America - The Official Thread

[Northstar]

Judge Esther Salas was the target of a potential hit over the weekend that left her son dead and her husband wounded.

New Jersey federal judge's son killed, husband critical after being shot at home

While what happened in itself is bad, there's more to the story. Judge Salas was recently assigned to the lawsuit against Deutsche Bank by investors. In the lawsuit, the investors claim that Deutsche Bank didn't adhere to an anti-money laundering policy and, this is the crucial detail, overlooked Jeffery Epstein, and the money he was getting for sex trafficking. I'm not saying some rich and powerful person ordered the hit because they're connected with Epstein, but if, how does the old saying go? If the shoe fits.

And now the suspect has conveniently been found dead.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/19/us/federal-judge-esther-salas-shooting-investigation/index.html

The plot thickens.

 

[Joey D]

And now the suspect has conveniently been found dead.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/19/us/federal-judge-esther-salas-shooting-investigation/index.html

The plot thickens.

Especially because in a 2013 interview, Roy Den Hollander was quoted saying the following:

"If I'm hitting on some young girl at the club – and I won't be hitting on an older one because they don't look as good – if she knows how old I am I'm not going to be able to exploit her infinite capacity to delude herself into thinking I'm younger," he said.

That's peak Epstein energy.

 

[Northstar]

Especially because in a 2013 interview, Roy Den Hollander was quoted saying the following:



That's peak Epstein energy.

I don't know how reputable NY Daily News is, but according to them he had cancer as well, which would make him a prime candidate to pull off a hit (low on the totem pole with a limited number of days).

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-yor...0200720-lzpt76kihnby3bmvzyq7lhvpsy-story.html

This seems like something you'd read in a thriller novel if it actually is connected to Epstein.

 

[TexRex]

Rep. Steve Watkins (R-KS) was charged last week for interfering with law enforcement by providing false information, voting without being qualified and unlawful advance voting, all of which are felonies. A single misdemeanor charge for failure to notify the DMV of an address change was also filed. Watkins is alleged to have voted illegally in a local election in 2019. He doesn't deny committing the crimes and instead insists the charges are a "political attack" akin to that which was "used against Trump". He's since stepped down from various congressional committees.

So...Republicans seek to deny citizens who have the right to vote the freedom to do so by mail--even during the pandemic--citing concerns over voter fraud, and they've got fraudsters among their ranks. If it wasn't for double standards, they would have no standards at all.

There was a story not long ago about a cat that had been dead for more than a decade receiving a voter registration application in the mail, and I just know that someone, somewhere, is stupid enough to have used it as an argument against, nevermind that it was a registration form rather than an actual ballot and there obviously wouldn't be a valid signature or identification on file.

 

[Liquid]

@Joey D @Northstar

I am not one for conspiracies but... this story definitely piques my curiosity.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Apparently only the 2nd amendment is important. 1st amendment, 4th amendment, Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8... none of it holds a candle to the 2nd amendment.

How does that quote go?

Give me liberty or give me guns!

 

[Joey D]

I don't know how reputable NY Daily News is, but according to them he had cancer as well, which would make him a prime candidate to pull off a hit (low on the totem pole with a limited number of days).

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-yor...0200720-lzpt76kihnby3bmvzyq7lhvpsy-story.html

This seems like something you'd read in a thriller novel if it actually is connected to Epstein.

While the NY Daily News is left-leaning, it apparently won a Pulitzer Prize as recently as 2017 and has been in circulation since 1919. I wouldn't say it's cutting edge journalism, but it seems like it's decent enough.

And I can't wait to read and/or watch the Epstein story.

 

[Crash]

The demonstrations and protest is being "sponsored" in numerous ways by progressive and socialist Democrats in Seattle. The establishment "neoliberal" Democrats are waffling. The violence is being most effectively instigated/perpetrated by anarchists, whose politics are closer to the Unabomber. The violence has tarnished and broken apart the unity of the protest movement here in Seattle. The BLM ship is sinking when it is tied to the anchor of arson, revolution and violence.

The rioters are NOT dead. They very actively hold the BLM movement by the neck and they are so far tied to it at the hip. There are no conservatives in Seattle, and I don't know what they are doing elsewhere. Here, the mom and pop neighborhood citizens who voted in the radical city council now trying to defund our police 50% and give the other 50% to community activists are having sober second thoughts about who they are going to support at the next election.

