At least in 2020, the excuse was that Bernie lost because the DNC was rigging it against him from the inside. They were feeding the debate questions to Clinton before hand, they were literally giving Clinton money from the DNC fundraising effort (for down the ballot races), and so on and so forth. The deck truly was stacked against him. That wasn't fair in the least.
But now they're stealing the primary from Bernie. They're literally doing it in democratic fashion. Biden will most likely LEGITIMATETLY end up with more delegates and more popular votes then Bernie. People may argue that some of this came from backdoor deals and stuff, but while backdoor deals may be unethical -- nothing about them makes this process undemocratic.
I don't think Bernies job is to just be a token fighter. I think he truly wants to win. He just can't get the young people to vote, tough thing to do. Witting tool, or unwitting tool, he is still a tool. |
|
|
|
|
You answered your own question. So they can use them as weapons (recently upgraded to bio-weapons).
|
|
|
|
No, the left did not move right after the Regan years.
The left has moved massively further left. I think he is confusing establishment policies with being right. The left is now the party of war, censorship, corporatism, crime, and racism, all the things the left of 20 years ago was most vocally against. |
|
|
|
Insert self fellating screed here. Who is Techshare? I didn't violate your local rules, not that I bother reading your psychotic screeds. |
|
|
|
I agree with all of this.
But I have a hard time believing that the reason Biden hasn't been indicted yet is because Trump is worried about what he'll be accused of.
I think they either don't have a strong enough case to give to a grand jury, or, if they do, they are holding it back till we are closer to either the DNC or general election.
The first scenario seems way more probable, and I think it's likely the same reason Hillary, Comey, Mcgahn and anyone else he's promised to lock up years ago hasen't even been charged.
However, I wouldn't put it past him to have sealed indictments on all of them already. Imagine the impact of a July/August front page with all of them in hand cuffs.
Very unlikely there's enough evidence, and Trump probably wouldn't be able to contain himself if there was. Or perhaps you are simply underestimating the scope and impact that these indictments will have. If he did it too soon, he would risk starting a civil war. This was the entire point of pushing the Russia collusion narrative from day one, to make it look like he was the one engaging in a coop as opposed to resisting one. |
|
|
|
I see where this is heading, but I'm not ready to lose just yet. Here's a very short, brilliant satirical video about Biden https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbKfw8mojGcIf only Bernie had the balls to run something like that, ahead of Super Tuesday this race might have been different. Instead Bernie is talking about his good friend Joe. Well this was very funny. Obviously heavily edited, but very funny. Going to forward this to some friends. If the Sanders campaign literally just made clips of Biden talking and blasted them on the airwaves they'd be able to beat him. But I think Bernie might be gunning for something within a Biden admin, or to ensuer that he stays powerful in Washington. He hasn't went negative on Biden yet, at least not enough to notice. Bernie Sandbag is doing his job, just like he did in 2016. Suck up as many populist votes as possible then deferring to the establishment candidate. |
|
|
|
I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Bidens chances at winning the nomination just shot up. If Trump would have immediately got in and prosecuted this case, he would have been accused of being too thirsty to attack his political opponents. If he had done it during the mid-terms, he would have been accused of trying to use it as a political tool to win elections. Doing it any time during the impeachment farce, he was accused of using it to distract from impeachment. Here we are within sight of the 2020 presidential election, and now he is being accused of using it to attack his political opponent. I think the Democrats would prefer that they are simply just never investigated for their own crimes. |
|
|
|
The OP of that thread was nuked. Nothing personal. I know. I was the one who reported his post for containing a death threat. |
|
|
|
Will upload his messages once I am home  unless you want to do the right thing and show in chronological order magicbyte. Why do you feel the need to antagonize this user? |
|
|
|
The start of #2 on your highlighted text shows that doesn't it?
How would using someone's photo and unmasking their identity not come across as being used just as a weapon?
I got that impression, but it was not explicitly mentioned so I figured it would be good to ask. To be clear I am not planning to dox anyone, I find it to be a repugnant act unless there is rock solid evidence of theft. Even then, it may be questionable under certain circumstances. |
|
|
|
AFAIK it does.
Thanks for the quick response. |
|
|
|
1. Personal information must be confined to the new "investigations" board (under Scam Accusations), which is only visible to Members and above. Personal information is defined as anything which links a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity, excluding links that the person himself has posted. It is not allowed to post somebody's personal information in any other public place, including in signatures.
2. It is not allowed to post someone's dox if it is especially obvious that you're just using the dox as a weapon. For example, if there are no remotely-plausible trade complaints, then the person can't be a scammer, and their dox should not be posted.
