1. #73601
    Saturday's quick report:

    11,603 new cases; 388 deaths, bringing the total to 612,203. 22 states didn't report, so I guess at some point I'm going to have to take the hint and also not bother for the weekend.

    Related news:

    Marco Rubio Calls for Fauci's Ouster Over COVID-19 Origins: 'A History of Moving Goal-Posts'--Ah yes, very rich coming from the Party of Projection...

    Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls COVID 'Chinese Made Bio Weapon,' Wants Fauci Fired--Well which is it? A Democrat hoax or a dangerous Chinese bio-weapon? Silly PoP can't seem to make up their minds. Naturally they're all going after the only guy who dared try get the facts out there under Trump.

    Stay safe, folks.

  2. #73602
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls COVID 'Chinese Made Bio Weapon,' Wants Fauci Fired--Well which is it? A Democrat hoax or a dangerous Chinese bio-weapon? Silly PoP can't seem to make up their minds. Naturally they're all going after the only guy who dared try get the facts out there under Trump.

    Stay safe, folks.
    It's "only the flu" and a "lab made super weapon that we should fear." A "98% survival rate" and a "masks infringe on my rights."

    They don't understand what science is, it changes until it's understood. They can only trust the words of a conman, not anyone with any intellect.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  3. #73603
    So, Trump gave a speech last night, where he sounded like he is literally going fucking crazy with dementia. But the funny thing is, he either was wearing stretch pants or his dress slacks backwards.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3MdXJHW...g&name=900x900

    I am not going to embed it to make people throw up, but look at the front there. There is no zipper there, and the wrinkles on the front, look like they would be, right where your ass meets your legs.

    And before you claim that is photoshopped, I will link a video of him wearing it like this. https://twitter.com/travisakers/stat...03475696025600

    What the actual fuck? Did he drop mustard on the front and think flipping them around was a good idea? What a fucking dumbass.

  4. #73604
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    So, Trump gave a speech last night, where he sounded like he is literally going fucking crazy with dementia. But the funny thing is, he either was wearing stretch pants or his dress slacks backwards.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3MdXJHW...g&name=900x900

    I am not going to embed it to make people throw up, but look at the front there. There is no zipper there, and the wrinkles on the front, look like they would be, right where your ass meets your legs.

    And before you claim that is photoshopped, I will link a video of him wearing it like this. https://twitter.com/travisakers/stat...03475696025600

    What the actual fuck? Did he drop mustard on the front and think flipping them around was a good idea? What a fucking dumbass.
    I'm more than willing to believe he's so far gone he accidentally put his pants on backwards, but I think these are elasticated pants that many older folks wear. No zipper; just pull up and down for convenience. Granted, that's not much better because they're common among Alzheimer's patients...

  5. #73605
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    I'm more than willing to believe he's so far gone he accidentally put his pants on backwards, but I think these are elasticated pants that many older folks wear. No zipper; just pull up and down for convenience. Granted, that's not much better because they're common among Alzheimer's patients...
    And even then, that bulge looks like he is wearing the biggest pair of depends ever, or it is full.

  6. #73606
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    And even then, that bulge looks like he is wearing the biggest pair of depends ever, or it is full.
    Very true, though that's an issue that existed through his entire term, if you'll recall.
    ...
    I will not be linking pictures. It must violate some forum rule against explicit imagery.

  7. #73607
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    So, Trump gave a speech last night, where he sounded like he is literally going fucking crazy with dementia. But the funny thing is, he either was wearing stretch pants or his dress slacks backwards.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3MdXJHW...g&name=900x900

    I am not going to embed it to make people throw up, but look at the front there. There is no zipper there, and the wrinkles on the front, look like they would be, right where your ass meets your legs.

    And before you claim that is photoshopped, I will link a video of him wearing it like this. https://twitter.com/travisakers/stat...03475696025600

    What the actual fuck? Did he drop mustard on the front and think flipping them around was a good idea? What a fucking dumbass.
    The best part of the whole speech is that he prefaced it with the theme song of the movie "Titanic".

  8. #73608
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    20,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    You're assuming they don't give their seditionist lunatics a better plan than the first try and have them just kill all the Democratic senators.
    At which point they'd have a target on their back in a city that's 95+% Democrat, with capitol police that have no interest in protecting them.

