jakee

Taking office with a Supreme Court vacancy waiting for you and finding another just before you leave is also a black swan, no? If you’re playing the fool on one you should do it with both.

Ivanka was appointed to public office, Eric and Don worked on the campaign and continued to run dad's business while dad was in office. People said Trump would run the government like a business and he did indeed run it like it was his family's business. None of that applies to the Bidens.

That's more in the occasional speeding or overdue parking tickets column. It's just not that big a deal. Um... are you, uhh.... are you under the impression that's illegal? What exactly are you talking about? What exactly are you talking about? And - my god! An elected US representative has sex with potentially underage girls trafficked to him by a pimp (who is also an elected official) then gleefully shows naked photos of them to his colleagues in the House and your response is 'what about Hunter Biden?' Get a grip on yourself, man.

Resisting arrest, failing to comply, threatening to assault police officers... what does a white guy have to do to get suffocated around here?

I think the timeline makes it a lot easier. That Chauvin carried on suffocating Floyd for so long after he was unresponsive, and still carried on for so long after he was obviously dead makes it even easier to show he was acting with depraved disregard for human life than to show he was responsible for Floyd's death. Even if Airdvr was somehow right and Chauvin didn't kill Floyd he was still acting with clear disregard for his life.

Right, but Bill is a nice person who cares about people other than himself. So if it’s still possible for him to be infected and infect other people nothing is going to change in his behaviour - even if he personally is not a risk of dying.

Yes, the forces that protect cops from the legal consequences of their wrongdoings are massive. The fact that this case has (so far) broken through that barrier is highly significant, and you are indeed fooling yourself if you can't see how compellin the case against him is in order to have made that happen. Again, your attempt to describe Chauvin with language appropriate to a passive bystander whose only wrongdoing was to not take an active role in what happened is an insult to Floyd, his family, and our intelligence. It is also a desperate lie from someone who is forcing his version of events to fit his politically correct opinion of those events.

Sure you recanted that it absolutely happened - but you still say that's what happens and that Chauvin should be treated as if that's what happened. And yes, you presented evidence of drugs in his system - but seriously, how is that so compelling to you? Floyd was walking around all day with drugs in his system. Walking around, driving around, going shopping, apparently comitting petty theft with counterfeit notes - all without ODing. Then the cops turn up, and at the exact time one of them kneels on his neck for an extended period of time while he specifically complains of being unable to breath because of the knee on his neck.... that's when he just happens to die of an OD. Just random coincidence that while Chauvin is kneeling on his neck in a way that all of the training officers and experts in his own force say is not an approved technique because of the danger of suffocation, he suffocates. But because of the drugs, not the knee is, is how you see it. Seriously, you expect anyone to believe that you really believe that? And have nothing to do with the trial. Your claim that the trial is rigged and is a foregone conclusion is even more outlandish and insulting than your claim that Floyd just died. It is unbelievably difficult to convict a cop of any violent offence in the line of duty, let alone murder. Every precedent there is shows that cops are the ultimate protected class in the US justice system. Prosecutors don't want to try them and the blue wall closes around them. For Chauvin to be not only facing these charges in court, but for so many officers in his own force to be testifying against him is staggering. The chances that a major Police Department would throw one of their own under the bus just to satisfy some liberal social justice movement are zero. You can't even say it without laughing. That they are standing in court testifying that Chauvin was acting outside the law shows just how egregious and obvious his wrongdoing was. Even they know there's no chance of hiding it - but you, supposedly, disagree. Again, just give me one straight answer - you don't really believe what you're saying, do you?

Something like that. Maybe you could give me a straight answer on one question as like a welcome back present or something - you do know that the argument you’ve presented here is based on a flat out denial of reality for political reasons, right? You are aware that’s what you’re doing?

What the right believes is not a legitimate basis for claiming that both sides are actually doing something. This is particularly true right now when the justification for the right's wave of anti-democratic legislation is that their voters believe there was election fraud. Right after the party spent several months inundating them with false and baseless claims of election fraud.

