SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
You'd think they'd at least get the 2A out of the way before they go balls out after the 1A. Remember this shit next time you get butthurt because someone tells you the Democrats are authoritarian shitstains.
[Update]: Deathmonkey was kind enough to point out that this was in fact a Republican-passed bill from 2K that is being reaffirmed/reenacted by the Democrats, as well as adding the ability for the state to prosecute in Richmond no matter where the crime was committed if it's against state-owned property or a politician. Let's hear it for bipartisan fuckwadery! This would have been updated sooner but this is the first time I've looked at it since Thursday around lunchtime. Sorry, you're just not as interesting as The Roomie's kids who arrived a couple hours later.
(What, you thought I'd support it if Republicans had a hand in it? You must be new here.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 23 2020, @02:47PM (41 children)
First, I thought it was an article of faith that only one political party was pure evil while the other was pure saintly goodfullness. Although I never can be sure which is which.
Second, that language is incredibly broad. (why is "broad" slang for woman?) I mean "use a computer", "communicate", and then "obscene, vulgar, indecent". Those words can be stretched beyond 13.7 billion light years. Is it immoral or unpatriotic to criticize any politician up to and including the president? Is is immoral to stream a YouTube video of football players taking the knee during the national anthem?
I would suggest that merely describing many actions of the government (any political party) as "obscene". Flint Michigan water. Is describing that obscenity online a violation of this act?
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:02PM (1 child)
Uhhhhhmmmmm, Danny? Aren't a lot of the people who excite you sexually rather broad in the hips? I don't mean to be presumptuous, but, a lot of guys will readily admit that the breadth of the hips is part of a woman's allure. If you're not like a lot of guys, well, that's your business, not mine.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:38PM
That explanation makes sense.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:03PM (20 children)
They take turns being the biggest bastards. Right now it's the Dems' turn. I keep hoping they'll show signs of tagging out but every time they get the chance to say "Woah! WTF?" they just double down.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:30PM (7 children)
Yep. Right now we have a ton of authoritarian politicians, and authoritarians love making laws. Left vs. right, doesn't really matter.
This is basically a rule that says "don't do stuff (that you already can't do in person) on a computer." Completely unnecessary, just enforce the existing laws!
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 23 2020, @09:49PM (1 child)
Here's a Republican example:
Court: Kansas “Ag-Gag” unconstitutionally bans free speech [apnews.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @12:18AM
As a retired optometrist, I have always held the opinion that optometrists should make policy, not businessmen or lawyers. A good optometrist knows how to get people to see what is going on.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 24 2020, @12:57AM (4 children)
Republicans passed this bill, not Democrats!
This is the existing bill, passed in 2000 by Republicans [virginia.gov]
This is an amendment to that bill which allows the city to enforce it in certain situations. Probably because all those people live there.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday January 24 2020, @03:43PM (2 children)
The offending part of the bill is here:
"A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia."
Not here:
"If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 24 2020, @04:22PM (1 child)
So you're fine with the censorship part. The part you don't like is where they enforce the law.
Yep, sounds about right given the state of conservatism in 2020!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday January 25 2020, @10:05AM
Personally, I don't like any part of the law whatsoever. But one could be forgiven, I think for disliking that Virginia is only going to care about this issue when it affects one of the people making up these laws.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 26 2020, @04:13PM
Interesting. Updating TFJ.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 23 2020, @04:48PM (11 children)
They take turns being the biggest bastards.
Yes, that's the intent. This is what we expect from these people. And still(!) 95% of you will keep on reelecting them and the horse they came in on, and tell me that I'm nuts, which I still find amusing, in case nobody noticed. SNAFU!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @05:30PM (5 children)
I have not seen one person call you nuts for wanting people to not reelect shitty politicians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @07:01PM (4 children)
Odd because it happens quite often. I see our resident rightists pretty openly accept that their candidates suck but being more against the Democratic candidates and unwilling to risk losing. While our resident leftists (Deathmonkey, etc) say that their side is perfect and anyone who doesn't see that is insane (or just Russian if there is a difference).