  9. #73609
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    Very true, though that's an issue that existed through his entire term, if you'll recall.
    ...
    I will not be linking pictures. It must violate some forum rule against explicit imagery.
    Linking the video would be worse then right?

  10. #73610
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    I'm more than willing to believe he's so far gone he accidentally put his pants on backwards, but I think these are elasticated pants that many older folks wear. No zipper; just pull up and down for convenience.
    That's what I think as well. Trump may have lost his mind, but you don't just...put on suit pants backwards. How would he zip it up or hook the button through? It would have to be deliberate.

    Its is a very strange look though. The way the folds seem suggest an ass is there.

  11. #73611
    Quote Originally Posted by xmirrors View Post
    Its is a very strange look though. The way the folds seem suggest an ass is there.
    Compromise: He put pullups on backwards.

  12. #73612
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    Compromise: He put pullups on backwards.
    Acceptable compromise.

    Now, please excuse me while I find a way to purge these images out of my mind.

  13. #73613
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    Their intent was clearly to cause harm. Harm was caused. Punish them for the harm.
    You're gonna jail a lot of minorities in this country if you only assume/deduce vague intent, and measure any deaths from strokes, cardiac arrest, anything with heightened risk from stress, and shove them both together. Kaleredar tripped a guy, he happened to fall in such a way as to cause hospitalization and death, so clearly Kaleredar intended to cause harm, harm was caused, punish him for the harm.

    You don't really need to engage in such logical leaps to increase the "victim count" of January 6th.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  14. #73614
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    22,882
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You're gonna jail a lot of minorities in this country if you only assume/deduce vague intent, and measure any deaths from strokes, cardiac arrest, anything with heightened risk from stress, and shove them both together.
    No, you’re not.

    Kaleredar tripped a guy, he happened to fall in such a way as to cause hospitalization and death, so clearly Kaleredar intended to cause harm, harm was caused, punish him for the harm.

    You don't really need to engage in such logical leaps to increase the "victim count" of January 6th.
    If I broke into someone’s house screaming “trip him! Trip him!” and tripped a guy and he suffered bodily harm or death from it I’d say yeah, I should be culpable. Because that’s actually a metaphor for what happened on the 6th, instead of whatever nonsense you just described.

    Are you not aware that the January 6th insurrectionists were a violent mob that broke numerous federal laws with the express intent of terrorizing and coercing elected officials into overturning a just and fair election? And no, it doesn’t matter if the insurrectionists thought the election was “stolen” any more than it would matter if a back robber thought they deserved the money in a bank.

    You seem to be extending an awful lot of “innocent” points to these people that they clearly do not deserve.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  15. #73615
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    The best part of the whole speech is that he prefaced it with the theme song of the movie "Titanic".
    And that he slurred his speech more than a drunk person loaded on a 5th of Jack Daniels.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    The best part of the whole speech is that he prefaced it with the theme song of the movie "Titanic".
    And that he slurred his speech more than a drunk person loaded on a 5th of Jack Daniels. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-dementia-2653250004/

  16. #73616
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,024
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You're gonna jail a lot of minorities in this country if you only assume/deduce vague intent, and measure any deaths from strokes, cardiac arrest, anything with heightened risk from stress, and shove them both together. Kaleredar tripped a guy, he happened to fall in such a way as to cause hospitalization and death, so clearly Kaleredar intended to cause harm, harm was caused, punish him for the harm.

    You don't really need to engage in such logical leaps to increase the "victim count" of January 6th.
    Just by being part of the group, they're guilty of insurrection or rebellion. There's also myriad "accessory" type charges that could be applied, even if they weren't the individuals responsible for specific harm.

    Y'know, basic legal shit, dude. Stop carrying water for anti-democratic cryptofascists.

  17. #73617
    I am Murloc! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    5,291
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    So, Trump gave a speech last night, where he sounded like he is literally going fucking crazy with dementia. But the funny thing is, he either was wearing stretch pants or his dress slacks backwards.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3MdXJHW...g&name=900x900

    I am not going to embed it to make people throw up, but look at the front there. There is no zipper there, and the wrinkles on the front, look like they would be, right where your ass meets your legs.

