The Orange Man. He's bad. Very, very bad!

[Twiztid Elf]

But I was doing that back pre internet on BBS's!

[unfnknblvbl]

you're not as old or as bad as my brothers...

[Rorschach]

It went to shit once otherwise technologically illiterate people worked out that they could use their new fangled "cellular telephone" to "post" their "thoughts" to "the internet".
Honestly, not to sound like a gatekeeper or anything, but I really do think the internet was a heck of a lot better when there was a bit of a barrier stopping people like my racist jock technophobic brothers from going online and spewing bile everywhere.

True, back in the day the internet was a genuine frontier - lots of crap on it but stuff like ICQ, mIRC, forums like this, Usenet etc made it a fun place to figure out. Now days it's a shithole. It makes some things easier now like shopping and navigation but the ability to instantly broadcast whatever purile thought enters the mind of the average bogan is killing society.

[stanard]

Then it really went to shit when the social medias and YouTube changed from timeline to engagement based.

[Reka]

Trump tried to 'overthrow' democracy!!!



....Oh wait, they were working against Trump. They 'fortified' democracy!

[Ambrose Burnside]

Encouraging people to postal vote during a pandemic and getting black people on the electoral roll = paranoid fever dream.

Only in (Republican) America!

[Reka]

Ah, that old chestnut. Let's wave the BLM flag to justify anything/everything we do, then accuse anyone who objectively questions it of being racist and bigoted.

It's not a subversion of democracy because "BLM". Also, Orange man bad. Very, very bad. We are justified. There is no way this should be construed as subverting the democratic process. Also, the media is in full agreement and dissenting voices will be silenced. Case closed.

[unfnknblvbl]

who the hell said anything about BLM? Republicans actively try to make it difficult for non whites to vote. In a country that supposedly values its democracy, you'd think that kind of behaviour would be frowned upon...

[Froggy]

Yes, the guy who writes Nancy Pelosi's legislation and a "journalist" screen grabbing Jeff Bezo's paper, no point going to court coz it's over right!

Meanwhile I didn't realise Antifa and BLM supported Trump so much they rioted for him, impeach Pelosi and the squad too? Here's just one of them, this guy was in there with CNN (do we shut it down now for hate speech and incitement?):

john-sullivan-arrested.jpg

You read the exact same stuff I see some of my facebook friends posting. Are you into the pro Trump evangelical channels too? All the stuff you push is right here:

No I read the DOJ?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1354781/download

Evangelicals are morons.

[Hercy]

Ah, that old chestnut. Let's wave the BLM flag to justify anything/everything we do, then accuse anyone who objectively questions it of being racist and bigoted.

It's not a subversion of democracy because "BLM". Also, Orange man bad. Very, very bad. We are justified. There is no way this should be construed as subverting the democratic process. Also, the media is in full agreement and dissenting voices will be silenced. Case closed.

What was the alternative? To accept that millions of voters who would otherwise cast a vote would be unable to vote because of inadequate funding for COVID-safe measures at in-person polling places? The article says that in the Milwaukee primaries the administration opened 5 polling places instead of the usual 182. People were justifiably worried that the same would happen in the Presidential election if nothing were done.

"For the thousands of local, mostly nonpartisan officials who administer elections, the most urgent need was money. They needed protective equipment like masks, gloves and hand sanitizer. They needed to pay for postcards letting people know they could vote absentee–or, in some states, to mail ballots to every voter. They needed additional staff and scanners to process ballots.

In March, activists appealed to Congress to steer COVID relief money to election administration. Led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, more than 150 organizations signed a letter to every member of Congress seeking $2 billion in election funding. It was somewhat successful: the CARES Act, passed later that month, contained $400 million in grants to state election administrators. But the next tranche of relief funding didn’t add to that number. It wasn’t going to be enough.

The article goes on to say that private groups made up the shortfall in election funding. So in the absence of willing governments to fund the election infrastructure, private groups put in their own money and lobbied to widen mail-in voting to take some of the pressure off the in-person polling places. If Republicans hate mail-in voting so much, maybe they should properly fund in-person voting.

[Peppermint Lounge]

Bill Maher on Republican voter supression. Lol at Harris County in Texas which comprises Texas' most populous city Houston getting just one ballot drop box. The Republican governor restricted ballot drop boxes to one per county regardless of size or population. Harris County population - 4.7 million with over 2.4 million eligible voters.

[Ambrose Burnside]

[unfnknblvbl]

If Republicans hate mail-in voting so much, maybe they should properly fund in-person voting.

So close. So very, very close. They just hate voting, especially when done by the "wrong" people.

[Cletus]

hahahahaha so true...any and all conservatives are racist cunts and should die.

[Ambrose Burnside]

Voter suppression is a liberal myth

[Ambrose Burnside]

So Sidney Powell, being sued by Dominion for a cool US$1.3 billion for all the crazy shit she spewed that only the Froggys of the world would believe, is now using the fact that only the Froggys of the world would believe her as her defence:

In the wake of the US election, Ms Powell launched a media campaign accusing the company of a litany of crimes and conspiracies.

Ms Powell told a press conference that Dominion had been created in Venezuela by the late dictator Hugo Chavez to rig elections.

She also accused Dominion of bribing Georgia's governor and secretary of state.