3. As before, anything that the legacy insecure government/banking system requires to be secret is not allowed anywhere. This includes social security numbers, credit card numbers, and certain account numbers. This is why I ask. The language used here seems to indicate that a photograph of a user would qualify as something linking a users "meatspace" identity with their username. |
|
|
|
|
I have been told by an associate who specialized in studying pathogens that an N95 - FFP2 or FFP3 rated mask is actually sufficient for providing at least some protection against the virus. He did explicitly say just a plain N95 mask was not enough.
|
|
|
|
You are a tumor on this forum. That is a fact.
This is my thread. If Lauda is a tumor, then you are in the blood. That is a fact. The following re-post should have been made in this thread. It explains I have no double standards. Is it Vod? It seems more like a thread about you and Lauda based on the OP. I don't know where you get off taking ownership of it regardless. I guess that is just more of your megalomania showing. Still waiting for you to quote that lie Vod. |
|
|
|
|
Does posting photographs of a user qualify as doxing under the forum rules? Please clarify the rules regarding this. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
....
Exactly, and this was the whole game from the beginning. They issued carefully worded requests for information/testimony and simply CLAIMED they sent a subpoena, then told the media they actually did, and like the lapdogs they are they repeated it, and people like Nutilduuuuuh, TwittySeal, and Suchgoon sucked it down like the thirsty bias confirming TDS sufferers they are. Now that this is all over with, they can't produce any of the documents and are reduced to trying to distract with stories about "Mike Pompeo says" and FOIA requests rather than just admitting they are chumps that parrot whatever the idiot box tells them without ever checking for themselves.
Well, then this endless tirade makes sense sort of. Regardless, there is a huge difference between "I received a request from (Someone/something very powerful who you wouldn't want to not obey)" and "I received a legal subpoena." Yes, there is. However if they were to simply call it what it was, they would then have to battle all of the MSM and toadies like here in this thread, and some how make them understand something that they don't want to understand, that there were only carefully worded requests for information sent, and not valid subpoenas. It is much easier to just play along with their stupid games and not cooperate, because they have no authority to compel them. |
|
|
|
I think it's time Theymos should sell the forum to you if he can't even manage obvious power abuse.
This is not needed. 1 month Kitty admin and this place will be booming with innovation again. @Lauda as soon as anyone has thoughts that don't match you you tag people because I don't see a single person on forum that doesn't agree with while gets away without a trust feedback, so are you gonna agree that anyone who thinks otherwise will be tagged by you?
I'll bring a good example: Theymos and I have very very conflicting opinions on several things, up to the point where I would even state that some of these opinions or policies are making certain things much riskier (my opinion). However, all of these opinions of his are very sound i.e. backed by either research or knowledge and when questioned then you will receive comprehensive and sound argumentation as to why this is. Therefore, difference in opinion =/= defamation =/= malicious trolling and other bullshit. The latter two are inherently untrustworthy, and suchmoony I am sorry but that is just real life. You are a tumor on this forum. That is a fact. |
|
|
|
I disagree with the premises of this argument. Isn't it possible that reporters, and/or many people, consider virtually any kind of document that demands or requests, from an official entity a "subpoena?" EG, they may have a broader definition of the word than you/Techshare/I have. Exactly, and this was the whole game from the beginning. They issued carefully worded requests for information/testimony and simply CLAIMED they sent a subpoena, then told the media they actually did, and like the lapdogs they are they repeated it, and people like Nutilduuuuuh, TwittySeal, and Suchgoon sucked it down like the thirsty bias confirming TDS sufferers they are. Now that this is all over with, they can't produce any of the documents and are reduced to trying to distract with stories about "Mike Pompeo says" and FOIA requests rather than just admitting they are chumps that parrot whatever the idiot box tells them without ever checking for themselves. |
|
|
|
Yes, I see that there is no consensus on this issue. Publishing personal messages without permission is rude, but rudeness is not moderated.
I think that from time to time, the publication of PMs can be marked in red, neutral or not marked at all. The administration leaves this for subjective consideration.
In my opinion, users have the right to know in advance whether their personal messages can become public without permission. If the user does not care, then he will write message to a public place immediately. Bit if the user writes a personal message, then he does not want others to read this message. Is that logical?
I will correct the tag to neutral, only because the case does not concern me personally this time. But I am sure that madnessteat has the full moral right to leave negative feedback to Lauda in this case if he considers it necessary
The only consensus that seems to be made on the subject, is if some one explicitly agrees not to publish PMs, and then does so anyway, they are in violation of an agreement, and that would be the only clear case that would be tag worthy. All this back and forth is simply a result of wannabe forum cops running around and tagging people for publishing PMs, but then when they do it suddenly the standards aren't clear and we shouldn't be tagging people for it. As with anything, the situation should be examined and determined if there was: -Damages -Malicious intent -Violated agreements -Personal information contained -Ulterior motives for publishing I am sure there are more, but those seem to be the key aspects of this debate over posting PMs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