    And before you claim that is photoshopped, I will link a video of him wearing it like this. https://twitter.com/travisakers/stat...03475696025600

    What the actual fuck? Did he drop mustard on the front and think flipping them around was a good idea? What a fucking dumbass.
    Mark Hamill, channeling his Joker persona, had the best twitter response, I think:
    He’s clearly on the “no fly” list. #DiaperDon


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  18. #73618
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    31,716
    So amongst the...sigh. Hold on.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Kaleredar tripped a guy, he happened to fall in such a way as to cause hospitalization and death
    If @Kaleredar happened to trip a guy unintentionally while walking down a crowded street, maybe this would be relevant.

    Problem is, the context was the murderous insurrection. And you're defending the murderers. If I intentionally rob a bank, and while doing so bump into an old lady who falls and breaks her hip and dies, guess who goes to jail forever? Me.

    It's called Felony Murder. @cubby will likely school you on the issue, but until that happens, it means "if you intentionally commit a felony and because of that felony someone dies, it doesn't matter if you killed them on purpose or even if you pulled the trigger, that's murder and you're fucked son." It happens during crimes that are inherently dangerous, such as "breaking through a federal guarded barricade to storm the Capitol building". Oh, and since this was the Capitol, it doesn't matter which states do or don't have felony murder rules -- there's a federal one. It's absolutely viable in exactly this context. Even those people who didn't directly murder anyone are in trouble -- they could 100% be charged and have to defend themselves. And while the death must have been in some way related to the felony, "we forced our way through federal guards trying to block the trespass and during such one of them was killed" is textbook.

    I strongly recommend your next post be "whoa, I didn't know about that" because just about anything else you type, is defending first-degree murderers. Even something like "well some of the people at the back didn't know--" and any nontroll respose to that is "They were were breaking and entering the Capitol, they knew or they're legally incompetent". No rational American adult thinks the Capitol building is open for random people to roam around in. Neither do you.

    Back down from this one. At best, you're defending traitors who broke into the Capitol, by saying "but they didn't murder anyone". That's already horrible. At worse, you're defending first-degree murderers. There is no outcome to your stance that makes you look good. Just walk away.

    Back to what I was going to say: in yet another lawsuit about the murderous insurrection, Alabamer Rep. Mo Brooks has been subpoena'd in a lawsuit about his role. Other defendents include Trump, Donnie Dum-Dum Jr, and Giuliani.

    "Oh my God! They broke into his house to serve the subpoena? That's illegal!"

    What? Oh, you read Brook's tweet. No, that didn't happen.

    "How can you be so sure?"

    Well for one, in a debate between "member of the rabid fanbase" and "carbon-based life form chosen at random" I'll choose the latter as more honest without asking if they're even sentient. But secondly and more importantly, committing a felony to serve a subpoena is catastrophically stupid. In addition to, oh, committing a felony, you risk the entire lawsuit if you commit a felony while pursuing it. Can you imagine a judge treating the lawsuit's merits fairly after that? Also, you risk getting shot. No, until I see the police report where Rep. Brook's wife called 911, or any other evidence, I will assume Brooks is lying.

    As a reminder, the reason the subpoena couldn't just be deliverd to Rep. Brook's office was due to security added because of the murderous insurrection. There was even an extention granted because Brooks kept evading the serving (and this evasion was well-documented).

    "Man, serving Trump must have been hard."

    Oh, Trump waived the need for the subpoena. Only Brooks made this an issue by demanding a serving, then hiding like a little bitch, then claiming his house was burgled. From his actions, one might suspect he's fucking terrified of testifying. (Trump might be too, but he's just saying he'll file a motion to dismiss because of "absolute immunity" no really those were his exact words)

    "What did Brooks even say?"

    He said Antifa caused the murderous insurrection.

    Evidence growing that fascist ANTIFA orchestrated Capitol attack with clever mob control tactics.
    -- tweeted within 24 hours

    "Okay that's stupid, but I meant, what did he say that got him sued?"

    Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass
    "...you sure?"

    Best I could find.

