Funny events in anti-woke world

Recommended Videos

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
8,559
1,009
118
Country
USA
That is not a reasonable standard. You're demanding ironclad proof... It is not reasonable to be - as you have been - contemptuous of the suspicion or even accusation of impropriety given the available data.
Firstly, an affirmative claim that this is brazen corruption, without even the slightest qualifier, is not suspicion or even accusation, either of which would allow for the potential of exoneration.

I am not asking for proof, I am asking for reason. If you'd like to consider possible standards here, lets go with the three most significant legal standards:
1. At one end, there is probable cause. I would say we agree that there is something akin to probable cause to look into the potential for corruption.
2. At the other end, there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which I would say we agree is an unreasonable standard.
3. In between those, there is the preponderance of evidence, where you'd say given what we know that something is just more likely than not. I don't think we are even close to this for the claim of brazen corruption. Though it is a somewhat subjective standard, which is why someone like Silvanus claims so many things Trump does are mal-intentioned, because his worldview says it's more likely in any given moment that Trump is trying to do bad things, whether or not there is evidence of it.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
8,559
1,009
118
Country
USA
Implicit, ok. So why does the settlement agreement, which has a section specifically about audits and fraud detection, give Congress nothing, and hand the sole specified role to the AG?
That's just how American government works. A document would have to either be part of a few specific categories of action (something like covert war plans) or explicitly define independence from congress (something like the Federal Reserve) to be exempt from or even limited in Congressional oversight, and I don't think the latter can happen except by an act of Congress. This is neither of those things.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
18,384
11,463
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
North Carolina has introduced a bill that would make it legal to commit murder to stop an abortion.


Any person who willfully seeks to destroy the life of another person, by any means, at any stage of life, or succeeds in doing so, shall be held accountable for attempted murder or for first degree murder, respectively. Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.
Surely God would approve!
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
2,507
594
118
Country
US
Whereas with fossil fuels, the land cannot be used for anything else, and is then destroyed when all resources are extracted.
As a small counter to this, land formerly used for coal extraction gets reused, often for commercial or industrial use, sometimes even residential. But then I'm from WV, and for much of the state you are either on a mountain, or in a valley cut between them by a waterway of some description. There aren't exactly a lot of ways you make more flat land - there's a reason the airport in Charleston, WV is on a flattened mountaintop.

Land is more or less never destroyed, it just comes down to figuring out how to best use it. Hernshaw Farms for example is a kind of sustainable mushroom farm built on former mine land in Gallagher, WV. After the mushroom blocks go throught their flushes, what's left is turned into compost to make more of the mine land more usable as farmland. Notably a significant chunk of Kanawha State Forest was a former mine site, and most of the rest was used for logging.

Not going to argue with the rest of your point, but that once you mined or drilled for fossil fuels the land is totally unusuable for anything is just so massively wrong it's ridiculous. It's certainly going to be harder to use for anything agricultural than a former wind or solar site being repurposed, but it's a far cry from being unusable.

You know what *does* create land that's functionally unusuable afterward? Chemical plants. I'd point you to the former plant site in Nitro, WV where the plant it was named because of used to stand. It's fenced off, virtually impossible to sell because of the liabilities attached to the site, and they were testing groundwater in a significant radius from the site for over a decade after they tore the plant down because of the known things that had leached into the soil at the site. Even it could hypothetically be be put to use, but it's both too valuable (being a large, flat lot by the Kanawha) and utterly worthless (because you'd have to take responsibility for what may or may not still be in the ground) at the same time.

Silvanus (in a post you responded to) declared this to be a "$1.7bn slush fund for political allies" and "one of the most spectacularly brazen examples of corruption".
I mean, Trump effectively settled with himself (the acting AG has said they consider Trump their primary client) to create a fund managed by a group of people Trump chooses for a term of until Trump wants to replace them or the fund expires to make arbitrary payouts on only vaguely specified grounds where the only transparency is a confidential quarterly report to the exact guy who made the comment about Trump being the DOJ's primary client. How can this be anything else?

If this gets thrown out, Carroll should apply for the 1.7B fund for a lark.
She's just someone that the DOJ is investigating because their primary client Donald Trump is hoping they can find something that will both punish her for accusing him of rape and get the civil judgement against him overturned - how is that weaponization? Don't you understand, weaponization is when you do crimes, but Trump likes those crimes and wants you to be paid for those crimes so you'll be willing to do them again if he needs you to?
 

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
14,709
11,824
118
She's just someone that the DOJ is investigating because their primary client Donald Trump is hoping they can find something that will both punish her for accusing him of rape and get the civil judgement against him overturned - how is that weaponization? Don't you understand, weaponization is when you do crimes, but Trump likes those crimes and wants you to be paid for those crimes so you'll be willing to do them again if he needs you to?
Because it's Biden's fault? Somehow, but assuredly. I dropped a glass last night. Also Biden's fault.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
14,020
7,259
118
Country
United Kingdom
You can watch like the 5 minutes where she explains everything...
Or you can actually make an argument rather than pointing to videos and expecting me to debunk them.

According to you... You do not have any expert opinion on the matter.
No: according to her publically available career history.

No you didn't. My article didn't list any totals, it was all percentage-based. Your article giving the total money for fossil fuel subsidies is literally a meaningless number and disproved nothing from my article.
Which? You've posted several articles, and the one to which i was responding certainly had figures. Figures which were drastically understated for fossil fuels.

And there's no reason to "floor it" to switch to renewables either. A nice steady transition is fine.
Hundreds of species going extinct, temperatures rising, air and water being poisoned, and climate tipping points are reasons to do it now. The harms are immense and they are already in action. Climate reports are clear that action needs to be faster, because right now we're coasting into disaster.

The Obama White House attacked him, he was investigated by Congress, his speeches were cancelled, and his research center at Colorado University was shut down.
He was investigated and cleared of a potential financial conflict of interest. As were numerous other figures at the same time.

That's due scrutiny. That's not being 'buried'. Diddums.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
14,020
7,259
118
Country
United Kingdom
That's just how American government works. A document would have to either be part of a few specific categories of action (something like covert war plans) or explicitly define independence from congress (something like the Federal Reserve) to be exempt from or even limited in Congressional oversight, and I don't think the latter can happen except by an act of Congress. This is neither of those things.
If you expect something to be done just because that's how its usually done, you haven't been paying attention.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
8,559
1,009
118
Country
USA
If you expect something to be done just because that's how its usually done, you haven't been paying attention.
If you think things are different under Trump in any really meaningful way, you weren't paying attention to anything that came before him.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
14,020
7,259
118
Country
United Kingdom
If you think things are different under Trump in any really meaningful way, you weren't paying attention to anything that came before him.
I mean, we literally have the settlement agreement, in which it talks about what audits can take place. And nothing about Congress.

Nothing on the scale of this 'anti-weaponisation fund' has ever been created from the judgement fund before. The closest precedent, and the one Trump cites, is Keepseagle. But Keepseagle was less than half the size; included specific criteria within the agreement itself; and was judicially supervised throughout. It was also an actual settlement in a suit with oppositional standing, rather than just ordered by the AG after the suit was already withdrawn.

Please, I'd love to know what came before that you think is comparable to this.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
8,559
1,009
118
Country
USA
I mean, we literally have the settlement agreement, in which it talks about what audits can take place. And nothing about Congress.

Nothing on the scale of this 'anti-weaponisation fund' has ever been created from the judgement fund before. The closest precedent, and the one Trump cites, is Keepseagle. But Keepseagle was less than half the size; included specific criteria within the agreement itself; and was judicially supervised throughout. It was also an actual settlement in a suit with oppositional standing, rather than just ordered by the AG after the suit was already withdrawn.

Please, I'd love to know what came before that you think is comparable to this.

 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,634
3,260
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Because Congressional oversight is implicit in everything the government does that is not explicitly and strictly designated to the other 2 branches.

No, you aren't. You are hoping these things magically fix your broken perspective.

Trump sued the IRS because the IRS under Biden essentially said he could.
Then they negotiated a settlement that would settle all the victims and give Trump something he wants without paying him off directly.
They dropped the suit because the judge indicated it was going to be dismissed.
They're enacting the settlement anyway because it could avoid many, many potential future suits.

Obvious, straight forward answers to every question. Nothing requiring conspiracy.
Ah... yeah. Thats what you call corruption.

For example, if those 'potential future suits' were impartial, there might not be corruption. But they are not.