I ended up voting for the Johnson last election, but he was just as bad as the other two. The whole situation isn't helped by our third parties putting forward shitty candidates. Give me another Perot.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @08:29PM (1 child)
I'll admit that I voted for a terrible republican. Rick Scott is corrupt. The alternative would have legislated badly, which matters more than the corruption.
Other republicans are great. That includes almost half the ones in congress. It includes our president, who turned out much better that I expected back when I voted him in.
I can't even find a tolerable democrat in congress. Joe Manchin of West Virginia probably comes closest, but he is still dreadful. I simply can't support a party that hates the very concept of our nation. Trans-national globalists find me inconvenient and annoying. They want to deny me my rights, destroy American culture, and replace or avoid American workers. I want America to be inherited by my children, not by people who call me gringo or kafir.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 24 2020, @02:56AM
Oh yeah, it's all about free speech!
But Rick Scott starts censoring doctors [politifact.com], and scientists [fcir.org] and suddenly it's crickets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @01:21AM
facepalm
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @02:02AM
Indeed. It looks to me to be a naked grab for power. Ick!
Show me one instance where Deathmonkey or any other "leftist" said "their side" is "perfect". Go ahead. Give us one example. Show us what you got. I am going to go out on a limb and guess you can't come up with even one example.
I almost voted for Johnson but then he turned into Gov. Pothead. Shame, really. It was the perfect storm for the Libertarians to actually pick up some electoral votes. That, alone, would have been a huge victory for a third party candidate which would have instantly sent giant waves through the political landscape but they blew it. Hopefully this time they will put forward a serious candidate.
Amen!
Come, now! Surely we can do better than that. There has to be someone out there with a certain amount of credibility to challenge the two party system.
(Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:41PM (4 children)
There's no intent. The Illuminati is not running the world. The Dems just let themselves get drawn steadily further and further in to the insane bullshit of their radicals, which makes the radicals have to go even more batshit if they want to keep having something to haterage over. It's just an ordinary feedback loop and it's both boring as hell and annoying as hell.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @07:12PM
Banning lewd and obscene speech is a typically conservative value, liberals are the opposite. Seeing as these are Virginian "liberals" I think it is safe to say they are the more conservative types.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 23 2020, @07:55PM
The Dems just let themselves get drawn steadily further and further in to the insane bullshit of their radicals
:-) Oh murrrder! You're so silly. Radicals, little green men...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 24 2020, @12:40AM (1 child)
And you can trust Buzzard's opinion on haterage. He's got more experience at it than anybody!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 24 2020, @04:40AM
Runaway is way better at it than he is. So are J-Mo, XivLacuna, and VLM. Uzzard is just a self-centered sociopath. He's too lazy and dumb to do anything really seriously dangerous, and hasn't got the backbone to well and truly hate.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by exaeta on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:04PM (12 children)
"Obscene" is a legal term of art with a specific meaning. That being said, this regulation *in theory* violates the constitution:
1. The regulation is content based, see Reed v. Gilbert.
2. The regulation does not serve a compelling purpose (note: I am not a judge, a judge could disagree)
3. Therefore, the regulation fails strict scrutiny and is unconstitutional.
Likely scenarios:
1. Judge ignore first amendment precedents and says protecting government officials from harassment is a "compelling purpose".
2. Judge ignores the strict scrutiny test altogether based on some bullshit argument based on old precedents which don't use the US Supreme Court's modern framework for analyzing First Amendment cases. Hopefully this doesn't happen, but it seems to happen a lot in practice. I think Reed v. Gilbert made it pretty clear that content based regulations are always evaluated on strict scrutiny. Still, lots of judges ignore the supreme court and the appellate courts don't care enough to set them straight.
3. Judge actually follows the low and strikes down the regulation (least likely)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:43PM (5 children)
That is good. But even better, and for bonus points, a regulation should violate itself.
My favorite would be a CoC (Code of Conduct) for an open source project where the very text of the CoC is in fact a violation of the CoC. But I haven't seen one yet. We cannot tolerate intolerant people. There are absolutely no absolutes. We are strongly biased against people who are biased. Etc.