    "That sounds pretty tame, honestly. Why didn't he just fight the lawsuit on the merits? He'd probably win. It's not like 'kicking ass' is super specific."

    Well again, I think he's afraid to testify. There are direct, relavent questions he could be asked on the stand that he doesn't want to answer, such as "When you told the crowd the election was stolen, did you believe it?" If he says "no" the rabid fanbase fucks his next election to death. If he says "yes" it's safer politically but he still has that on his "permanent record" so to speak.

    As I've said plenty of times, lying to the American people isn't a crime, but lying on the stand is. Team Trump is desperate to avoid any form of enforced honesty. Even to the point, apparently, of making up phantom felonies just to avoid what looks like a lackluster lawsuit that doesn't have any real teeth.

  19. #73619
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    So amongst the...sigh. Hold on.



    If @Kaleredar happened to trip a guy unintentionally while walking down a crowded street, maybe this would be relevant.

    Problem is, the context was the murderous insurrection. And you're defending the murderers. If I intentionally rob a bank, and while doing so bump into an old lady who falls and breaks her hip and dies, guess who goes to jail forever? Me.

    It's called Felony Murder. @cubby will likely school you on the issue, but until that happens, it means "if you intentionally commit a felony and because of that felony someone dies, it doesn't matter if you killed them on purpose or even if you pulled the trigger, that's murder and you're fucked son." It happens during crimes that are inherently dangerous, such as "breaking through a federal guarded barricade to storm the Capitol building". Oh, and since this was the Capitol, it doesn't matter which states do or don't have felony murder rules -- there's a federal one. It's absolutely viable in exactly this context. Even those people who didn't directly murder anyone are in trouble -- they could 100% be charged and have to defend themselves. And while the death must have been in some way related to the felony, "we forced our way through federal guards trying to block the trespass and during such one of them was killed" is textbook.

    I strongly recommend your next post be "whoa, I didn't know about that" because just about anything else you type, is defending first-degree murderers. Even something like "well some of the people at the back didn't know--" and any nontroll respose to that is "They were were breaking and entering the Capitol, they knew or they're legally incompetent". No rational American adult thinks the Capitol building is open for random people to roam around in. Neither do you.

    Back down from this one. At best, you're defending traitors who broke into the Capitol, by saying "but they didn't murder anyone". That's already horrible. At worse, you're defending first-degree murderers. There is no outcome to your stance that makes you look good. Just walk away.

    Back to what I was going to say: in yet another lawsuit about the murderous insurrection, Alabamer Rep. Mo Brooks has been subpoena'd in a lawsuit about his role. Other defendents include Trump, Donnie Dum-Dum Jr, and Giuliani.

    "Oh my God! They broke into his house to serve the subpoena? That's illegal!"

    What? Oh, you read Brook's tweet. No, that didn't happen.

    "How can you be so sure?"

    Well for one, in a debate between "member of the rabid fanbase" and "carbon-based life form chosen at random" I'll choose the latter as more honest without asking if they're even sentient. But secondly and more importantly, committing a felony to serve a subpoena is catastrophically stupid. In addition to, oh, committing a felony, you risk the entire lawsuit if you commit a felony while pursuing it. Can you imagine a judge treating the lawsuit's merits fairly after that? Also, you risk getting shot. No, until I see the police report where Rep. Brook's wife called 911, or any other evidence, I will assume Brooks is lying.

    As a reminder, the reason the subpoena couldn't just be deliverd to Rep. Brook's office was due to security added because of the murderous insurrection. There was even an extention granted because Brooks kept evading the serving (and this evasion was well-documented).

    "Man, serving Trump must have been hard."

    Oh, Trump waived the need for the subpoena. Only Brooks made this an issue by demanding a serving, then hiding like a little bitch, then claiming his house was burgled. From his actions, one might suspect he's fucking terrified of testifying. (Trump might be too, but he's just saying he'll file a motion to dismiss because of "absolute immunity" no really those were his exact words)

    "What did Brooks even say?"

    He said Antifa caused the murderous insurrection.


    -- tweeted within 24 hours

    "Okay that's stupid, but I meant, what did he say that got him sued?"



    "...you sure?"

    Best I could find.