This money is not going to every person attacked by the DOJ over the years. Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, James Comey, Letitia James, John Bolton and Hunter Biden arent going to get this.

These suits are from people who did real crimes. You, as a tax payer, are paying money to criminals. And these criminals are only criminals on behalf of Trump. They would be innocent people if not for Trump. It also encourages more people to become criminals so they can get a pay day

The money amount is not tied to any actual damages. Its $T1.776. Its a symbolic number untethered to any actual damage. Its fake

By the way - this is the literal definition of conspirarcy. The definition does say it should be secret and maybe you could say its not secret. Otherwise, what you described is a conspiracy. You just failed to mention WHO and WHY the money was being tranferred

If you strip decisions out of context, you can arrive at vastly different results. I wonder if we had a word for that.... FAKE NEWS
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cicada 5

Cicada 5

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2015
3,175
1,726
118
Country
Nigeria
North Carolina has introduced a bill that would make it legal to commit murder to stop an abortion.




Surely God would approve!
Would this also cover killing the woman who is trying to get the abortion? I'm reminded of a Law & Order episode where the killer was a pro-life terrorist whose bomb killed both the mother and unborn child and didn't see the hypocrisy of her actions until Ben Stone pointed it out to her.
 

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
14,709
11,824
118
1780124343474.png
After President Donald Trump helped nominate controversial Texas AG Ken Paxton as the Republican to run against Democrat James Talarico for Texas’ pivotal Senate seat, critics say the Lone Star state may now be in serious play.

But it appears an unexpected new issue has reared its head to further complicate an easy Republican senatorial win in this red state — and nobody saw it coming.

“My entire community is going to break rank. Everybody, all of us. We've had enough,” Texas Republican voter Cheryl Shadden told MS NOW reporter Josh Einiger. “… Red or blue. If you vote against data centers, we vote for you.”

A lifelong conservative, Shadden is so angry she refuses to vote for Trump backed attorney general ken Paxton, Einiger reports. Instead, she's all in for Talarico to flip a seat controlled by Republicans since 1993.

“You're willing at this point to forego basically every conservative issue and let the Senate fall into the hands of Democrats, if that's what it takes to kill data centers?” asked Einiger

“Yep,” said Shadden, who describes living one quarter mile from her neighboring data center as “like living on the edge of Niagara Falls. Or you're on a runway next to a jet that's taking off. But this jet doesn't take off.”

Last year, MS NOW reports Trump signed an executive order reducing regulation of data center construction across the country. And Texas is now second to Virginia as the state with the most — almost 500 already in business and roaring away with nearly 150 more under construction.

This leaves outraged neighbors to deal with skyrocketing utility bills as the centers overwhelm power grids and guzzle groundwater to feed their massive cooling systems inside.

But then there’s the blast of sound as an army of massive fans roar 24/7 to keep the computers inside cool.

“I voted for Trump at the time. It seemed to be the right thing to do,” complained another Texas resident dealing with the noise and high bills a data center brought.

Meanwhile other longtime Republicans are now canvasing for Democrats like Clayton Tucker, who's running for agriculture commissioner, after GOP commissioners rubber-stamped center development.

“This is just Texans standing up for Texans,” Clayton told Einiger. “It's not surrendering our Texas, our way of life, our water, our power, or anything to these few corporations to make all the money in the world.”

Einiger asked a third Trump voter if she thought the data center issue was “going to flip the Texas senate seat.”

“Absolutely, yes. One-hundred percent,” she answered.
Lol, look at all that delusion
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
14,020
7,259
118
Country
United Kingdom

So, the instances they bring up to compare;

* 1998: compensation for Japanese internees. Totalling $3m.

* 1998: $327m paid to Pakistan after non-delivery of military equipment. Pakistan had already paid the US >$600m, so this was actually part-repayment.

* 2016: $1.3bn paid to Iran to cover interest on $600m of Iranian money held in the US for 37 years (the US had agreed to place it in an interest-accruing account in 1979 but hadn't done so).

* 2011: $1.3bn for compensation scheme for Hispanic and female farmers who faced discrimination. Claimants were required to provide documentation and meet the 'substantial evidence' or 'preponderance of evidence' legal standard, and the agreement contains specific rules of eligibility. Audited by the Sec of Agriculture, Inspector General of USDA, & AG (so admittedly no role for congress is specified).


