The constant stream of incendiary rhetoric isn’t doing anyone any good.
Your link is just another “people who disagree with me are nazis” post. It makes wild assertions. Lies and insults aren’t productive, they don’t change policy.
The parent post made it clear they are an immigrant following the process; there has been zero discussion of deporting legal immigrants from any of the incoming administration.
Disagreeing with mass deportation is a perfectly reasonable take, but spreading hate isn’t the way to improve things.
Could you please provide a less incendiary source to break down the costs and potential processes involved in a mass deportation of illegal immigrants in the United States? Certainly it is important for everyone to have a productive discussion about this with less inflammatory information. Otherwise I ignore the Nazi comments and get to the heart of arguments presented. Which in my opinion has pretty compelling reasons for why one should oppose the potential plan for mass deportation Trump’s administration has mentioned.
My point is that admiring someone, someone being financially successful, etc. is not grounds for real trust. Having a high public profile and an excess of media impressions doesn't mean they've actually earned trust.
These might all be general signals for someone who is trustworthy, but proxies are not the real thing.
> And meeting with Trump people about Blue Origin.
Blue Origin executives briefly met with Trump on the same day the non-endorsement was announced. But was that some kind of quid pro quo or was it just a coincidence? Did they or Trump know about WaPo’s non-endorsement at the time they arranged the meeting? Did it factor into either side’s decision to meet?
Blue Origin and WaPo are completely separate businesses with a common owner. I wouldn’t expect them to coordinate with each other, with rare exceptions-the most likely exception would be logistical issues with their common owner’s schedule/transportation/security/etc. I doubt Blue executives knew about the WaPo announcement beforehand, and if they’d already planned to meet with Trump that day, why would they have thought it a reason to change their plans? They’ve probably met with Harris too, or at least would like to if she is willing. It is in their best interest to hedge their bets to maximise the odds of a positive relationship with the White House no matter who wins.
> are people really this naive to think Bezos didn’t orchestrate all of this intentionally?
I think it is completely within the bounds of the reasonably possible that he did.
But I don’t think anyone has hard evidence he did, just suspicions. Sometimes, the devious answer is the correct one; other times, the real situation is more innocent and it just looks devious. Given the paucity of evidence, I think agnosticism is the most rational position.
You’re saying that Bezos telling the editorial board to not endorse is election interference?
I’m really struggling to see how not doing something could ever qualify as interference.
The whole concept of journalists endorsing a candidate feels a lot closer to interference. Feels a bit sad that the editorial board can’t see that without being told by someone like Bezos.
> They're claiming that it, like other drugs, is likely to have negative health effects that outweigh positive ones
That alone is a strong and unsupported statement. Drugs frequently involve tradeoffs, but saying the negative out weighs the positive is not the same thing.
Of course their objective value changed. I’m not sure why you seem to be taking issue with that. If you heard an impassioned appeal to your emotions and then immediately afterwards discovered the appeal came from a pathological liar, would it affect your opinions?
Words don’t change depending whether they’re true or false but I would hope it’s clear their value does.
I don't see why he'd let such a technicality stand in his way, when actually losing the vote last time around was not enough to persuade him that he couldn't be president anymore.
If everything is as clear cut as that article contends, then why do they gloss over the 4 year gap between crime and an attempt to do anything? I would expect some sort of explanation. Pretty much everything has a statute of limitations.
I would rather err on the side of letting the guilty go free than convicting someone wrongly. Due process is more important than any individual crime.
Given the well known corruption and “professional courtesy” within police organizations, I would err on the side of a drunk driver avoiding punishment because they were police. Not only were they driving drunk, but they attempted to evade the police by speeding away. That would have landed anyone else in jail, so there was obviously corruption from the very beginning.
Their subsequent newsworthy act of aggression by the same cop this year also makes me err that way.
Sounds like it was one officers word against another. If there was a corruption aspect to this, I didn’t see proof of where it was. It might look a certain way from our point of view now, but at the time I’m not sure it was so clear.
I very much like the concept of innocent until proven guilty and I want “proven” to be a very high bar.
I didn’t research the details of this specific case, but the point is police unions are known to defend bad people who abuse power.
Also, the guy in the link above also has a 3rd incident in 2015 where he admits to assaulting someone and got a slap on the wrist. Also, it’s 2020, and cops have body cameras and police car cameras, so there presumably is evidence of a DUI. Highly unlikely that another cop pulled him over and cited him for nothing.
Get in touch with a professional hacker ( tech ) to help hack your cell phone. Trusted and verified with quick responds and legit services. They offer services like (Cell phone hack , GPS tracker, Delete criminal records, Retrieve wallet, Retrieve Gm ail, face book, whatsApp, photos and many more...), All these services are done remotely, distance is not a barrier. You can reach out with them on ( SPYRECOVERY36 @ gm ail c om ).
Your link is just another “people who disagree with me are nazis” post. It makes wild assertions. Lies and insults aren’t productive, they don’t change policy.
The parent post made it clear they are an immigrant following the process; there has been zero discussion of deporting legal immigrants from any of the incoming administration.
Disagreeing with mass deportation is a perfectly reasonable take, but spreading hate isn’t the way to improve things.
reply