Alex Jones found liable over Sandy Hook hoax conspiracy

#176
#176
RockyTop85 said:
Sounds like you should have come up with harder criteria if you were going to be disappointed that I was able to meet them.

I don’t know what “not counting coup at this point” means, but if I cared what anybody here thought, I wouldn’t routinely act the fool to get you to beclown yourself.
Click to expand...
Lulz. Oh sure. Add another victory to the coup counting count. I’m disappointed I made a specific play to one of your favorite triggering terms to demonstrate your victory counting methodology. LMAO
 
#178
#178
InVOLuntary said:
I agree but we've seen them quell competition. I think it's dangerous for all the media to have all the power.
Click to expand...
That’s fine. But what are you proposing? Some sort of government intervention in the Big Tech space?
 
#181
#181
BowlBrother85 said:
This is tribalism. You've just admitted that your capacity for empathy only extends to those who are in accord with your political views, even when the deaths of innocent children are involved. Feeling compassion for a parent, following the murder of their child shouldn't come with strings attached, unless you are an emotionally immature and petty little person, who is tribal in nature.
Click to expand...
Sounds familiar…….
 
#182
#182
InVOLuntary said:
I'm not proposing anything, I'm pointing out a huge problem. We basically have state run media. It's dangerous.
Click to expand...
I’m certainly not of the opinion that it’s a good thing that all of Big Tech and social media are politically aligned on one side.

I am of the opinion that private entities should be able to do as they please - whether I like it or not.
 
#183
#183
InVOLuntary said:
I'm not proposing anything, I'm pointing out a huge problem. We basically have state run media. It's dangerous.
Click to expand...
This is either hyperbole to an extreme, or ignorance.

You only have "state run media" if every media outlet in question, falls under both financial and editorial control of that nation's government. One glance at the Murdoch family-owned Fox News Corp. or even the local affiliates under Sinclair Broadcasting, demonstrates that there isn't "basically state run media" in the United States. If that was the case, then Trump would have been successful at silencing his critics (like his idol Putin has been). State run media shows subservience to their nation's leadership, regardless of party affiliation. It is not ideologically or policy driven. It is driven only by serving the best interests of the current personnel in power.

You can make the case that media coverage in the United States, is disproportionately slanted towards a liberal political ideology, and that where editorial bias is allowed to exist, it tends to favor the Democratic Party, but that in no way meets the definition of "state run media".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AshG
#184
#184
85SugarVol said:
I’m certainly not of the opinion that it’s a good thing that all of Big Tech and social media are politically aligned on one side.

I am of the opinion that private entities should be able to do as they please - whether I like it or not.
Click to expand...
That isn't necessarily what we have. Media and govt are working together to create narratives and push agendas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and whodeycin85
#185
#185
BowlBrother85 said:
... but if the purpose of meeting with Russian agents is to receive dirt on a political opponent, then you could have a federal crime.

In the words of the Federal Elections Commission Chair, Ellen Weintraub, "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election." Weintraub gave that as an answer to the question of whether or not the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting had violated FEC law.

Obviously, she was interpreting "anything of value" to include opposition research. However, in the interest of fairness, I will acknowledge that is a contentious point of debate. Not everyone agrees with her.

Regardless, that meeting more than justified the Mueller probe.
Click to expand...
Uh, Steele Dossier come to mind?
 
#187
#187
hUTch2002 said:
Uh, Steele Dossier come to mind?
Click to expand...
That doesn't make the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting any less illegal... at least in the mind of Federal Elections Chair, Ellen Weintraub. That meeting justified the Mueller probe. The origins of the Steele Dossier have been investigated as well.
 
#188
#188
BowlBrother85 said:
That doesn't make the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting any less illegal... at least in the mind of Federal Elections Chair, Ellen Weintraub. That meeting justified the Mueller probe. The origins of the Steele Dossier have been investigated as well.
Click to expand...
Technically that meeting is not. The quote you posted said “solicit, accept, or receive”. They actually did none of those. They were approached about something and they listened. Soliciting is asking for it and they didn’t do that. As it turned out, there was nothing of value in the first place so the whole premise falls apart there too. Had there been something of value do I think Trump would’ve turned it over to the FBI as he claimed? No, I don’t believe that but the meeting itself was not illegal no matter how much you want it to be. The Steele Dossier, on the other hand, absolutely fits the definition you posted but I don’t see you addressing that issue at all.
 
#190
#190
BowlBrother85 said:
This is either hyperbole to an extreme, or ignorance.