That's not true. Other religions of the world aren't defended against parody, they're defended against people who claim their adherents should be treated differently by law, or who claim with complete seriousness that all their adherents are amoral members of jihadist death cults etc. It's two very different things. Those are, again, two different things. Respecting the right of someone to believe as they wish and making jokes about it are in no way exclusive. Hell, from what I see people who are so Christian they regularly moan about Christianity being made fun of are significantly more likely than anyone else to think we shouldn't legally respect the right of non-Christians to believe as they wish.

According to you it would. Democrats won the House, Senate and Presidency with record voter turnout, far greater than the turnout for Trump. Therefore Antifa and BLM worked better and were more brilliantly organised than Q.

He did murder him, and he did intentionally continue to do the thing he did to murder him even after he was repeatedly told that he had murdered him. No matter what his initial intent was, at some point in the process that line was obviously crossed.

You're not questioning it. You're flat out saying that's what happening. Just like you're flat out saying, against all precedent and logic, that his trial has been rigged against him. That is what illustrates your agenda.

This is a bizarre thing to say. Utterly bizarre. Chauvin knelt on Floyd's keck while he complained of not being able to breath. He continued kneeling on his kneck when he lapsed into unconsciousness. He continued kneeling on his kneck when medics asked to treat him. He continued kneeling on his keck after it was confirmed he had no pulse. To frame the situation as one in which Chauvin simply failed to save Floyd is a sad and desperate lie from someone who has decided that his stance on the matter must be guided by politics, not by facts.

Chauvin should have stepped in to help? Are you aware of how insane that sounds? Chauvin needed to step off him before he could step in. When you need to dismiss and distort the basic facts of the matter to make your point, when you have to pretend that Chauvin was some kind of passive bystander to a situation that played out without his involvement to make your argument sound reasonable, then you must admit that you are simply not thinking about it in an honest way.

Wow. I've said it before, but I genuinely can't fathom why you continue to be so desperate to boast about your wilfull ignorance of reality to all and sundry.

??? The fuck are you talking about? Mountains aren't DZs. If you can't comprehend going jumping without relying on someone else watching over your safety you might want to reconsider who you think is a scared whiner. But again, since it's so important to keep track of who's bold or not, what does it mean when I say you're full of shit?

And what does that have to do with you reposting memes from insane conspiracy theorists attacking feminism? What does it have to do with you insisting that 'effeminate' is insulting even though you don't think there's anything wrong with being effeminate?

Perspective doesn't change what is actually happening, it only changes whether you've seen it or not. When he's making blanket statements about the entire military based only on the things he has personally seen he is wrong.

That's exactly why he's wrong when making a blanket statement. All more reasons why making blanket, black and white statements based only on his personal experience is wrong.

I'm a base jumper, and was terrain flying wingsuits right through the years where August regularly saw so many additions to the BFL that it became known as WSBK - wingsuit base killing season. Does that make me bold enough for it to mean something when I say you're full of shit?

Why? What do you want me to say about it? It doesn't contradict any of my points. Right, and based on the actual wide ranging investigations carried out by people who also spent decades in the military, that is not the case across the board. Your statement that racism can't exist when it's important that the team function successfully is, unfortunately, hopelessly naive. Look at those articles you couldn't be bothered to read - there were soldiers hanging Nazi flags on the walls of their accomodation who were left alone by their superiors because they were doing a good enough job that it wasn't considerd a problem. LOL, the perfect demonstration. You just attack again. You know I'm not a racist. You know that's an absurd lie purely designed to get a reaction. It's also been pretty clearly stated numerous times recently that it's a bannable personal attack so I expect Wendy will be having a word with you. You can if you want. I'm not sensitive enough to feel the need to do that.

A bit, maybe. I think most racists aren't racist enough to go around shooting people on a whim. I also seem to remember someone recently getting quite angry over the idea of making assumptions about people.

He should be imprisoned for decades. I don’t think you could design a better set of confusing, contradictory and physically hard to comply with commands if you were trying to engineer an excuse to shoot someone. Staggeringly, he was reinstated and allowed to retire with pension, which doesn’t really reflect well on the PD. In fairness, of the two incidents that shooting of the white guy was worse in the immediate moment, but was also instigated by a report of a deadly weapon. The shooting of the black guy at least involved a struggle, but is at the same time astonishing in the lackadaisical use of a deadly weapon against a person who they had no reason to believe had committed a crime or posed any danger.