But I'll have to settle for this regulation that merely violates the constitution, in multiple ways, as you point out.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @07:07PM (1 child)
Submit a pull request. I'll merge the shit out of it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @12:14AM
I figured your self-deprecating humor would allow something like:
And then putting a note on the bottom,
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 23 2020, @07:30PM (2 children)
"Tolerate intolerance or you're intolerant hurr hurr" is a paradox. It is assuming that intolerance is merely one idea or viewpoint, rather than the axiomatic basis of worldview. You can have only one or the other, not both; either you start from tolerance, or you start from intolerance, and the rest is built from there.
Also, not tolerating intolerance doesn't mean you can't be as intolerant as you want within the confines of your own skull; it just means you *keep* it there. Feel free to *think* "nigger" at someone all you want, but if you say it, expect trouble.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 23 2020, @10:28PM (1 child)
Can't tolerate intolerance is probably a poor example when looking for how to construct an example CoC that violates itself.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 24 2020, @01:08AM
Sheesh, you're missing the simplest solution: just add a K
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @11:29PM (2 children)
You are missing the "with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person" part. Coercion, intimidation, and harassment are already not covered by the First Amendment. If you mail someone a letter or said something to their face with the same content and attendant circumstance, it wouldn't be protected by the First Amendment. They are just extending the same crime to computer communications.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Friday January 24 2020, @03:53PM (1 child)
Actually that's not true. Intimidation can take many forms, only "true threats" at not protected. Intimidate is a subjective listener specific experience. I can intimidate you into doing something, because I make you fear losing your job if you don't, that's 100% legal intimidation. Managers do it all the time.
Categories not protected include: True threats (threats of bodily harm, not e.g. firing you), Obscenity, Imminent Incitement to Lawless Action, and that's about it. Vulgar and profane language in particular are protected, as the "Fighting Words Exception" does not apply to internet/remote speech because you cannot punch someone on the other side of the internet. So while using profane language in person can be unprotected, the "least restrictive means" does not allow the fighting words exception to apply to remote speech because the "compelling purpose" of preventing fights does not require such restriction be applied to internet speech.
There's also no Federal Appellate case suggesting that "harassment" is an exception to the First Amendment, and it wouldn't be compatible with the Strict Scrutiny test which you should read up on.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @09:02PM
So you know that "obscene" is a term of art in legal parlance when referring to speech, but apparently not what attendant circumstances are. Interesting. Additionally, none of what you say negates what I said. The law in this area is so well-settled, there is a reason why it doesn't come up very often. Regardless, it is not the speech these statutes regulate, but rather the non-expressive conduct. Or, as the Supreme Court once put it,
I'll just leave these for your perusal: Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942), Baker v. State, 16 Ariz.App. 463, 494 P.2d 68 (1972); People v. Hernandez, 231 Cal.App.3d 1376, 1383-86, 283 Cal.Rptr. 81 (1991); State v. Keaton, 371 So.2d 86 (Fla.1979); State v. Jaeger, 249 N.W.2d 688, 691 (Iowa 1977); People v. Taravella, 133 Mich.App. 515, 350 N.W.2d 780 (1984); State v. Kipf, 234 Neb. 227, 450 N.W.2d 397, 404-05 (1990); People v. Cirruzzo, 53 Misc.2d 995, 281 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563 (1967); State v. Crelly, 313 N.W.2d 455, 457 (S.D.1981).
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @11:37PM (2 children)
Hell, it doesn't even make new things illegal. If you look at the bill text, it adds the location of the actus reus to the victim's domicile to the possible venues and changes a couple of verb tenses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @12:16AM (1 child)
I butchered that one.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 24 2020, @01:00AM
Exactly! The overbroad language under discussion was passed by Republicans in 2000.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 24 2020, @12:51AM (4 children)
Democrats did not pass that legislation and are not trying to pass it here!
This is an amendment to an existing bill which was passed in 2000.
And this language is from the original bill from 2000:
And take a wild guess who was in power back then!!
In Virginia, Republicans held trifecta control of state government from 2000 to 2001 [ballotpedia.org]
Sorry Buzzard, you fingered the wrong guys.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @01:20AM (2 children)
Look at the history [virginia.gov]. It was introduced by David B. Albo, a Republican, passed, in final form, the Republican-controlled Senate unanimously on 03/07/00 and the House unaimously (with 4 not voting) on 03/09/00, before being signed 04/09/00 by then Governor Jim Gilmore, a life-long Republican and current Trump-appointed ambassador.
I'm not saying that neither the Dems nor the Reps are perfect, but if you are going to criticize a group for "go[ing] balls out after the 1A," you might want to check your facts first.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 24 2020, @02:39AM (1 child)
Expecting El Buzztardo to check facts is like expecting mountain climbing lessons from a giant clam. He has an agenda to push, and he's one of the most singularly feelz-driven people on the entire site. This is made worse by his constant projection accusation that everyone *else* is that way and only he stands above it as some paragon of rationality.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @09:03PM
He is so much like Trump. Loves to troll, bullies people instead of using facts and discussion, can never admit he's wrong except on trivial technical matters, and is the best/most/least whatever thing that he thinks makes him look good, and he abuses his power. He doesn't seem to actually be as bad as Trump, but I chalk that up to not growing up with a silver spoon. Besides, Trump is a pretty fuckin low bar to clear.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @05:19PM
Now THAT is just rich. Buzztardo's totally valid example that the liberals all agreed was authoritarian trash is actually a conservative plot!!
I guess we'll be waiting forever for him to retract and apologize. He values honesty and personal responsibility right? He's a no bullshit facts only kind of guy, riiiight?
(Score: 4, Touché) by Reziac on Thursday January 23 2020, @02:47PM
Boy, that's a lot of words just to say, "Thou shalt not criticize thy masters."
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:04PM
What a bunch of fuckwits.
That sentence alone should be good for twenty years in prison, don't you think?
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:05PM (12 children)
What are 1A and 2A?
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:11PM
1A and 2A refer to first amendment (rights of free speech) and second amendment (rights of bearing arms) to the US constitution.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:18PM (9 children)
What he said. With the frequency actual patriots are having to type them lately, it saves a shitload of characters to abbreviate.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:26PM (8 children)
Still don't know what 1A and 2A mean.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:27PM
Ah! Another comment just explained it.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:45PM (6 children)
1A: free speech
2A: bare arms
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @07:06PM (4 children)
Bare arms? Like wearing a tank top? Shit, I've been collecting stuffed polar and grizzly bear front legs all this time!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @10:03PM (3 children)
No no, bear arms. The right to hang a pair of bear arms at your log cabbin ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @11:27PM
What about bare bear arms?
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday January 24 2020, @04:39AM (1 child)
I always thought it was Bear arms - i.e. weapons that Bears can use. I've been adding paw-sized triggers to my AR-15's for years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 25 2020, @09:17PM
For some reason, that reminded me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Kj7q7n2r0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @08:50PM
FTFY
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:26PM
1st and 2nd Amendments to the US Constitution, respectively.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:40PM (8 children)
Things that are already a crime can be prosecuted by the City of Richmond in certain situations. *YAWN*
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday January 23 2020, @04:49PM (4 children)
In amending this law and drawing attention to it, they could help to get it off the books. The new language seems designed to shield Ralph Northam, Justin Fairfax, and Mark Herring from criticism.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 24 2020, @01:02AM (3 children)
It's not new language...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 24 2020, @01:17AM (2 children)
So they aren't attempting to amend a law?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 24 2020, @01:34AM (1 child)
This is the existing law, passed in 2000 by Republicans: § 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty. [virginia.gov]
It contains the overbroad language:
They're ammending it to include this part:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 01 2020, @12:09AM
Everybody else is on their own.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 23 2020, @04:58PM
If they take me back to Richmond,
They won't take me back alive!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCj3bWEzxfQ [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:23PM (1 child)
Yes, you have to read the actual bill. I know it goes against many years of precedent here but it is what it is.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @05:21PM
Sooooo, ready to retract and apologize for your factually incorrect attack? Or will you do some mental gymnastics like "but Democrsts voted to keep it so they're just as bad anyway and I don't have to apologize for shit"???
