How sweet would it be for Trump to sue CNN straight into owning it?
You really want to rival Amazon and help America, start a competitor to AWS.
Is this guy a hop on? You're gonna get some hop ons.
1, I understand where he's coming from. If he starts Trump Bank or Trump Capital, he's got two hills to climb: he has to get that enterprise up and then he's got to fight them on all fronts, including fronts he's been banned on. He wants to establish an informational beachhead, and thinks a social media platform is a better play than a news network. I don't think it's a crazy take.
Besides, 2, before this effort is over, Trump will likely purchase Gab.
I think about it more, the only acceptable answer is to come back hard, "Hate has no home here". Even pleading the fifth is bad news. But, while that kind of virtue signaling is easy to do in couched in the anonymity of twitter, it's pretty difficult IRL.
Here's why I disagree:
-
The current iteration is pretty good because it's kind of a gold mine of funny, so it's going to gather people just in it for a laugh. But, it's going to amass a crazy amount of sincere sounding bullshit: We are real and are valid! Your words are hurting us and it's damaging.
-
If it keeps going, at some point, some rando is going to go his kids' school and ask why Super Straight isn't being covered by the text that teaches about the spectrum and the trans and the whatnot. So, the school admin will, of course, respond, "Because it's not a real thing, just a made up transphobic or white supremacist make-believe." So, our hero will reply, "Oh, no, no, no. It's not made up. Who told you that? I'm super straight, and so is my wife."
No matter what comes next, it's a nightmare for the sexual identity politician:
On the one hand, going into the weeds explaining to someone that their preferred sexual identity is invalid (or worse, valid but not worth teaching) is an absolute minefield. Saying something offensive is a near certainty, and that's gonna get you cancelled by the superstraightphobes. Actually, engaging at all is lending credence, so that's already a cancel.
On the other hand, not engaging is going to get you cancelled by the superstraightphobes as well. I mean, those guys are just looking for some reason to be offended, so now they're going to be offended by our hypothetical politician not standing up trans lives and not telling this transphobic parent that his hate isn't welcome there.
It's a delicious catch-22. It just has to be properly aimed-- it has to be aimed at policy makers.
The difference is, they've spent the past few decades honing their nonsense into bite-size, easy-to-memorize mini-speeches which they can just regurgitate mindlessly.
On the one hand these mini speeches, with the help of Marxist double think, have devolved into Lorem Ipsum with Important Keywords(TM): communities, black-and-brown, colonialist, etc. They can't really be challenged on logical grounds because they're essentially gibberish. I mean, you can try (I know I have), but scratch below the surface and you find out the real gold of the mini speeches: they've been blessed by some scientifically infallible moral authority. So, challenging them is now a failure on the challenger's part. In fact, any kind of challenge is figurative violence and can be met with literal violence!
I know I'm preaching to the choir, I just wanted to write it down.
Supreme court can't possibly figure out what, if any, role it has to play in federal elections in 3.. 2..
I agree, there's lots of questions about it and no one to explain it. Do we have a better source? The results.philadelphiavotes.com that I randomly found seems better, but it's not a timeseries, and there's no good way to scrape it.
My God, is this still going on? At this rate, we're gonna tick tock our way into the 2024 election.
Bad news, infogalactic is also alt-right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_Day#Infogalactic Them's the breaks, I suppose. Either you agree 100%, or you're alt-right.
That's an awfully Reddit-y opening gambit. Besides which, "stupidest thing ever"? Friend, you've got to see this year's top 10 before making such a pronouncement.
So, when you call for one president to be replaced by the opposite party it's treason and a danger to our democracy and possibly the end times of the Republic. But, when you call for the other president to be replaced by the opposite party, that's patriotism.
Oh man. I've had a bad night and I hate the fucking Eagles, man!
Oh, so noooooow "might be" is iron clad. When it's all the problems surrounding Dominion, "might" can go either way and you have to find the exact people in the conspiracy before you can even begin to think about investigating.
Is there a way to prove the "Dominion Effect"? All I've seen is it being theorized. Is it steadily across all counties, or just in blue counties? Or just deep blue counties? Did it only occur in certain counties to the tune of 10% votes there such that it averages out to 3% of the total votes in the state?
I agree. It all stinks to high heaven. The more you hear about it, the worse and more egregious it all seems.
Here's the problem: showing up with a laundry list of grievances isn't doing it. Every item brought up, on its own, is hand-waved away. Then, the game becomes gathering all those excuses and evasions and trying to stick someone with it all. That's a very high bar to clear, and it plays into the fraud hand.
The easy argument is: we shouldn't count this particular batch of votes because it's fraudulent and undermines the will of the electorate. The only way to counter is asking for evidence that it's fraudulent, but that's already buying into the premise.
You know what would be useful here, and it would be easy to make into a tweet and try to get it spread high/wide? A definitive conclusion with hard numbers.
"Subtracting out the fraud we can see, the actual vote tallies for Arizona is Trump X, Biden Y, making Trump the winner. Here's how we got there."
That would get retweeted everywhere.
The thing that makes it easy to dismiss Trump (aside from pretending he's not saying anything) is that the fraud talk is about how it could have happened. What is needed is a concrete number of votes, entries in the timeseries (or portions of entries), that can be shown to be fraudulent and should be thrown out, which alters the result of the election. The effort then has to be to shift conversation from a blanket "I assume all of that has been debunked" to much-harder-to-evade concrete facts.
Don't get me wrong. My hopes that it would work with the MSM crowd is very low, but such an approach would also makes court cases significantly easier. You don't need to go and prove conspiracy or maliciousness, you just need to prove that entry Z is unclean and it undermines the will of the electorate. The Supreme Court would be amenable to that argument.
Getting tick tocked to death over here. By the time something actually will have consequences I will learn about it from the holodeck in my basement.
"The normal path to becoming a naturalized U.S. Citizen takes five years." Wow, things have changed since the 60s. It took me 16+ years to do it legally.
It's kind of crazy that there would be proprietary technology in a vote counting machine at all. "We want you to purchase this machine to count your votes, but don't you dare try finding out how it works."
Fair enough. The whole thing seems odd to someone looking at it with fresh eyes. One side is arguing that the rules are broken, the judge is talking about "the will of the electorate". If the will of the electorate is the gold standard, and rules can and SHOULD be broken in pursuing that will, what is even the point of having rules?
I'm not familiar with these things, but is that how it works? People make arguments pro, con, and the judge just waits for all of them to say their peace and then gives his ruling? He doesn't engage what was said, he just reads from the paper he'd prepared before the whole thing started? Seems inefficient.
I don't follow Romanian politics, but I did notice that the Romania subreddit was in mourning. Is this why? Who is AUR?
You know, I'd make them get up and do an apology week, first.