"2000 Mules" (Page 4/22)
olejoedad MAY 06, 03:37 PM
After reading the full transcript that you linked to, I must ask you what you find problematic about what was said?
olejoedad MAY 06, 03:40 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:


what if the mail in has a thumb print ?
why must voters be restricted in any way [we know that is the rights only hope]
why not every thumb votes without the BS of jumping thru hoops
weeks or months in advance

maybe it not about illegals at all
but about the reichwing's favorite subject CON-TROLL



Not every registered voter has their fingerprints recorded by the government.

Nor does the government have access without requiring every citizen, by law, to be fingerprinted.

That sounds like a massive invasion of privacy by the government.

Are you ok with the government requiring every citizen to be fingerprinted?
rinselberg MAY 06, 04:35 PM

quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:
Here is my problem with the entire thing. By the time Trump took his hand off the bible and was sworn in as the President the Democrats and even some Republicans started a smear campaign. Half truths and out right lies were propagated in the media and people were manipulated into riots by that same media.

I don't care what you think of Trump, its not relevant. This was an attack on the sitting president, this distracted him from doing his job. Its time that we the people take this government in hand and ask for accountability.

No more unsecure votes, you can't prove who you are then you can't vote. End of story. It has to start somewhere and this is not voter suppression don't even start with that bull **** .



quote
This was an attack on the sitting president, this distracted him from doing his job.



That's hilarious. It's like saying there was so much noise in the auditorium from ill-mannered members of the audience, that the three-year old boy who had been chosen at random from the nearest kindergarten to perform a piano solo of Rachmaninoff's Prelude No. 24 in D major couldn't perform because he was distracted from doing his job.

There were many ways for the newly inaugurated President Trump to deal with what would become known to the public as the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and after that, the Mueller investigation, and before that, the Steele or "Trump-Russia" dossier, and all that.

Many ways, but Trump dealt with all that in a way that revealed him unambiguously for the lying, demagogic "rump" (~ Pennock's forum member "ray b") that he always was, and always will be.


quote
How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017


That's one of my earliest memories from Trump's presidency.

That's not an accusation for a President to go public with, without providing any solid evidence to support it. Even if Trump thought that there was any solid evidence for that accusation, or thought that a proper investigation would eventually discover solid evidence to support that accusation--still wrong. A 100 percent wrong. Going onto Twitter with that accusation was 100 percent a wrong thing to do, and the vulgarity that Trump used to express this accusation, also a 100 percent wrong thing to do.

Why was Trump shooting his mouth off like that on Twitter, in such a reckless and indiscriminate manner, about an accusation that should have been conducted within the U.S. Department of Justice and kept under wraps within the DOJ until such time as there would be reason for any public disclosures about it from the DOJ, if such an accusation were grounds for that kind of investigation to begin with?

That's one of the earliest moments in Trump's presidency when I remember thinking to myself, "He's not just a f*ck, he's a cluster f*ck. This is going to be one f*cked up presidency."

Needless to say, I have not been disappointed on that, by anything that's been done or anything that's been said, since the date of that Trump tweet on March 4, 2017.

Covfefe, anyone? Do you take cream?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-06-2022).]

olejoedad MAY 06, 04:37 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

That's one of my earliest memories from Trump's presidency.

That's not an accusation for a President to go public with, without providing any solid evidence to support it. Even if Trump thought that there was any solid evidence for that accusation, or thought that a proper investigation would eventually discover solid evidence to support that accusation--still wrong. A 100 percent wrong. Going onto Twitter with that accusation was 100 percent a wrong thing to do, and the vulgarity that Trump used to express this accusation, also a 100 percent wrong thing to do.

Why was Trump shooting his mouth off like that on Twitter, in such a reckless and indiscriminate manner, about an accusation that should have been conducted within the U.S. Department of Justice and kept under wraps within the DOJ until such time as there would be reason for any public disclosures about it from the DOJ, if such an accusation were grounds for that kind of investigation to begin with?

That's one of the earliest moments in Trump's presidency when I remember thinking to myself, "He's not just a f*ck, he's a cluster f*ck. This is going to be one f*cked up presidency."