The mobs were at it again today in Seattle. About 200-300 people armed with baseball bats and incendiary devices marched from one police precinct to another, destroying windows, setting fires and attacking officers. Selected federal buildings and courthouse along the way as well as Amazon and Starbucks were vandalized and looted. About 12 officers were injured, one hospitalized. Two persons were arrested. But the police took no action to prevent the damages caused by the mob. They are heavily restricted by the city council as to tactics and weapons.

The stated non-negotiable goals of the BLM movement include reparations to blacks in the form of a livable lifetime income, defunding police and immunity from arrest, prosecution and criticism. The black-clad anarchists are very happy to support these goals. Their movements work symbiotically together and are effectively provided sanction and endorsement by the majority radicals on the city council. When you bend the knee to BLM, you are signaling your support and fealty to the violent mob action that accompanies them, and to the achievement of their stated goals. They, working together, have achieved the perfect strategy for successful social revolution in America, or at least the rich, woke portions of it.

The pandemic is also providing great support to the revolution. Widespread unemployment, soaring costs and shrinking individual and business tax bases will provide the perfect climate of opportunity for socialist solutions. The revolution is at the threshold of success in Seattle, although some individuals and businesses are having 2nd thoughts. The council has passed a new tax revenue law, taxing high income jobs at Amazon, Microsoft and other successful companies. Accordingly, some of these companies will be closing down and leaving Seattle behind. Every revolution carries the seeds of its own destruction.

Tucker Carlson, is that you? Back from the long-planned fishing vacation?

 

[UKMikey]

This bloke has threaded a few old posts from Roy Den Hollander on Twitter.

 

[TexRex]

This bloke has threaded a few old posts from Roy Den Hollander on Twitter.

Second link is paywalled but I'm getting some serious MGTOW vibes from the first one.

 

[Tornado]

"Hey Mitch McConnell. Why are you such a hypocritical piece of 🤬?"

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, has repeatedly vowed to fill a vacancy this year and has said the difference between now and 2016 is that by the time Obama, a Democrat, nominated Garland to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Republicans controlled the Senate. Right now, Republicans control both the White House and the Senate.

"No no no. You're not supposed to answer honestly."

 

[Danoff]

How does that quote go?

Give me liberty or give me guns!

 

[novcze]

So the only reason that people object to illegal immigrants is because the want them to be given legal status?

I think you may be misreading Trumps base in that case.

Who is saying anything about Trump vote base, I disagree with exploitation of illegals for economic gain.

Maybe Trump voters have different opinions, but I suppose they want to have control over immigration which I also support. If side product would be end of exploitation then good.

This is just a feedback loop.

Yes it is, question is how we get out of the loop, keep them illegal or make them legal? System is set up to work with legals.
Any ideas?

This particular line you've taken up is especially funny when contrasted with you having railed against legal immigration, at one point [hilariously] citing housing shortages and environmental detriment in arguments against.

See, this is why I hate to talk about things that happened months ago and now are taken out of the context. I was against increase in population density, especially in Europe and environmental reasons still stand as valid. But I don't want to go into this.

No individual, regardless of citizenship status, should have any say regarding who does or does not get to occupy land that said individual does not privately own.

So the voted government should not have any say in immigration?

No, you're using this tactic to shut up the dissent (sometimes even in real-life) and far-left is using it to exaggerate impression that some people give, so they can think about what they say and how it sound to people with different viewpoint.

Do you see how stupid that looks? You're using precisely the same tactic for which you've expressed contempt when employed by those you oppose but you're trying to paint your use of it as righteous.

Yeah it looks stupid because it isn't true. No real-life consequences here, nobody is trying to shut up anybody here.

But you said people don't get to choose which laws to obey.

and I also said that if they don't obey they should expect punishment. So it indicates that people do choose.

China implemented a statute that prohibits the wearing of cropped shirts that leave the wearer's lower torso exposed and the wearing of shirts in such a manner that the wearer's lower torso is left exposed. You seemed to indicate contempt for such a statute. One might say the statute wasn't reasonably justified. I'm one who absolutely would say (and indeed have said) that.

Curiously, you've also advocated for a burqa ban--a statute that prohibits the wearing of certain clothing or the wearing of clothing in a certain manner--which is also not reasonably justified. Incidentally, China has also banned burqas and "abnormal beards" (whatever that means) in part of the country.

Both can be reasonably justified with hygienic or cultural reasons. My first reaction to China ban was in line with well-known propensity of China for tight control of their population.

 

[Scaff]

Who is saying anything about Trump vote base, I disagree with exploitation of illegals for economic gain.

OK.

Maybe Trump voters have different opinions, but I suppose they want to have control over immigration which I also support. If side product would be end of exploitation then good.

I can pretty much promise that is not the same desire as Trump's voters,.