    "That sounds pretty tame, honestly. Why didn't he just fight the lawsuit on the merits? He'd probably win. It's not like 'kicking ass' is super specific."

    Well again, I think he's afraid to testify. There are direct, relavent questions he could be asked on the stand that he doesn't want to answer, such as "When you told the crowd the election was stolen, did you believe it?" If he says "no" the rabid fanbase fucks his next election to death. If he says "yes" it's safer politically but he still has that on his "permanent record" so to speak.

    As I've said plenty of times, lying to the American people isn't a crime, but lying on the stand is. Team Trump is desperate to avoid any form of enforced honesty. Even to the point, apparently, of making up phantom felonies just to avoid what looks like a lackluster lawsuit that doesn't have any real teeth.
    You, like him, are eliding over the connection of a cop suffering a stroke after an extremely stressful event, and applying the guilt of murder towards the people invading the capital in a fairly-deemed insurrection. You are completely unable to apply the same standard to other extreme events in the line of duty, and would literally jail minorities involved in rioting should any cop's heart fail or blood clot form leading to death in the next couple of days. I see all this as stemming from three parallel strains of thought: 1) It just doesn't feel right that victims of the violence were primarily insurrectionists 2) If we can't call the insurrectionists effectively murderers, any other charges are insufficient in a moral sense 3) The insurrection was unique in many ways compared to other events with police at risk, therefore we choose to deny a general rule that would impact other matters of justice such as riots.

    And you're really pleading against your own case with the heavy bad faith. "At best, you're defending traitors who broke into the Capitol, by saying "but they didn't murder anyone." Like, really? You can't even debate these events without laying out these asides like I have a hope of justifying their actions by the body count? Say that to all the good defense attorneys that have utterly criminal clients, but weren't guilty of the specific crime mentioned. In fact, trash the entire justice system if you can't examine the facts of the case and moral guilt, because internet randos think you can't do that unless you're secretly a bad person trying to excuse the totality of the event. These are some really bad parts of your post or character that you should examine about yourself if you want to engage with others. Seriously. This isn't just another culture war zinger with dehumanized opponents that you can accuse, at will, of motivations totally devoid of empathy and understanding.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  20. #73620
    I am Murloc! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    5,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Problem is, the context was the murderous insurrection. And you're defending the murderers. If I intentionally rob a bank, and while doing so bump into an old lady who falls and breaks her hip and dies, guess who goes to jail forever? Me.

    It's called Felony Murder. @cubby will likely school you on the issue, but until that happens, it means "if you intentionally commit a felony and because of that felony someone dies, it doesn't matter if you killed them on purpose or even if you pulled the trigger, that's murder and you're fucked son." It happens during crimes that are inherently dangerous, such as "breaking through a federal guarded barricade to storm the Capitol building". Oh, and since this was the Capitol, it doesn't matter which states do or don't have felony murder rules -- there's a federal one. It's absolutely viable in exactly this context. Even those people who didn't directly murder anyone are in trouble -- they could 100% be charged and have to defend themselves. And while the death must have been in some way related to the felony, "we forced our way through federal guards trying to block the trespass and during such one of them was killed" is textbook.
    I'm sensing a glitch in the Matrix. It's almost like...

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    does DC have those gang laws of joint enterprise. You know when like some guys rob a store and one of them shoots the clerk but they all get tried for murder?
    It's called felony murder, and we discussed it here a bit yesterday:
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    The federal gov't has a felony murder rule.
    That was one of my first thoughts, too. Theoretically, they could all be charged with murder.
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    If I were the federal prosecutor, the simplest way would be felony murder - vis a vis the felony of entering the Capital Building with intent to cause harm and/or damage, combined with a woman being shot by Capital Police.

    That charge carries the death penalty. And Trump has recently ramped up federal executions.
    Yes, it is possible in this situation.
    (Pardon the quote-ception...)

    And those original posts date back to January 6th-8th. Nobody should be saying "whoa, I didn't know about that", because I guarantee this was quite honestly one of the first thoughts many people had in the immediate aftermath of the violent insurrection. If you're not aware of this, then you've been living under a rock. Or getting all your news from Fox News... which is, yeah, same difference.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •