Funny events in anti-woke world

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,898
6,238
118
Country
United Kingdom
They're professionals. Multiple professional record keepers. You're treating them flippantly.
Whose job is not to provide an exact transcript. You're reinterpreting their job into something convenient.

Potential motives and speculation are not evidence. You seem to think that because you can suspect Trump plausibly that means there's evidence. I could plausibly support the idea that you own a refrigerator, that doesn't mean I have any evidence to back that claim. You can speculate all you want about how you think Trump would benefit, or how he could be connected, none of that is evidence of the crime you believe was committed. You can believe it's plausible that Trump threatened Zelenskyy with the military funding if he didn't go after Biden for lots of reason, you still have no evidence that actually occurred. You've got all the reasons why you would suspect someone of being the killer, but nobody was killed.
Motive, when combined with other circumstantial evidence, bolsters the credibility of that circumstantial evidence.

Lutsenko's statements, the whistleblower allegation, the employee-employer relationship between the perpetrator and the President, these are not speculations. They happened. If taken in concert with other circumstances, they point to a conclusion. If taken in concert with other circumstances, they point to a different conclusion. That's what circumstantial evidence bloody is.

Absolutely every single objection and complaint you've thrown up about this applies equally to Thomas Johnson. Pure speculation he's the same person. Ascribing motives to him. Blah-de-blah. That's precisely my point: they only become incriminating... along with certain other circumstances.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,087
964
118
Country
USA
That's precisely my point: they only become incriminating... along with certain other circumstances.
I don't think you even know what your point is anymore. If you have so little self-respect that you're going to say you truly don't think the user Jesus is Thomas Johnson, feel free to say so. Then I'll call you a liar, and we'll be done with this.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,898
6,238
118
Country
United Kingdom
I don't think you even know what your point is anymore. If you have so little self-respect that you're going to say you truly don't think the user Jesus is Thomas Johnson, feel free to say so. Then I'll call you a liar, and we'll be done with this.
🤦‍♂️

Have you been paying attention to the argument? Do you genuinely think this inane strawman is indicated by the sentence you're quoting? We're talking about the nature of circumstantial evidence presently, not whether or not I think something.

The circumstantial evidence does indeed make a pretty plausible case that 'Jesus' is Thomas Johnson. I've already bloody said so. Though I'm certainly hesitant to speak with certainty, because there's nothing uncircumstantial, and all the circumstantial stuff has been dredged up by an extremely prejudiced and untrustworthy site.

My point was that its both unreasonable and hypocritical for you to be smearing WPATH and other expert bodies for associating with Thomas Johnson. This is a separate question from whether Thomas Johnson is a shitty person/ 'Jesus'.

Unreasonable, because 1) the connection between 'Jesus' and Thomas Johnson was only ever alleged long after the association; and 2) Only one body (WPATH) associated with him, but you seem to want to dismiss the credibility of all expert bodies that hold a position you dislike.

Hypocritical, because the case relies on circumstantial evidence (which says nothing of whether I believe it or not, for goodness sake!), whereas you yourself have at length argued that circumstantial evidence is not enough to condemn someone and/or exclude them from a position they hold.

...Which then got you into the utterly, brazenly absurd position of arguing that there isn't even circumstantial evidence for the other stuff, for which there very obviously is for anyone who understands what circumstantial evidence is.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,087
964
118
Country
USA
The circumstantial evidence does indeed make a pretty plausible case that 'Jesus' is Thomas Johnson. I've already bloody said so. Though I'm certainly hesitant to speak with certainty, because there's nothing uncircumstantial, and all the circumstantial stuff has been dredged up by an extremely prejudiced and untrustworthy site.
Well that's a silly thing to say. Who cares what the site you don't trust said, I personally dredged up the info myself. I went to the primary source. The other day when I deep dove to the Canadian activist on the Hershey bar, I did so because I didn't want to just trust the place I saw it first, I went to the person's personal website to their own words. You have as much power to do that as I do. There's no reason to simply doubt something 2nd hand when the primary source is posted on the internet.
My point was that its both unreasonable and hypocritical for you to be smearing WPATH.
You want it to be hypocritical, you really do.
Hypocritical, because the case relies on circumstantial evidence (which says nothing of whether I believe it or not, for goodness sake!), whereas you yourself have at length argued that circumstantial evidence is not enough to condemn someone and/or exclude them from a position they hold.
What you are missing here in your rush to call me a hypocrite is where you implied he's not the same person. The problem is that you wanted Trump impeached based on circumstantial evidence. You claim both cases have circumstantial evidence, but hold two different standards. I'm not holding two different standards. You do not even have circumstantial evidence of Trump blackmailing Ukraine. But you believe that you do, and still hold two different standards.