 

[Danoff]

Who is saying anything about Trump vote base, I disagree with exploitation of illegals for economic gain.

Maybe Trump voters have different opinions, but I suppose they want to have control over immigration which I also support. If side product would be end of exploitation then good.

What do you mean by exploitation? Hiring them?

 

[Dotini]

What do you mean by exploitation? Hiring them?

deleted

 

[Danoff]

I have heard of more than one instance when workers were transported in sealed vans or trucks in rather large numbers, and none were alive when the doors were opened. Rather repulsive to even think of, but it probably counts as exploitation even though little enough profit would appear to have been accrued thereby.

Did you think I meant that they couldn't be exploited? I'm asking what he meant.

 

[Dotini]

Did you think I meant that they couldn't be exploited? I'm asking what he meant.

Sorry. No offense intended. Didn't intend to butt in. Post deleted.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry. No offense intended. Didn't intend to butt in. Post deleted.

Did you think your post was offensive, or offended me? I'm not sure what would have given you that impression, but you did not offend me. You just missed my point, and I think you might have missed @novcze's point as well (or I did). If I understand him correctly (and I'm not sure I do, which is why I'm asking follow-up questions), he's advocating for some kind of benevolent immigration policy whereby we prevent people from entering our country out of some misguided notion that they don't know what is in their own best interests.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Even Fox News' go-to legal analyst sees big problems with the activities of Federal forces in Portland.

“The federal government can use federal assets to protect federal property,” Napolitano said.

“Stated differently, the Department of Homeland Security can send police into Oregon to protect a federal courthouse in Oregon, use that as an example.”

He went on to say that the federal government cannot, however, enforce the general criminal law.

“They can't supplement or replace the police,” Napolitano explained. “They can't go throughout the streets and say, ‘Hey, you’re committing a crime. We’re going to arrest you.’”

“They certainly can't do what they have been doing in Oregon, which is arresting people without a warrant and without probable cause, holding them for a few hours and then letting them go,” he went on to explain. “So they have to be restrained and they have to confine their activity to the federal property.”

 

[Dotini]

Even Fox News' go-to legal analyst sees big problems with the activities of Federal forces in Portland.

Reportedly, they were operating within a one-block radius of the federal courthouse. Maybe they can't do what they've been doing.
But they've been doing it anyway. They are making reality as others deny it. Is that postmodern, or what?

I heard the Secretary say they are coming to Seattle or Chicago(!!) next. Oh wow.

 

[TexRex]

"Hey Mitch McConnell. Why are you such a hypocritical piece of 🤬?"



"No no no. You're not supposed to answer honestly."

But the Biden rule.

Yes it is, question is how we get out of the loop, keep them illegal or make them legal? System is set up to work with legals.
Any ideas?

It's not complicated. Eliminate the statute that they're violating to be "illegal", as it isn't reasonably justified; it exists to infringe on the rights of some without offering meaningful protection to the rights of others. Without the statute, they exist here neither legally nor illegally, they just exist. It's also more difficult for employers to exploit them because they don't exist here illegally.

...

This whole thing has me thinking about a tune by a band that I love and have mentioned elsewhere in this subforum without deviating from the topic at hand because they're vocal about social and political issues.

The song is about legalization of marijuana (something for which I also advocate despite having smoked on just one occasion about 33 years ago), but there are a couple of verses which can be attributed to this with minimal strain.

"The murderers keep murderin'
The churches keep a-burnin'
The rapists keep a-rapin'
And the tide ain't turnin'

Uncle Sam, for all your power
Things get worse every hour
It seems to me your energies
Are wasted chasin' my friends and me

...

The terrorists keep terrorizin'
Our leaders keep a-lyin'
The haters keep a-hatin'
And the planet's dyin'

Uncle Sam, do what's proper
Call off your dogs and your helicopters
The problems of society
Were not caused by my friends and me"

The band is The Toyes, and I highly recommend people check them out. I first heard them on the Dr. Demento radio show in the early '90s, on which Dr. Demento played the other song I've mentioned in discussion, "What's So Bad About A Nipple?" They have a lot of comedic songs and a bunch that address real issues, but they also have straight tunes such as a really fantastic cover of Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Freebird". I acknowledge that others may not feel this way and that's fine, but I think it's better than the original.

See, this is why I hate to talk about things that happened months ago and now are taken out of the context. I was against increase in population density, especially in Europe and environmental reasons still stand as valid. But I don't want to go into this.

The argument was offered in the context of discussion regarding illegal immigration and the fact that statutes prohibiting it aren't reasonably justified. As I've cited the argument in the context of discussion regarding illegal immigration and the fact that statutes prohibiting it aren't reasonably justified, it hasn't been taken out of context.