You only have "state run media" if every media outlet in question, falls under both financial and editorial control of that nation's government. One glance at the Murdoch family-owned Fox News Corp. or even the local affiliates under Sinclair Broadcasting, demonstrates that there isn't "basically state run media" in the United States. If that was the case, then Trump would have been successful at silencing his critics (like his idol Putin has been). State run media shows subservience to their nation's leadership, regardless of party affiliation. It is not ideologically or policy driven. It is driven only by serving the best interests of the current personnel in power.

You can make the case that media coverage in the United States, is disproportionately slanted towards a liberal political ideology, and that where editorial bias is allowed to exist, it tends to favor the Democratic Party, but that in no way meets the definition of "state run media".
Click to expand...
Lol. That's all I've got. Let me know when twitter suspends the Taliban.
 
#191
#191
hUTch2002 said:
Technically that meeting is not. The quote you posted said “solicit, accept, or receive”. They actually did none of those. They were approached about something and they listened. Soliciting is asking for it and they didn’t do that. As it turned out, there was nothing of value in the first place so the whole premise falls apart there too. Had there been something of value do I think Trump would’ve turned it over to the FBI as he claimed? No, I don’t believe that but the meeting itself was not illegal no matter how much you want it to be. The Steele Dossier, on the other hand, absolutely fits the definition you posted but I don’t see you addressing that issue at all.
Click to expand...
As I was careful to point out, it was the FEC Chair, Ellen Weintraub. who concluded that the Trump campaign did solicit opposition research from Russian officials through an intermediary named Rob Goldstone, who was responsible for arranging the June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower. It was Goldstone who received the message from Donald Trump Jr. which said. "If it's what you say it is I LOVE IT!"

I was also careful to point out that it was also Ellen Weintraub who concluded that opposition research does constitute "something of value." I made it a point to mention that not every attorney will agree with her assessment, however.

Finally, and nobody ever gives an honest answer to this question (if they bother addressing it at all) :

If the Trump campaign didn't think that there was anything wrong with the June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower, then why did both Donald Trump Jr. and Donald Trump Sr. lie about who was in attendance at the meeting, and what the true purpose behind the meeting actually was? Both of the Trumps released prepared statements to the media claiming that the meeting had been arranged to discuss the potential repeal of the Magnitsky Act, if Trump was to win the election, and a possible lift of the Russian-imposed ban against prospective American parents adopting Russian children. The messages that were exchanged between Rob Goldstone and Donald Trump Jr. revealed that narrative to be a lie, however.

Why did they both lie, if they truly believed that there was nothing wrong with that meeting? Doesn't that reveal a consciousness of guilt on their part? I believe that it does. At the very least, those lies definitely justified the Mueller probe.
 
#192
#192
BowlBrother85 said:
As I was careful to point out, it was the FEC Chair, Ellen Weintraub. who concluded that the Trump campaign did solicit opposition research from Russian officials through an intermediary named Rob Goldstone, who was responsible for arranging the June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower. It was Goldstone who received the message from Donald Trump Jr. which said. "If it's what you say it is I LOVE IT!"

I was also careful to point out that it was also Ellen Weintraub who concluded that opposition research does constitute "something of value." I made it a point to mention that not every attorney will agree with her assessment, however.

Finally, and nobody ever gives an honest answer to this question (if they bother addressing it at all) :

If the Trump campaign didn't think that there was anything wrong with the June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower, then why did both Donald Trump Jr. and Donald Trump Sr. lie about who was in attendance at the meeting, and what the true purpose behind the meeting actually was? Both of the Trumps released prepared statements to the media claiming that the meeting had been arranged to discuss the potential repeal of the Magnitsky Act, if Trump was to win the election, and a possible lift of the Russian-imposed ban against prospective American parents adopting Russian children. The messages that were exchanged between Rob Goldstone and Donald Trump Jr. revealed that narrative to be a lie, however.

Why did they both lie, if they truly believed that there was nothing wrong with that meeting? Doesn't that reveal a consciousness of guilt on their part? I believe that it does. At the very least, those lies definitely justified the Mueller probe.
Click to expand...
Mueller probe began because of the Hillary Clinton/DNC funded Steele dossier. Seems like there would be a potential fruit of the poison tree argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and InVOLuntary
#193
#193
Weezer said:
Mueller probe began because of the Hillary Clinton/DNC funded Steele dossier. Seems like there would be a potential fruit of the poison tree argument.
Click to expand...
Both matters, the Steele Dossier and the Trump campaign's association with Russian operatives, merited the scrutiny of a special counsel.
 
#194
#194
Weezer said:
Mueller probe began because of the Hillary Clinton/DNC funded Steele dossier. Seems like there would be a potential fruit of the poison tree argument.
Click to expand...
... and this is inaccurate.. Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel on May 17, 2017 overseeing an investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
 
#199
#199
What is the desired outcome of the government working with Facebook, Twitter, et al?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top