's investigation that he did. There's literally not even circumstantial evidence for a boy, just retards with no connection to anything saying shit online
 
By internet autists lol

The FBI and House Ethics committee never investigated him for trafficking his at the time girlfriend's younger brother... because that's stupid af unless you're being autistic on the internet. They actually have the girl he allegedly fucked testifying for the committee's investigation that he did. There's literally not even circumstantial evidence for a boy, just retards with no connection to anything saying shit online
Yeah I know people that work for this fag and yeah I rely on them more. He’s a retarded faggot that will end up disappearing in a few years only to turn up in the cabana of a 14 year old Ecuadorian servant
 
His YouTube account would have been suspended. The Google Analytics account is not the same thing. They are not all tied together in this way as GA is a paid service. I am forced to deal with Google Analytics at work often enough is the only reason I know this. That Infowars adwords and that stuff even exists means they did not ban him from paying them for services.


If they had this spreadsheet the request for GA source data is even more subversive as they already had the finalized product. Railroading shenanigans indeed.

I see you are continuing to refuse to address or even acknowledge my point, which suggests you have no real rebuttal and we have no reason to continue discussing this. I'm done derailing this thread; feel free to DM me if you ever care to address the central point instead of ignoring it completely.
 
To expand, because I asked around a bit. The idea being pushed is that Harris only lost because she failed to expound on the policy and really tell people she had them. This is cope but.... not entirely wrong.
This is something Bernie Sanders is pushing as well, in "opposition" to the Pelosi wing that says basically the same thing.

Bernie flavors his complaint with his usual working class schtick, accusing the Democrats at large of not focusing on economic messages. Pelosi thinks they did, but just didn't do it well enough. Both of them are wrong, because both the Democrat message and policy sucks.

Listen to any interview with any random Democrat politician where they are asked about that 60% of the population that thinks trans BS went too far. "Do you think Democrats should back down there?" they get asked. "NO!" replies the Democrat. Same with identity and racial politics. Bernie explicitly says they can push both social progress and economics. This suggests everyone on the left will never get it, for one basic reason:

Promising to benefit people doesn't matter if you are also damaging them more than you're helping.

The average voter the Democrats lost is not just hurting from inflation or low wages. They are under attack for their identity--white, or religious, or male of any race, or female dealing with trannies, etc. Those attacks are coming from one identifiable side: leftist Democrats. If those Democrats refuse to stop the attacks, then the only "carrot" they have to get votes is a benefit... but if that benefit is too small, it won't work.

What is the economic recompense for getting fired from your job and unpersoned for being a bigot? What's the working class gibs to pay you back for your kid getting brainwashed and mutilated? For your wife and daughter getting ogled by trannies in the bathroom? For being forced to get an experimental vaccine and suffer long term health problems?

What are Democrats offering in return--a fucking tax credit? Wow, thanks Obama Kamala.

Instead of offering big pain and small benefit, Trump offers pain for a small percentage of the population, while promising huge benefits to a large percentage through a transformational economy. He promised radical deal making and tariffs, deporting the people suppressing wages at the low end, and a shield against the leftist attacks. You can disbelieve him or think his plans won't work, but as a political calculation, that is a massive improvement in messaging.

Bernie whines about things the larger Democratic party already gave up on: minimum wage increase, universal health care, free college, the usual American Socialist-lite agenda. Some of these things might be popular, but no one believes the Democrats will deliver; or they think it won't help them as much, after the Obamacare fiasco 14 years ago.

Think less "No they cannot" and more "This is what we would do instead.

Again, I am fine with this... in theory. But what the Democrat's expect from this and the reality are going to be two separate things. First, I expect it to be torn apart from inside as soon as a policy decision comes up that has any sort of internal disagreement

I agree, and this is why policies on campaign trails are usually vague (on both sides). Hashing out details and putting together a real proposal runs a risk of pissing off someone you need to vote for you.

I also think they don't understand how their specific coalition makes their stated policies terrible. Almost everything designed by committee sucks, including policies. Democrats either run by backroom party boss decree, or by whole-group consensus (think OWS, CHAZ, college student-run struggle sessions). The decrees may be unpopular and cause public dissension, but they're more focused and marketable than the 20 bullet lists that comes out making sure all your special interests groups feel special.

Of course a shadow government doesn't have to do the real work, just whine and make the same vague campaign promises as before. Maybe they get a coherent top-down message to insert into media cycles. But that won't be functionally different than how they usually do things since Obama switched the party into running in permanent campaign mode.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back