Because Trump 2.0

[Michael Eastes]

5 hours ago, Soren Ras said:

You are only human. We are all sinners and that must rank very low on the list.

Although, if your schadenboner lasts more than a few days, maybe see a doctor...

Also, nice to see you are posting again, my friend.

--
Soren

 

It’s nice to be seen, good sir. I’m hoping to stick around for a while this time.

[RETAC21]

Unbelivable! Trumo didn't pardon Joe Exotic!

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2021-01-20/tiger-king-joe-exotic-trump-pardon-snub

[Stuart Galbraith]

Did I hear correctly Trump pardoned someone with an 800 year sentence for money laundering?

[rmgill]

13 hours ago, Angrybk said:

 I think old-school Republicanism died (foreign policy wise) 

What is this? So we understand what you think you're talking about? 

Wilsonian? Jacksonian? Jeffersonian? Hamiltonian? Something else? 

[rmgill]

11 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I do find it a great Irony the amount of people on here that decry censorship by the Social media companies, who then go and block everyone they disagree with. That really is epic doublethink that Orwell would be proud of. 

Of course you're confused by the distinctions which are very important and large.

Not engaging with someone you find tiresome and pointless to engage with is different than deplatforming them. 

In the former case, you're not listening to them but they're free to engage others who do. In the latter case, you're actively censoring them from even being able to communicate. 

I don't listen to or read the New York Times. That's entirely different than having the DOJ roll up and arrest the staff and close down the paper, locking the doors and preventing their ability to communicate at all. This is only incrementally different than the Social Media Censorship. That is like the Local Power company the local phone Company/ILECs/Fiber Providers cutting off the New York Times and doing the same, all at the behest of conservatives in government. 

If government gets a 3rd party to censor you is it still censorship? I think so. We were told for years that the McCarthy hearings and the black listing was bad. Now the left is doing this whole hog more than 2 generations later. 

[R011]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Did I hear correctly Trump pardoned someone with an 800 year sentence for money laundering?

Yeah. Sholam Weiss. 845 years as it happens.  He's served 18 years which seems an appropriate time. A multi century sentence seems almost comical.

[Mikel2]

35 minutes ago, R011 said:

Yeah. Sholam Weiss. 845 years as it happens.  He's served 18 years which seems an appropriate time. A multi century sentence seems almost comical.

 

So if he laundered the money of the first Medici, he could start packing his bags in another 90 years.

 

Who did he piss off?

Edited January 22, 2021 by Mikel2

[sunday]

53 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Of course you're confused by the distinctions which are very important and large.

Not engaging with someone you find tiresome and pointless to engage with is different than deplatforming them. 

Indeed. For instance, Stuart perhaps should write less and read, and think more, but he is not a troll, at the end.

There are others that, for instance, have engaged in hounding staff members, and general gaslighting, those are the real pit vipers. A while ago I read that if you find a viper climbing your leg, the best course of action is not moving at all. Ignoring them helps in that regard.

Edited January 22, 2021 by sunday

[glenn239]

Stuart's a 24/7 pain in my ass around here, but I couldn't picture enjoying the site nearly as much without him.

I would very much like it to be public information how many times each poster has contacted moderator.    Simply posting this statistic would reduce the number of messages to moderator considerably.  (Wouldn't be too difficult between a poster with 2 moderator message vs. one with 400 to figure out which is the problem).

Edited January 22, 2021 by glenn239

[R011]

59 minutes ago, Mikel2 said:

 

So if he laundered the money of the first Medici, he could start packing his bags in another 90 years.

 

Who did he piss off?

Some US jurisdictions sentence consecutively rather than concurrently.  Enough counts with long sentences back to back each treated separately and you can get hundreds of years for what other places would give a couple of decades. 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

Yeah. Sholam Weiss. 845 years as it happens.  He's served 18 years which seems an appropriate time. A multi century sentence seems almost comical.

And it was a sentence commutation, not a pardon, Stuart. He's still a felon, he still has a record. He's just not in prison for an ungodly period of time. Interestingly it looks like much of the necessary restitution was made which is odd given the sentence handed down.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/commutation-sentence.html
 

 

Quote

 

Commutation of Sentence

How about a little punishment reduction?

Commutation is a form of clemency that reduces the punishment for a crime. It usually takes the form of a reduced (“commuted”) prison term, but can also reduce court-ordered fines.

A commuted sentence replaces the original, court-ordered sentence. A controversial example is ex-President Bush’s 2007 decision to commute Scooter Libby’s 30-month prison sentence.

Compared to Pardons

Like the pardoning power, the power to commute sentences is in the executive’s discretion; neither the legislative nor judicial branch can interfere with or override that power.

Although commutation is considered part of the pardoning power, there are significant differences between commutations and pardons.

• Forgiveness vs. reduction. Pardons forgive the defendant for the crime, while commutation only reduces the sentence.
• Acceptance. Prisoners must accept pardons, but some states allow commuted sentences without the prisoner’s consent.
• Civil rights. Unlike pardons, commutations don’t restore the civil rights lost with the criminal conviction.
• Basis. Prisoners usually earn commutation through good behavior, while pardons can be issued for a wide variety of reasons, some of which may be purely political.

 

•  

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Indeed. For instance, Stuart perhaps should write less and read, and think more, but he is not a troll, at the end.

There are others that, for instance, have engaged in hounding staff members, and general gaslighting, those are the real pit vipers. A while ago I read that if you find a viper climbing your leg, the best course of action is not moving at all. Ignoring them helps in that regard.

Maybe if you didn't indulge you fetish for censorship so rigorously, I could understand your criticism about writing. Call me a troll if you will, but my opinion is free and I never run away from a discussion because I'm afraid someone else might be right.

Oh, but you aren't reading this anyway, my bad. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

Yeah. Sholam Weiss. 845 years as it happens.  He's served 18 years which seems an appropriate time. A multi century sentence seems almost comical.

Cheers, it was on CNN so I thought I better check.

[Skywalkre]

On 1/20/2021 at 3:46 PM, nitflegal said:

As of just now, do Michelle Malkin and Gateway Pundit count?  'Cause they got suspended today.

No.

First off, they were just suspended and not kicked off.

Second, a place like Gateway Pundit makes the National Enquirer look like Pulitzer-award winning journalism after stomaching all those posts Murph used to throw up from that site.  If that's considered mainstream R then the Rs have far more issues to deal with than Twitter's recent moves.

While a name like Malkin I actually recognize I haven't followed her in ages.  Apparently she's gone down the Trump fanboy route and tweeted on the 19th alleging, incorrectly, that the election was stolen.  I'm guessing that's the tweet that got her in hot water.

Again, this hardly represents a purge of Conservative voices in general (and all of them appear to be Trump fanboys) but just fringe elements.

[rmgill]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Maybe if you didn't indulge you fetish for censorship so rigorously,

Police coming round to check your views is thought policing. That's a form of censorship.

Police arresting you for things they don't like you saying is censorship.

The government closing down your news paper is censorship.

The government sending the goon squad around to smash your printing presses is censorship.

Someone ignoring you isn't censorship. You're still able to write what ever you want, even on the Grate Site. He's not even taking any overt action against you other than disagreeing with you. That's not censorship.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

[rmgill]

5 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

No.

First off, they were just suspended and not kicked off.

The connection with government makes it very suspicious and a problem. If someone in government hires or persuades a mob to go over and smash your news paper it's just as wrong. The same goes for clear examples of anti-competitive behavior and government sanctioned market capture. There's a clear revolving door between DNC policy wonks/staffers/cabinet staff and certain tech companies.
 

Quote

Second, a place like Gateway Pundit makes the National Enquirer look like Pulitzer-award winning journalism after stomaching all those posts Murph used to throw up from that site. 

Sorry. This post hoc justification makes your point disingenuous. The fact that it goes beyond just those examples and is far more broad makes your point VERY disingenuous.

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by rmgill

[Skywalkre]

On 1/18/2021 at 9:12 AM, Jeff said:

Holy facepalm, Batman!

I can't count how many times conservatives I follow on Twitter have been booted, throttled, forced to edit perfectly innocuous posts and temp banned, or how many times I've been forced to re-follow them repeatedly.