In their lawsuit, Dominion described Ms Powell's claims as "wild accusations" and "outlandish claims".

And now Ms Powell's legal team is arguing Dominion's description is evidence she should not be taken seriously.

"Such characterisations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process," Ms Powell's defence lawyers wrote in a court filing overnight.

In other words, Ms Powell didn't defame Dominion, because nobody with any brains would take her seriously.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/sidney-p ... a1087c9cd0

[Twiztid Elf]

Companies can't sue for defamation.

[Hercy]

What a strange claim, considering that they can and clearly are doing so.

Still not even in the top 10 most counterfactual claims in this thread though, somehow.

[Twiztid Elf]

Heh. What da ya know. Companies can in the US.
Not so much here.

[Froggy]

So Sidney Powell, being sued by Dominion for a cool US$1.3 billion for all the crazy shit she spewed that only the Froggys of the world would believe, is now using the fact that only the Froggys of the world would believe her as her defence:

In the wake of the US election, Ms Powell launched a media campaign accusing the company of a litany of crimes and conspiracies.

Ms Powell told a press conference that Dominion had been created in Venezuela by the late dictator Hugo Chavez to rig elections.

She also accused Dominion of bribing Georgia's governor and secretary of state.

In their lawsuit, Dominion described Ms Powell's claims as "wild accusations" and "outlandish claims".

And now Ms Powell's legal team is arguing Dominion's description is evidence she should not be taken seriously.

"Such characterisations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process," Ms Powell's defence lawyers wrote in a court filing overnight.

In other words, Ms Powell didn't defame Dominion, because nobody with any brains would take her seriously.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/sidney-p ... a1087c9cd0

Thanks for confirming how shite modern "journalism" is. One person writes an article full of opinion but they all agree so nek minute copy and paste jobs all over the internet.

Read it for yourself:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... minion.pdf

See if you come the same conclusion as you're article portrays, doubtful if you bother to get through it all.

[unfnknblvbl]

doubtful if you bother to get through it all.

Did you?

[Ambrose Burnside]

So Sidney Powell, being sued by Dominion for a cool US$1.3 billion for all the crazy shit she spewed that only the Froggys of the world would believe, is now using the fact that only the Froggys of the world would believe her as her defence:

In the wake of the US election, Ms Powell launched a media campaign accusing the company of a litany of crimes and conspiracies.

Ms Powell told a press conference that Dominion had been created in Venezuela by the late dictator Hugo Chavez to rig elections.

She also accused Dominion of bribing Georgia's governor and secretary of state.

In their lawsuit, Dominion described Ms Powell's claims as "wild accusations" and "outlandish claims".

And now Ms Powell's legal team is arguing Dominion's description is evidence she should not be taken seriously.

"Such characterisations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process," Ms Powell's defence lawyers wrote in a court filing overnight.

In other words, Ms Powell didn't defame Dominion, because nobody with any brains would take her seriously.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/sidney-p ... a1087c9cd0

Thanks for confirming how shite modern "journalism" is. One person writes an article full of opinion but they all agree so nek minute copy and paste jobs all over the internet.

Read it for yourself:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... minion.pdf

See if you come the same conclusion as you're article portrays, doubtful if you bother to get through it all.

Secure Connection Failed

An error occurred during a connection to assets.documentcloud.org. PR_END_OF_FILE_ERROR

The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
Please contact the web site owners to inform them of this problem.

Made it to the end. Riveting read. 10/10.

[unfnknblvbl]

it works for me. I'm going to guess that Froggy didn't read it, because right there on page 27 (page 41 of the PDF) is...

Dominion-1.png

...so, yes. Sidney Powell really is saying that her batshit crazy claims were so batshit crazy that no sane person would believe them. Except Froggy, of course.

And if he still doesn't believe that, well, here's an actual lawyer talking about it:

[Froggy]

it works for me. I'm going to guess that Froggy didn't read it, because right there on page 27 (page 41 of the PDF) is...


Dominion-1.png


...so, yes. Sidney Powell really is saying that her batshit crazy claims were so batshit crazy that no sane person would believe them. Except Froggy, of course.

And if he still doesn't believe that, well, here's an actual lawyer talking about it:

Maybe try reading to p51

[unfnknblvbl]

Maybe try reading to p51

... As the Supreme Court spelled out in St. Amant v. Thompson, 397 U.S. 727 (1968);

reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual malice.

Id. at 731 (emphasis added).

The Complaint comes nowhere close to meeting this daunting standard. It alleges no facts which, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, would show that
Sidney Powell knew her statements were false (assuming that they were indeed false, which Defendants dispute). Nor have Plaintiffs alleged any facts showing that Powell “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of h[er] publication.” In fact, she believed the allegations then and she believes them now

Cool, let's refer back to page 41...

Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry: Is the statement one which can be proved true or false? And would reasonable people conclude that the statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surrounding its publication. Keohane, 882 P.2d at 1299. This inquiry is determined as a matter of law. [i]Bucher v. Roberts[/i], 595 P.2d 235, 241 (Colo. 1979) (“Whether a particular statement constitutes fact or opinion is a question of law.”). Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.

And just in case that wasn't clear enough for you, let's put the two statements side by side, shall we?

no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.

In fact, she believed the allegations then and she believes them now