Calling me a hypocrite is just calling yourself a hypocrite.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,898
6,238
118
Country
United Kingdom
Well that's a silly thing to say. Who cares what the site you don't trust said, I personally dredged up the info myself. I went to the primary source. The other day when I deep dove to the Canadian activist on the Hershey bar, I did so because I didn't want to just trust the place I saw it first, I went to the person's personal website to their own words. You have as much power to do that as I do. There's no reason to simply doubt something 2nd hand when the primary source is posted on the internet.
To be perfectly honest, I also consider you to be quite seriously prejudiced on this topic, so the fact you also attest to it doesn't give it great credibility in my eyes. You spent a good long while telling me that I should be discriminated against in areas like employment and housing because I belong to a sexual minority. You are not a dispassionate, unprejudiced observer.

You're right that I could dig through Eunuch Archive and cross-reference with Thomas Johnson's work to confirm. There's few things I want to do less than dig through that weird, unsettling site. But that's rather why I've been providing arguments that don't merely rely on criticising the partiality of the source.

What you are missing here in your rush to call me a hypocrite is where you implied he's not the same person. The problem is that you wanted Trump impeached based on circumstantial evidence. You claim both cases have circumstantial evidence, but hold two different standards. I'm not holding two different standards. You do not even have circumstantial evidence of Trump blackmailing Ukraine. But you believe that you do, and still hold two different standards.
I implied its not known whether he's the same person. I did not imply he definitely wasn't. We don't know for sure. And I was actually quite explicit about that.

Anywho: I'm quite obviously not holding different standards, because the situations themselves are vastly different: both in the positions they held, and in the nature of the response that you and I are advocating in either case.

Trump was President of the United States, arguably the most powerful individual on the planet. I wanted him impeached on circumstantial evidence, that's true: because the circumstances required to make the evidence pertinant were extremely likely, and someone who would wield his position in that way shouldn't continue to do so. Circumstantial evidence, when strong enough, is enough to prevent someone wielding great power.

Thomas Johnson was someone who contributed to WPATH guidelines in the past. But you don't merely want WPATH to disassociate from him in the future-- that, I could see, and probably even agree with, so long as someone genuinely impartial investigated it. But no, you specifically wanted to torpedo the credibility of WPATH for associating at all, even though the allegation was more recent than the association. That's ridiculous.

The position that there isn't even circumstantial evidence for Trump-Ukraine is so laughably foolish, nobody reading it could take it seriously. If you're genuinely sticking to that, you're either lying or simply don't know what circumstantial evidence is.
 
Last edited:

XsjadoBlaydette

~s•o√r∆rπy°`
May 26, 2022
1,094
1,376
118
Clear 'n Present Danger
Country
Must
Gender
Disappear
For our next episode of "wait isn't this kinda the total opposite of democracy?"


Not many links appearing on web searches yet tho for whatever reasons.



RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) -- A Democratic state representative from Mecklenburg County announced she is switching to the Republican Party.

During a press conference, Rep. Tricia Cotham said she switched affiliations because she believes the Democratic Party has changed and is not accepting to differing viewpoints.

"The party wants to villainize anyone who has free thought, free judgement, has solutions and wants to get to work to better our state. Not just sit in a meeting and have a workshop after a workshop, but really work with individuals to get things done. Because that is what real public servants do. If you don't do exactly what the Democrats want you to do they will try to bully you. They will try to cast you aside," she said.

Cotham coasted to victory in November, winning her left-leaning district in Mecklenburg County by 20 points.

The press conference announcing her party switch was very light on policy specifics. Cotham refused to answer what legislation she would support or which policies she had changed her stance on that more aligned her with Republicans.


The former Democrat took questions after announcing she was now a Republican.

Cotham has previously and publicly spoken of her having an abortion. She even co-sponsored a bill in January to codify reproductive rights. When asked specifically if she would support a ban on abortions after the first trimester, she dodged the question.

"There is a piece of good advice I learned from a long time ago. Don't discuss legislation that is not before you," she said. However, a week ago three Republican lawmakers filled House Bill 533, which would limit abortion except when a mother's life is in danger.

During the press conference, Cotham's campaign website was still active with policy stances decrying Republicans for attacking equality for the LGBTQ+ community and failing to provide quality, affordable health care to North Carolinians.

"I am still the same person, and I am going to do what I believe is right and follow my conscience," Cotham said Wednesday.

Cotham's website also said she believed the "right to vote is sacred and the cornerstone of our democracy." She has previously supported expanding access to voter registration and accessibility, and her site said she would "continue to oppose attacks on our democracy, preserve fundamental voting rights and ensure all voices are heard."


At the end of the press conference, Speaker Tim Moore confirmed that with Cotham's switch the Republican party would push ahead to redraw voting districts. This comes a year after the NC Supreme Court ruled the GOP violated the state's constitution through the use of extreme partisan gerrymandering.

"We have made no determinations on what we will do on redistricting, but we do intent do redistrict the House, redistrict the Senate and redistrict the Congressional seats," Moore said.

Cotham's switch from Democrat to Republican gives State House Republicans an outright supermajority, making it easier for the GOP-led General Assembly to override vetoes from Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper.

NCGOP sent out a statement on the announcement welcoming Cotham to the party.

"We are thrilled to have Rep. Cotham join the Republican Party to advance solutions for North Carolina families," said NCGOP Chairman Michael Whatley. "This announcement continues to reflect that the Democratic Party is too radical for North Carolina. The values of the Republican Party align with voters, and the People of Mecklenburg County should be proud to have her representation in Raleigh."


Representative Tricia Cotham is switching parties, giving NC Republicans the supermajority they need to override any veto by Gov. Roy Cooper.

In a statement released Wednesday, House Democratic leader Robert Reives called on Cotham to resign.

"Rep. Tricia Cotham campaigned as a Democrat and supporter of abortion rights, health care, public education, gun safety, and civil rights," Reives wrote. "The voters of House District 112 elected her to serve as that person and overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidates up and down the ballot. ... That is not the person those constituents campaigned for in a hard primary, and who they championed in a general election in a 60% Democratic district. Those constituents deserved to know what values were most important to their elected representative."

When asked Wednesday morning if she would resign she responded, "That's why (Democrats) are not in power."

The North Carolina Democratic Party held its own news conference at NCDP headquarters on Hillsborough Street in downtown Raleigh to respond to Cotham's decision.

"Representative Cotham's decision to switch parties is a deceit of the highest order. It is a betrayal to the people of Mecklenburg County with repercussions not only for the people of her district but for the entire state of North Carolina," Democratic chair Anderson Clayton said. "Reproductive freedoms are on the line. Our public schools are on the line. LGBTQ rights are on the line. Voting rights are on the line. Our future as a state is on the line."


DEMOCRAT RESPONSE:


Rep. Tricia Cotham swtiched to the Republican party Wednesday morning.

While Republicans already hold the 30 Senate seats needed to override vetoes, they have been one seat shy of a similar advantage in the House since the November elections. Cooper made preventing supermajorities his top campaign priority last fall.

Cotham, a former teacher and assistant principal, served in the House for nearly 10 years through 2016 before returning in January.

Republicans have been advancing legislation this year that in previous years Cooper successfully vetoed. Until now, the governor has had enough Democratic votes to uphold vetoes if the party members showed up and voted together.