I suspect you heard that as a response to something someone didn't want to actually answer, as doing so might compromise their position, and so you thought you'd give it a try, but it simply does not fit here.

You were engaged in discussion regarding illegal immigration and the fact that statutes prohibiting it aren't reasonably justified, and you commented that you don't object to immigration (qualified as legal, which you even bolded for emphasis) provided it doesn't increase population density, citing decreased quality of life as a result of housing shortages and environmental detriment.

See? Context intact.

So the voted government should not have any say in immigration?

Hey, look, you've again taken what I said and deliberately represented it as something that I didn't say. You declined to attribute to it a dog whistle this time, though...so...good job.

As it happens, no, I don't think the government should have the sort of control over immigration that is implemented through broad stroke prohibitions.

Yeah it looks stupid because it isn't true. No real-life consequences here, nobody is trying to shut up anybody here.

You took what I said and deliberately represented it as something that I didn't say so that you could more easily argue against it, but in lieu of actually arguing against it, you simply applied to it a dog whistle. You did this twice in a single post after having used one of those dog whistles in an earlier post directed at me. You did this in an attempt to shut down discussion because you couldn't argue against what I said in a rational manner without compromising your position.

You keep trying to paint this tactic you've employed as righteous because I brought up you having demonstrated contempt for those you oppose employing it, but you can't because it's the same tactic.

and I also said that if they don't obey they should expect punishment. So it indicates that people do choose.

That there exists a punishment for violating a statute isn't an indication that said statute is reasonably justified.

If an individual is unjustly persecuted, aiding said individual in avoiding whatever it is they're avoiding in being unjustly persecuted is often itself deemed a violation of statute, so an individual or group may, in fact, be punished for doing the right thing when those seeking to persecute another are in the wrong.

Both can be reasonably justified with hygienic or cultural reasons. My first reaction to China ban was in line with well-known propensity of China for tight control of their population.

Wait...WHAT?!

No, that's really not big enough.

WHAT?!

You say that such prohibitions are reasonably justified (and you're obviously expected to substantiate that, so...go ahead), but you don't like that China has implemented them. That's just...like...hilariously irrational.

Okay, so China has demonstrated a propensity to implement statutes without reasonable justification (which sounds a bit like the United States, if I'm honest), but because of that, statutes which you deem to be reasonably justified are also wrong...because China.

What are you smoking, and are you in violation of a statute which prohibits its consumption in such a manner?

Also--and it's super discomforting feeling compelled to clarify this beforehand, but there are those on the forum that I suspect would like to make such an assertion--when I say you seem to not approve of such statutes in China because China, I obviously don't mean to suggest that you have racist views regarding Chinese people. It's possible to feel no particular way about Chinese people in general (as I do) and to simultaneously disapprove of the actions of the Chinese government (as I do).

Even Fox News' go-to legal analyst sees big problems with the activities of Federal forces in Portland.

I can totally visualize the comments expressing hatred for Napolitano under the YouTube video, uploaded to the Fox News channel, of him making these comments. I don't even know that there is such a video.

 

[Dennisch]

lol a Karen got big mad on Twitter and got Adult Swim trending because she just discovered it exists.

 

[Rallywagon]

I really feel bad for anyone named Karen.

 

[TexRex]

I really feel bad for anyone named Karen.

I know one, but she's the exact opposite of a Karen. The best part is she gets the whole thing and is completely fine with it; totally not secretly dying inside.

 

[Dotini]

Professor anticipates biggest collapse in the history of capitalism. Can he be wrong?

 

[jjaisli]

It looks like he's on his vintage 90s phone trying to sell off his stocks before the interview starts. "Is this my broker? Is this Tommy? Tommy is who I normally speak to. Ahh, screw it. Can you help?"

 

[Danoff]

Professor anticipates biggest collapse in the history of capitalism. Can he be wrong?

Why do you insist on posting clickbait captions?

 

[DesertPenguin]

Why do you insist on posting clickbait captions?

Remember I tried getting to root of that and never got anywhere? He wins either way. If his intention is for us to get riled up and respond at all, he wins. If his intention is for people to talk about the topic, he wins. It's a joke.

 

[Danoff]

Remember I tried getting to root of that and never got anywhere? He wins either way. If his intention is for us to get riled up and respond at all, he wins. If his intention is for people to talk about the topic, he wins. It's a joke.

There's no winning or losing here. I'm not riled up. I'm just commenting on a post, which is what I do almost every day here on GTP.