And it was proven that his communications were being monitored.

Your point?
rinselberg MAY 06, 04:42 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

And it was proven that his communications were being monitored.

Your point?


Trump's communications were being monitored by President Obama, or at the direction of President Obama?

That's not what I understand, from what I've read about the Durham investigation.

Feel free to elaborate.
Jake_Dragon MAY 06, 05:08 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Covfefe, anyone? Do you take cream?




Just so we are clear I do not read your posts. I attempt to read Ray B buy get lost, yours I just skip.
olejoedad MAY 06, 05:17 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Trump's communications were being monitored by President Obama, or at the direction of President Obama?

That's not what I understand, from what I've read about the Durham investigation.

Feel free to elaborate.



No, if you're curious, you will find the information.

It's out there.
ray b MAY 06, 05:28 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:


Not every registered voter has their fingerprints recorded by the government.

Nor does the government have access without requiring every citizen, by law, to be fingerprinted.

That sounds like a massive invasion of privacy by the government.

Are you ok with the government requiring every citizen to be fingerprinted?



one thumb is not a full fingerprinting
only needs to be at the local precinct
not a real big deal
but cuts the limit the vote plans down quick
so we see the true nature of the Gop plans
limit the vote
never increase the vote no not that !!
rinselberg MAY 06, 05:38 PM

quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:
Just so we are clear I do not read your posts. I attempt to read Ray B buy get lost, yours I just skip.


Sorry to register that. Slightly sorry. It's not a "show stopper" for me, but it's not welcome news.

Is it contagious? The systematic not reading of "that other guy's" posts.

Makes me think again of an idea I've been turning over in my mind, from time to time. Of whether to try to suggest to the one person who could make it happen that a screen name selectable post blocker would be another step forward for the Pennock's forum. I don't know, about trying to make that suggestion. I don't think I would want to have any other forum member's automatically and systematically blocked from my view, unless I could turn it Off and On myself. So I'm not of a mind (yet) to try to make that suggestion.

It kind of "hit me" some weeks ago that the "Blacklist" feature that Cliff Pennock implemented some time ago could be like a foundation or first step towards implementing a version of this "post blocker" function that I just described. So if there is already an exclusionary relationship in the forum software that prevents "Joe Blow" from posting in any thread that's been started by "Rick Dick" (and vice versa), perhaps that could be extended to provide a functionality for Joe Blow to have the content of all posts from Rick Dick automatically and systematically excluded from Joe Blow's view (and vice versa). If it could be turned Off and On by Joe Blow (and vice versa).

For anyone and everyone's interest, except for Jake_Dragon, who obviously won't be reading this.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-06-2022).]

olejoedad MAY 06, 06:43 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Sorry to register that. Slightly sorry. It's not a "show stopper" for me, but it's not welcome news.

Is it contagious? The systematic not reading of "that other guy's" posts.

Makes me think again of an idea I've been turning over in my mind, from time to time. Of whether to try to suggest to the one person who could make it happen that a screen name selectable post blocker would be another step forward for the Pennock's forum. I don't know, about trying to make that suggestion. I don't think I would want to have any other forum member's automatically and systematically blocked from my view, unless I could turn it Off and On myself. So I'm not of a mind (yet) to try to make that suggestion.

It kind of "hit me" some weeks ago that the "Blacklist" feature that Cliff Pennock implemented some time ago could be like a foundation or first step towards implementing a version of this "post blocker" function that I just described. So if there is already an exclusionary relationship in the forum software that prevents "Joe Blow" from posting in any thread that's been started by "Rick Dick" (and vice versa), perhaps that could be extended to provide a functionality for Joe Blow to have the content of all posts from Rick Dick automatically and systematically excluded from Joe Blow's view (and vice versa). If it could be turned Off and On by Joe Blow (and vice versa).

For anyone and everyone's interest, except for Jake_Dragon, who obviously won't be reading this.




So, you're in favor of censorship at the Administrative level?

Are you unable to self-censor?

No, wait, I think I know the answer.....