Last week, the Legislature successfully overrode one of Cooper's vetoes for the first time since 2018 and approved a bill that in part eliminated the state's pistol permit purchase system. Cooper has stopped short of vetoing three other bills this year on topics that he vetoed in 2021. He didn't sign this year's measures but rather allowed them to become law without his signature.

Cotham was one of three House Democrats who were absent last week during the override votes on the gun bill. The absences meant Republicans were able to meet the three-fifths majority threshold necessary to complete the override and advance their agenda.

Cotham said later that day that while she didn't support the permit repeal, she had informed both parties she would be absent for the vote, citing a scheduled hospital treatment. She and other absent Democrats took criticism for what happened, leading at least one liberal-leaning group to announce plans to "hold them accountable" in 2024.

Cooper said Cotham's apparent party switch was a "disappointing decision."
Is only now a question of whether bribery, blackmail, or the plan from the start. Cause those excuses are beyond weak and truly pathetic even if you take them at face value.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,583
2,293
118
Country
Ireland
For our next episode of "wait isn't this kinda the total opposite of democracy?"


Not many links appearing on web searches yet tho for whatever reasons.




Is only now a question of whether bribery, blackmail, or the plan from the start. Cause those excuses are beyond weak and truly pathetic even if you take them at face value.
Oh she Stephen Donnelly'd? Good for her.

Stephen Donnelly was a Social Democrat TD who used to write scathing articles about Fianna Fail. Anyway. He joined fianna fail shortly after getting elected. Also his head looks like an egg and he's a ****.
 

XsjadoBlaydette

~s•o√r∆rπy°`
May 26, 2022
1,094
1,376
118
Clear 'n Present Danger
Country
Must
Gender
Disappear
Oh she Stephen Donnelly'd? Good for her.

Stephen Donnelly was a Social Democrat TD who used to write scathing articles about Fianna Fail. Anyway. He joined fianna fail shortly after getting elected. Also his head looks like an egg and he's a ****.
A brazen tactic that seems concerningly unregulated.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,087
964
118
Country
USA
Trump was President of the United States, arguably the most powerful individual on the planet. I wanted him impeached on circumstantial evidence, that's true: because the circumstances required to make the evidence pertinant were extremely likely, and someone who would wield his position in that way shouldn't continue to do so. Circumstantial evidence, when strong enough, is enough to prevent someone wielding great power.
Again, you have no evidence of the crime. Your "circumstantial evidence" is "if military aid was being held hostage unless the Ukrainians investigated Biden, then it was likely Trump was involved." Which is a valid thing to say. However, there is no evidence of the premise. All the texts and transcripts, no mention of any sort of exchange exists until after the news reported the possibility, and the people involved were surprised by the news.

Your circumstantial evidence ties Trump to a completely unsubstantiated crime.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
6,012
665
118
In pro-Democracy and Free Speech world,

11 people, including 2 Dem MP arrested for protesting in Florida


3 Dems face expulsion from the Chamber after protest in Tennessee

Can you smell the Freedom (TM and CP)
Will this turn out to be like AOC's "arrest" where she pretended to be handcuffed?

Or will this be actual arrests for you know turning protests violent?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
6,012
665
118
I suppose you might know that from experience, given it's happened so many times you're having to tread water in albumen.
Very little experience truth be told. People who think they've managed a gotcha only to check back and realise it was addresses posts before mostly.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,898
6,238
118
Country
United Kingdom
Again, you have no evidence of the crime.
This is genuinely beneath you.

Your "circumstantial evidence" is "if military aid was being held hostage unless the Ukrainians investigated Biden, then it was likely Trump was involved." Which is a valid thing to say. However, there is no evidence of the premise. All the texts and transcripts, no mention of any sort of exchange exists until after the news reported the possibility, and the people involved were surprised by the news.

Your circumstantial evidence ties Trump to a completely unsubstantiated crime.
Firstly, what you've termed there the "circumstantial evidence" wouldn't even be evidence anyway(!) "If X, then Y" isn't evidence, its a (conditional) statement of likelihood.

Onto the actual substance, though: the aid was withheld. Until after the whistle-blower complaint, at which time it was released.