It's like the German citizenry claiming they didn't know about the death camps because they never actually took a tour of one, never mind all those Jews being loaded on train cars and disappearing. If you're unaware, it's because you actively choose NOT to be aware.

Holy reading comprehension failure, Batman!

The point in question was Twitter's actions two weeks ago when they banned Trump and various accounts.  The claim was they

Quote

kicked off 70,000 Twitter accounts including many prominent conservative voices who weren't Trump groupies

which turned out not to be remotely accurate.  The overwhelming majority kicked off were nobodies and the most prominent voices, if we even want to call them that, were all nutcases peddling Trump's BS claims about the election.

It's also awfully rich for you to push that bolded bit I highlighted at the end of your comment.  That statement applies to most of the posters here on TN, in particular those that share the views you often espouse (go look in the mirror if you want to see one example).  We have all the BS peddled in recent weeks about key D leaders like Biden not condemning the violence (which they actually had been and was even discussed in this very thread months ago when one such example was mentioned during the debates), we have this notion of referring to every protest last summer as a riot (even one of the links rmgill posted a week or two ago mentioned how ~95% of all protests were peaceful), all the BS over on the COVID thread regarding HCQ (looking at you with this one, once again, Jeff...).

The bolded bit is a great point to be brought up... but it applies to everyone.  Get off your high horse and stop thinking it's just "the other side" who do this. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

Of course you're confused by the distinctions which are very important and large.

Not engaging with someone you find tiresome and pointless to engage with is different than deplatforming them. 

In the former case, you're not listening to them but they're free to engage others who do. In the latter case, you're actively censoring them from even being able to communicate. 

I don't listen to or read the New York Times. That's entirely different than having the DOJ roll up and arrest the staff and close down the paper, locking the doors and preventing their ability to communicate at all. This is only incrementally different than the Social Media Censorship. That is like the Local Power company the local phone Company/ILECs/Fiber Providers cutting off the New York Times and doing the same, all at the behest of conservatives in government. 

If government gets a 3rd party to censor you is it still censorship? I think so. We were told for years that the McCarthy hearings and the black listing was bad. Now the left is doing this whole hog more than 2 generations later. 

I remember I said some years ago many here loathe the thought of state surveillance, but were perfectly ok when the Google earth can drive by their house. It's the way of the modern world that more and more things traditionally the ballistic of Government will be undertaken by the private sector. Robocop was prescient about that.

We have all become too reliant on social media. it's massively changed the way we interact.But ultimately, if a newspaper editor won't publish your letter or column, that is in reality no different than what was done to Trump. We don't see it as a problem when it's print media, we only envisage its different in the digital realm. Ok, so he is a President, but is it any different from what's been done to others? Recently Yahoo withdrew all its newsgroups, some of which I was attached to. That is also deplatforming, but nobody gets worked up about it.

As it happens, I feel uneasy that it was a life ban also. Shutting him up for 2 weeks was no bad idea under the circumstances, but banning for life seems wholly excessive when the leaders of Iran are free to use Twitter and call for the death of israel. Even the power of Twitter admitted that.

My view, we need a digital equivalent of magna Carta or the US constitution, or such aberrations will continue to happen.

[rmgill]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I remember I said some years ago many here loathe the thought of state surveillance, but were perfectly ok when the Google earth can drive by their house. It's the way of the modern world that more and more things traditionally the ballistic of Government will be undertaken by the private sector. Robocop was prescient about that.

When the drive bys become clear harassment it stops being ok.

One can look into one's neighbor's house from one's own house. If one goes over and start standing at the window looking in, then it's a problem.

 

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We have all become too reliant on social media. it's massively changed the way we interact.

It's a social commons. Just the same as the town square became with the increase of towns societally changed things, so too does the internet.

Setting up a commons to garner traffic from it and then restricting it to those you like and from those you don't while allowing criminal behavior (like child porn) sets a rather strong precedent against one's just purpose.

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

But ultimately, if a newspaper editor won't publish your letter or column, that is in reality no different than what was done to Trump.

No. Because it's not a news paper, it's a town square run by a private corporation.

And it goes beyond that, to anti-competitive practices to close down competing companies that DO allow that audience it's preferred speakers.

Google, Apple, Amazon and Twitter have a clear prior existing business relationship. This is just like US steel getting Pennsy and New York Central To screw Bethlehem steel out of shipping their coal, ore and smelting products.

As a railroad geek you should be aware of these sorts of issues and understand why they're bad. This is standard Anti-Trust law stuff, aka horizontal anti-competitive trade practices.

 

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We don't see it as a problem when it's print media

If your print company goes to the virtual monopoly on printing press equipment or the Pressman's union and arranges to have the competitor upstart stopped from printing the book it's wrong and probably very illegal.

 

[Skywalkre]

On 1/20/2021 at 10:55 AM, nitflegal said:

So as a supporter of Trump's policies and a believer that he did a lot of good things while in office can we all agree that at the end on his last day he went out as a bitch?  Bombshell document releases with the usual redactedness to uselessness, pardons of rappers and Democrats and removing his anti-lobbying EO seem like a major kick to the nuts of his supporters and I suspect have eliminated him from 2024 contention.  Which is probably not a bad thing for the Republicans.

Seeing the responses since you posted this it would seem most still support him.  I'm not really surprised because I think there were legit criticisms of him throughout his entire Presidency.  Supporters were simply unwilling to acknowledge them.  It seemed like it was more important, ultimately, that Trump pissed off the Left (no matter how much of a petulant child he looked like while doing it or how petty of something they got pissed off over) than actually accomplish anything lasting and meaningful.

Ultimately I think one can really only argue for four accomplishments: the tax bill (which plenty of folks argue wasn't much of an accomplishment), the breakthroughs in relations between Israel and several minor ME nations, Operation Warp Speed, and his judicial appointments (though this may be marred if the Ds end up packing the USSC).  Otherwise so much of what he did was simply through EO (some of which have already been undone by Biden) or way overblown (like his supposed regulatory reforms).

It's a shame... the author of The Art of the Deal was never able to reach across the aisle to handle such issues as legit Healthcare reform, student loan reform, police/LE/judicial reform, dismantling of the MIC, and the list goes on...

Edited January 22, 2021 by Skywalkre

[Skywalkre]

On 1/20/2021 at 11:29 PM, R011 said:

You mean using every legal avenue open to him to overturn an election he and a third of Americans believe was fraudulent?

Why do folks keep throwing this out like it adds legitimacy?  Cruz, back on the day the Capitol was stormed, during his speech challenging the election results threw out a similar figure.

So... where was all this R concern last summer when during the protests nearly 1 in 6 Americans actually took to the streets to protest at one time or another?  Where an even larger number of Americans were calling for various reforms/inquiries/action regarding the treatment of minorities by police and the judicial system?

It's such a hollow statement to hear when Rs only care about a certain 1/3 of the population caring about something...

[R011]

Fifty five million Americans were on the street protesting?  That seems a bit high.  Got a source?

[Skywalkre]

17 hours ago, Detonable said:

 Or the 1/3 that wondered how Trump received higher percentages of the black and Hispanic vote than any Republican presidential candidate ever, and still lost. It's not just the extra votes for Trump, each one was also a lost vote for the Democrats.

This doesn't appear to be accurate unless whoever is pushing that argument is looking at total votes cast... which could be true but total votes cast will always be higher as the population grows and if the % of said population stays close to a norm.  However, you mentioned percentage of the vote and per this article what Trump did looks impressive if you only look back a few elections.  Go back more than a decade and his numbers with minorities is really nothing special.

[Michael Eastes]

It is simply astonishing to me that anyone could look at the last election and not see problems. Then again, I’ve thought for decades now that “progressivism” is a mental illness. Prove me wrong. 
 

Don’t bother trying; you can’t.

[Josh]

21 minutes ago, Michael Eastes said:

It is simply astonishing to me that anyone could look at the last election and not see problems. Then again, I’ve thought for decades now that “progressivism” is a mental illness. Prove me wrong. 
 

Don’t bother trying; you can’t.

Indeed, I have given up on presenting facts to Trumpists.