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @05:28PM (40 children)
You get all worked up over this stupidity but can't be bothered tonvondemn the kids in cages, massive corruption, or the blatant coverup of Trump's crimes going on right now.
Yes this is some epic level unconstitutional nanny state bullshit, but when you only get outraged by "their side" it really doesn't look good. You have driven all sense of cooperation and comraderie from my spirit to the point where even something like this makes me wanna just tell you to fuck off. Especially after all the times liberals around here have supported prosecuting Democrat ciminals.
Try again oh butthurt buzzard.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Freeman on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:10PM (20 children)
Are you an AI that's learning how to communicate or did your brain just glitch there?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:14PM (18 children)
It looks like a typo. That doesn't make the message wrong. Try reading for comprehension sometime.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:20PM (16 children)
Typos usually involve one word and I can generally decipher the meaning. I couldn't even fathom what they were trying to elucidate. Then again, going by the rest of the post, it's probably best left ignored.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:33PM (1 child)
The n key is close the space, and v right next to c. My waking up brain, clumsy fingers, and not proof reading. As for auto correct, it drives me more nuts than typos.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:53PM
Aha, thanks.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 23 2020, @09:21PM (13 children)
Really? You have some willful ignorance issues then. I could understand it perfectly. You mean you don't *want* to fathom what they were trying to elucidate.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Freeman on Thursday January 23 2020, @10:23PM (12 children)
No, I understood that garbled mess after they noted the typo. I also understood everything before and after that, before I understood what the garbled mess was.
Currently, everything going on with the Trump impeachment is hearsay, essentially gossip.
Either,Trump did a whole lot of CYAorand there's a whole lot of fishing going on here. Trump's alleged attempt at interfering with an allegedly corrupt political opponent, seems like they should have all been doing a whole lot of CYA. Considering how few facts have been managed, it looks like everyone was doing a pretty good job on that front. Or it's a bunch of hogwash.Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @12:30AM (11 children)
Ok, so since the obvious crime that we have proof and witnesses for is not enough for you, here is the easy one everyone glosses over because it is such a drop in the swamp.
Emoluments violations. He enriches himself to the tune of millions by using his own properties. Not to mention hiring his own family.
Just astounding you conservatives are STILL defending him. I truly never thought we would see The Ministry of Truth in the US, but here we are.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 24 2020, @02:40AM (2 children)
Freeman is a religious fanatic, either a JW or some species closely aligned with them, and is privately agitating for The Battle of Armageddon. He's smart enough not to say it here, but it's fairly obvious given what and who he defends.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @05:26PM (1 child)
I know, I've seen his religious support posts. But I'm not gonna let such an ignorant comment go uncorrected. This narrative that all evidence against Trump is hearsay is dangerously stupid. They are willfully accepting the excuses and somehow ignoring all the actual evidence. I wonder how many conservatives here actually read more than Barr's bullshit summary of the Mueller report, or even the bullshit redacted memo, errr sorry "TRANSCRIPT!"
Trump actively hides all evidence, illegally blocks subpoenas, and conservatives bend right over and take it with shit eating grins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 25 2020, @12:06AM
There is no solution to willful ignorance. Nations die because of willful ignorance. These shitheads would rather pitch the entire country into the toilet than admit that they're supporting a monster, and the longer their support goes on, the more self-reinforcing it becomes, if nothing else as a result of the sunk-costs fallacy.
There's no solution to this. We've passed too many tipping points. This country is going to burn, and no one knows what will arise from the ashes, nor how many innocents will roast alive and how many guilty flee with their wealth.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @03:04AM (7 children)
we have proof
You do? Where?? Maybe if you cough it up, you might make some headway. So far nobody has proven he has done anything out of the ordinary. It has been pearl clutching gossip all the way. That's why they tread so lightly on "witnesses". Discovery would sink the whole ship. But actually not, Trump has proven that any politician can *shoot somebody on 5th Avenue* and not lose their base. He has proven how primitive and tribal our "modern" society really is. And despite that proof, society remains as primitive as it ever was.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @09:22PM (6 children)
You keep denying reality, and I'm done sourcing the proof. Every time I have you asshats deny with shitty excuses and readoning. Why spend effort to repeat muself when you'll just stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalalalalafffaaakeneeeewwwwzzz?