The only one here that's remotely comparable is 2011, and it still involves a specific set of criteria in the agreement, a much higher bar, and more bodies involved in audit. And its also ~$500m smaller, despite covering 30 years' worth of claims.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
8,559
1,009
118
Country
USA
* 2016: $1.3bn paid to Iran to cover interest on $600m of Iranian money held in the US for 37 years (the US had agreed to place it in an interest-accruing account in 1979 but hadn't done so).

* 2011: $1.3bn for compensation scheme for Hispanic and female farmers who faced discrimination. Claimants were required to provide documentation and meet the 'substantial evidence' or 'preponderance of evidence' legal standard, and the agreement contains specific rules of eligibility. Audited by the Sec of Agriculture, Inspector General of USDA, & AG (so admittedly no role for congress is specified).

The only one here that's remotely comparable is 2011, and it still involves a specific set of criteria in the agreement, a much higher bar, and more bodies involved in audit. And its also ~$500m smaller, despite covering 30 years' worth of claims.
Adjusted for inflation, 2011 and 2016 are both larger sums.

No role for Congress is almost ever specified. Think of it this way: Congressional Representatives are only elected for 2 years at a time, it wouldn't make any sense to assign them a role for specific, continuous oversight duty. The regular actions of government, things like audits, are pretty much always assigned to members of the executive, many of whom persist across administrations. The oversight responsibilities of Congress are less "Congress has to look into all these things at certain intervals", and more "Congress has the right to look into anything not specifically exempt at their own discretion" (provided it is related to legislation and governance, they don't get to just like fire off criminal investigations on random people for fun). It would be rare and exceptional for specific Congressional oversight to be written into this fund.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
14,020
7,259
118
Country
United Kingdom
Adjusted for inflation, 2011 and 2016 are both larger sums.

No role for Congress is almost ever specified. Think of it this way: Congressional Representatives are only elected for 2 years at a time, it wouldn't make any sense to assign them a role for specific, continuous oversight duty. The regular actions of government, things like audits, are pretty much always assigned to members of the executive, many of whom persist across administrations. The oversight responsibilities of Congress are less "Congress has to look into all these things at certain intervals", and more "Congress has the right to look into anything not specifically exempt at their own discretion" (provided it is related to legislation and governance, they don't get to just like fire off criminal investigations on random people for fun). It would be rare and exceptional for specific Congressional oversight to be written into this fund.
Ok. We'll take that as a "we'll see", then.

And all the other substantial differences? The fact it has specific, high-evidentiary standards to meet set out in the agreement, whereas the AWF has none and just leaves it up to 5 political appointees to decide? That it has 3 separate bodies overseeing it, whereas the AWF leaves it to Trump's lawyer? That it covers 30 years of litigation and complaint, while the AWF covers a few years of Trump's personal bugbear? That the AWF settlement has an extra stipulation to exempt Trump from IRS audit?

Even if we accept the presumption of congressional oversight, nothing there is remotely comparable in abuse.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
18,384
11,463
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Robbie Van Winkle defends sticking around for the Freedom 250 debacle by saying "music is not political" and "I'll go play for Putin and I'll play in Iran if you want".


“I don’t even vote, so I don’t even care,” the rapper in an interview with TMZ posted Friday.
It's always weird when people who are part of the problem brag about being part of the problem
 

Cicada 5

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2015
3,175
1,726
118
Country
Nigeria
Robbie Van Winkle defends sticking around for the Freedom 250 debacle by saying "music is not political" and "I'll go play for Putin and I'll play in Iran if you want".




It's always weird when people who are part of the problem brag about being part of the problem
I didn't even know he was still performing. Is he even popular enough for them invite him to perform?
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
3,250
2,492
118
Country
The Netherlands
Robbie Van Winkle defends sticking around for the Freedom 250 debacle by saying "music is not political" and "I'll go play for Putin and I'll play in Iran if you want".
its funny he says music is not political while playing at the vanity of a dangerous, malicious and controversial political figure.

Even an argument that he's merely celebrating US independence wouldn't cut it when said celebration is hijacked by someone mutating everything the founding fathers wanting to do, apart from the racism which is the one trait they might actually have in common.