I'll give you the lazy version though. Multiple emoluments violations, soliciting foreign interference in a US election, multiple abuses of power for personal gain, and obstruction of justice. Those are the easy ones off the top of my head that are already proven.
Now you'll tell me it is all hearsay, just a joke, he is allowed to do that (no he is not), or "not a crime!" Reminder, you conservatives flipped OUT over Clinton lying about a blow job and ran a very thorough trial with witnesses and evidence, the whole minimum you'd expect. Somehow you think it is OK that Trump can withhold evidence from congress? Can lie and block subpoenas? Conservatives are actively protecting a criminal and doing everything they can to not admit it, but the rest of us can see it quite clearly.
The coup is happening, and they lie to you saying it is the DEMON DEMOCRATS doing it. Being a properly brainwashed minion you nod along, mmhmmm, yep, all those reports are fake neeewwwws I tell you hwhat!! /s
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 25 2020, @02:14AM (5 children)
Yo are positively, absolutely full of crap. You have only produced gossip throughout the entire circus show, just like the Harper Valley PTA. Give us EV-I-DENCE! of something, anything IL-LEGAL! that's not part of everyday bidness in Washington D.C. You can't do it, without taking down everybody. That's why this is BORING! And so are you people. You should be looking for somebody worth voting for.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday January 25 2020, @02:51AM (2 children)
Impeachment is a vote of confidence, not a legal process. Apparently, Presidents can commit crimes and just pardon themselves, so there is no point trying to prosecute them until after they leave office. And even if they didn't sign their own pardon, the next President might do it.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" [theatlantic.com] means whatever Congress wants it to mean. For example, the President picks his nose while on camera. If actual crimes or things that are heinous enough to seem like crimes are uncovered, that could be useful for making the case for impeachment and removal from office.
In the end, impeachment is a political game to try to convince 2/3 of the Senate to remove the President. Apparently, neither the public* nor the necessary number of Republican Senators are outraged enough (or politically pressured to feign outrage) by anything President Trump has done. I doubt any number of witnesses will change that. Is there an unrevealed bombshell that could change that? If it exists and Republicans don't allow the necessary witnesses to be called, it should just be announced by Schumer or whoever at a press conference. It could then generate the outrage and factor into the vote, or new articles of impeachment could be drafted.
*If some revelation were to cause millions of Republicans to not vote for Trump and other Republican politicians in November (since many vote straight ticket), that would be the kind of pressure that might cause Senators to flip. As long as the polling is split [fivethirtyeight.com], he is not going to be removed from office.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 25 2020, @02:54AM
I should at least go buy some marshmallows to roast over this burning country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 25 2020, @07:34AM
Any real evidence of a crime involving Trump or any other republican will always have a matching democrat standing right beside them. This is why none will be released. All that is left is hearsay and innuendo. It is the perfect Mexican Standoff. Nobody can be touched without blowing up the whole shebang. Understand this, and you will know why the whole thing is bullshit, further entrenching the fascists that nobody will vote out.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 25 2020, @04:31AM (1 child)
No matter how many times you scream that it won't magically become true.
But I'm reminded of the Clinton impeachment. If Bill could be impeached for lying about a blowjob I think Trump can be impeached and removed from office for any of the thousands of lies he's told, especially the ones where he denied doing something and then we found out yes he did.
Take your pick of reasons he should be immediately removed from office, there are plenty to spread around.
I do like how TMB has started saying "name one thing he's done that other presidents haven't," as if that is a valid reason to forgive crimes. However no president has solicited foreign interference in elections, abused their power to obstruct investigations, lied so very much about everything, fired the director of the FBI for investigating the president, etc. etc. etc.
Try to keep up, reality doesn't really penetrate the Fox News and associated propaganda outlets very well. Don't worry your delicate little head, CNN is a bullshit news network as well even if they can't match up to Fox's level of lies and deception.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 01 2020, @12:30AM
Have you forgotten Nixon?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:35PM
Looks more like a text to speech fuck up.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Funny) by RandomFactor on Thursday January 23 2020, @10:43PM
Probably just needs some covfefe.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:33PM (13 children)
What's your solution to detaining illegal immigrants and their children? You prefer them separated from their parents? Perhaps you think we should put them all up in a suite together pending their deportation hearings?
Massive corruption and blatant coverup? You mean how so many Dem lawmakers' children work for Ukranian oil companies and they've actually gone as far as trying to nix any investigation by impeaching the President for looking into it? Yeah, I'm in favor of that. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Or did you mean the accusations the Dems have been making since day one of his Presidency, without yet providing proof of anything illegal on Trump's part?
If you want to witness me pissed at Trump, bring up his shitty position on the 2A. None of the rest of the shit he's done really registers against the background levels of bullshit in DC.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:40PM (11 children)
They are already separated from their parents, pay attention.
You're an idiot with that whataboutism, but I would have no problem with an investigation of Biden.
Trump called for election interference during the campaign, and then got it less than 24 hours later. That alone is grounds for impeachmeant, and we can tack on all his petty lies and petty abuses of power. Where is your outrage over him leading chants of "lock her up" after multiple Republican led investigations couldn't nail Clinton for anything? Oh right, hypocrisy as usual.
So you're a morally defunct law-disrespecting cunt? Got it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @07:00PM
Additionally you can compare the reasoning given for impeaching Trump with that of Obama. With Trump there are actual laws he broke, with the exception of the "association with white nationalism" which is impeachable (since impeachment doesn't require law breaking necessarily) but I doubt illegal. We now know Stephen Miller is a white nationalist pushing racist policies. We know Teump abused his power and colluded publicly with Russia, and no you don't get to hand wave his request for them to hack his opponents.
So to recap, Republicans pull all sorts of shit on Obama and not a peep of protest from you. Democrats call out actual crimes Teump committed before and after the election and you think that is some kind of proof it is a partisan witch hunt?
Hell, I remember seeing the news break about Comey being fired and thought "that's it, the country is toast" because I knew Trump wasn't going to be held accountable. He even admitted he did it because of the Russia investigation.
A fucking cartoon villain and you say you'll only be upset if he comes for your guns? Time for you to truly re-evaluate your priorities while considering the possibility you may be the sort of tribal politics person you dislike so much.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @07:01PM (3 children)
Yes, dumbass, I know this. And they have been since Clinton. Previously they were kept with their parents. Being kept in cages is what happens when you get straight up busted breaking the law though. What is your solution?
There was no whataboutism. There was me saying that the Dems are straight up fabricating bullshit as a smokescreen to keep their asses out of prison. And giving orders to the executive branch organizations to investigate corruption is not only allowed for the President, it is part of his job. Yes, even if one of the subjects of the investigation is running against him. Hell, especially if one of the subjects is running for office.
Now your whataboutism on Clinton? I'll answer that even though it's an obvious dodge. You're talking about an investigation led by Obama appointee James Comey that found she most certainly did break the law, knew she was breaking the law, "but she didn't mean any harm by it, so we're not going to do anything about it".
Get better at this shit or keep getting smacked down.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @07:16PM
Lol ok boomer
Logic and reason for me, crazy conspiracies for thee! Super awesome debate my man, keep doing god's warblgarbl!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @07:25PM
I just realized that this unsubstantiated paranoia, remember Comey tanked Clinton in 2016, is exactly why you're giving Trump a pass. The GOP gaslightes you guys so badly by accusing everyone else of what they do that now you don't care! You think it is fair turnabout or something.
So Mr. ShowMeTheSource, care to back up your bold claims? The difference between you and me is that I would gladly watch Clinton or Obama get locked up for their crimes, I have no loyalty to those corporate sellouts who value money and power over what's right.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @02:45AM
According to wikipedia, the first offense is a misdemeanor. [wikipedia.org] I will also note that showing up at a border checkpoint and asking for asylum is not an illegal act. And just to piss you off, I am going to quote the second paragraph from that webpage:
Issue them a citation with a court date to present their case. According to Human Rights first [humanrightsfirst.org]:
They are seeing 89% of all asylum applicants showing up for their hearing. That number rises to 98% when they have access to legal representation. I would wager that you don't see that kind of compliance rate with court summons even from US citizens!
And just to pierce your reality distortion field yet again, James Comey has served under both Republican and Democrat administrations. In fact, until quite recently, he was a long-time registered Republican. Go ahead and do your own google search if you doubt me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday January 24 2020, @05:46AM (4 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 24 2020, @04:37PM (3 children)
HAHAHA! Accurate information out of the Trump admin?
Here is some accurate information: The President of the United States of America abused the power of his office to bribe a foreign government into announcing an investigation into Biden based on ZERO evidence.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday January 24 2020, @06:06PM (2 children)
Umm, nope. That's not what I said at all. Try reading it again.
The Trump administration didn't publish the DNC archives. That was wikileaks.
A far more reputable source than the Trump administration; or any recent administration for that matter.
All Trump had to do with it was his, I think you called it 'soliciting' or something like that. Which amounted to making a flip comment at one point that he wished someone *would* publish HRCs emails so we could see what a crook she was. And subsequently wikileaks received the archive. And from that coïncidence MSNBC has fabricated three years running of breathless conspiracy theory. "What if the Russians turned off your gas?"
"Here is some accurate information: The President of the United States of America abused the power of his office to bribe a foreign government into announcing an investigation into Biden based on ZERO evidence."
Read the transcript not Adam Schiff's "parody." He said nothing at all about announcing an investigation, he asked him to look into the matter, period.
Also didn't mention the aid, btw. Your narrative just seems to fall apart when you actually examine the supposed evidence.
Let me be clear, Trump *should* be impeached. That's the one thing we seem to agree on here.
But he should be impeached for actual crimes he's committed, and unfortunately the establishment/corporate wing of the Democrats is dominant, and they're all knee-deep in the same blood that Trump is. They have no desire whatsoever to actually oppose him, and that is clear in their budget appropriations, and in the way they consistently shut out amendments by e.g Rep Gabbard among others which actually oppose his criminal agenda.
Instead, they seem to be putting on a piece of theatre in which they desperately attempt to convince their own voters that they are actually doing something to oppose him, and thus are still worthy of support. It's not even well done, and it almost seems like they don't even want to win the Presidency anymore, they're happier being pretend opposition.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 24 2020, @06:30PM
Oh yep, I was confused. Trump has committed so many election crimes it's easy to get them mixed up!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 25 2020, @09:27PM
They finally released the full transcript? Oh no they didn't. It is still classified and unreleased in the White House classified archive server. Instead they released a couple of pages that are the unsourced recollections that were subsequently edited, not the word-for-word transcript. The length of the memo vs the duration of the call shows there are obvious unexplained omissions, even with translators slowing everything down.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 25 2020, @10:15AM
That's just stupid. You're not even bothering to pretend that Trump committed a crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @08:32PM
What's your solution to detaining illegal immigrants and their children?
You tag 'em and cut 'em loose! What's the big deal? I could use a little help around the house and yard. Don't be such a pain in the ass!
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by DannyB on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:50PM (1 child)
Just because I didn't mention every possible injustice in the entire universe doesn't mean I don't care about those also.
People on this planet every single day are forced to suffer Microsoft Windows and other Microsoft atrocities. (atro cities)
Advertising
DMCA
systemd
And the list goes on.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @07:04PM
As far as I can tell everytime you complain about something the Democrats are doing you need to give a full hundred page essay on all the other problems out there you have. At which point they will call you out for the one you forgot to mention or just tell you TLDR
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @07:03PM (1 child)
I have been complaining about kids in cages since the Clinton administration, it only got popular once Dems branded the same methods being used by prior administrations as cages.
Also, Trump's crimes? Cite sources. Schiff yesterday told us that they both needed more time to find evidence to impeach but also had found all the evidence they needed. Might want to check your latest talking points so you can stay on topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @12:33AM
He has already been impeached, and they need to compel the administration to actually follow the subpoenas. You don't have much gray matter do you? Being led around by that nose ring the cattlemen stuck in ya?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @01:00AM
Only lesbians and trannies should be kept in cages. Kids should be tethered outdoors where they can get fresh air and sunshine.