jakee

What a surprise, you twist and turn and refuse to actually think about what you're saying. I'd remind you tat on our last Ukraine disagreement you argued for about 6 months before finally coming around and agreeing with what I'd been saying all along. Maybe you'll do better this time.

That has nothing, nothing, to do with what you were just saying. Probably that should have happened - but it didn’t. The government did not step in and make anything happen. So, in the real world of situations that actually existed should Musk have 1) made a decision to affect the outcome of a conflict and provide Starlink to Ukraine or should he have 2) not helped?

Bullshit. See below. So to be absolutely clear - you're saying he shouldn't have decided to provide Starlink to Ukraine in the early days of the war and he shouldn't be continuing to help them now?

Yep, Musk's claim that the majority of advertisers left because of the ADL's statement really doesn't pass the sniff test. It would be hilarious to seem him try and prove that, and have all those companies say 'no, we left because we saw it was full of Nazis, not because they said it was'.

Same question to you.

A littl clarity here - do you want Musk to stop helping Ukraine or do you want the DoD to nationalise Starlink?

As weird and creepy and megalomaniacal and reactionary and generally unaware of other people’s humanity as he is, he might be getting an unfair rap on this one. Yes, refusing to open Starlink access around Crimea because of ‘escalation’ sucks. But he’s not doing anything different to western governments on that front. Almost all of them, and the US in particular, have slow rolled supply of long range weapons, and placed restrictions on how and where they can be used. The US is still withholding ATACAMS in part (probably) because they don’t to be involved in a bombardment of major Russian bases in Crimea. They absolutely refuse to let Ukraine deploy US supplied weapons against legitimate military targets inside Russia itself. So Musk is an easy target here because of his total dickishness and previous ‘peace plan’ nonsense, but he shouldn’t be a scapegoat for general NATO over-cautiousness.

Apparently Smith’s DC Grand Jury is back in session, with a view to indicting Trump on fraud charges related to his PAC. They were fundraising on known false pretences (the election was stolen), they didn’t use the money for what they said they would (genuine election legal challenges), and some of the money was used to commit other blatant crimes as part of a conspiracy (Sydney Powell used funds for breaking into and tampering with multiple election machines). It is simply staggering that the here is anyone left who thinks this is just a politically motivated prosecution. Did Nixon still have this many true believers left when he resigned and his cronies went to jail?

As proved yet again, Elon Musk is a “free speech absolutist” right up until the point where he thinks that speech might have any impact on him.

But on the flip side plenty of the incompetent ones are already his co-defendants and co-conspirators. Which side will he run out of first?

Apparently Trump suggested in a recent interview that he’d be happy to testify in the Georgia case. A legal analyst on one of the networks just laughed and said something like “There isn’t a defence lawyer alive who would let Trump take the stand. The man is a non-stop perjury machine!”

Quite a soap opera, that one. Taveras (as far as we know) wasn't part of the documents conspiracy and cover up. When security camera footage was subpoenaed, Trump sent Nauta and another employee to ask him to delete footage of Nauta taking boxes out of the storage room in advance of a search. But Taveras said no. Maybe that's because he didn't want to or simply didnt have the ability, either way he hadn't actually done anything wrong until he lied to the grand jury. So why did he do it? Maybe because he was represented by the same lawyer, Woodward, as Nauta and the other employee, who's bill is being paid by Trump. Jack Smith had raised the issue of conflicts of interest several times and Woodward just said 'I'm a conscientious guy, it's fine'. But after Taveras lied a second time to the investigators in New York, Smith asked the court there to make him sit down with an independent Public Defender to lay out the situation for him. One meeting later Taveras fires Woodward, takes the PD as his lawyer and flips on Nauta. There's now a further conflict of interest for Woodward in that the Gov't will plan to put Taveras on the stand. As Nauta's lawyer, Woodward should plan to attack him over why he originally lied before changing his story, because it makes him look untrustworthy. He may not want to do that because he knows the answer to 'why did you lie?' will be 'because you told me to' - but if he doesn't ask the question he's not being an effective advocate for Nauta. Hilariously, Woodward suggested that the easiest way to resolve this conflict of interest would simply be for the court to exclude any and all of Taveras' testimony from trial, and hey presto problem solved. Smith's response (more or less) 'it's not the government's job to cover for your incompetence and corruption'. As a final bonus, Smith tried to file all of this under seal in Aileen Cannon's court to avoid any suggestion of unfairly prejudicing the other defendents against their lawyers. Cannon rejected the filing and refused to read anything that wasn't filed openly. Trump's lawyers are now absolutely furious that it's all in public, but there's nothing they can do because Smith was simply following the court's orders. The clown show continues.

I mean...

Ain't that the truth.

“after Trump announced a protest in D.C. to dispute his election loss, Tarrio created an elite unit within the Proud Boys he called the “Ministry of Self Defense,” with the objective of keeping Trump in power…. “Even after the attack, Biggs showed no remorse. He called Jan. 6 a “warning shot to the government,” while likening the Proud Boys to the founding fathers who were also “considered terrorists.”” I’m genuinely surprised they couldn’t cop an insanity defence with levels of self delusion like that.

You mean, just like legal abortion isn’t murder? I wonder if Jay realises it works both ways.

So are you a murderer?

So you’d have gone, even though it had nothing to do with what you just said would make a Christian justify killing (defending their country) and even though you had serious doubts about whether even the stated justification was true. The only reason I’m questioning this is because you just claimed that Jesus would bring peace to the world. I asked you how that was going to happen and you didn’t answer. But again, seeing as he wouldn’t have stopped you from going to fight a dodgy war started by another devout Christian, how is Jesus going to bring peace?

Yeah… the thing is Only a couple of days ago you were very keen on us knowing that you “once also did not believe”. you brought it up because you want us to know that you get where we’re coming from and you’ve been there too. But you haven’t. You were never an atheist. You always believed. You are not and were not ever the same. If you think (as you appear to, and as many of you cohorts do) that you’re just further along the same sliding scale of attitudes to Jesus as we are, you couldn’t be more wrong.

See this is again where you simply don't have any basis for understanding a conversation on this topic, otherwise why would you ever have called yourself an atheist when you were not one? An atheist is not someone who has rejected god. An atheist is someone who thinks that god is not real. It's literally the only criteria.

It’s not an either or situation. Again, this is really basic stuff. Did you only serve in combat against countries which had directly attacked the USA? If you’d been ordered to Iraq in 03 instead of Afghanistan would you have gone?

In this case, I think it’s a euphemism. Runions pressed the barrel of the gun against the child’s chest and pulled the trigger, police said she told them. Daniels told police that she saw Runions take out the gun, remove its magazine and put it to Evangaline’s chest, but she turned away and didn’t see her pull the trigger, according to the warrant.

But… how is that true? How does Jesus bring peace to mankind? Unless you’re talking about peace after we’re dead you haven’t said a word on this subject yet. And I mean, 2000 years later it’s been going so well…

It’s just two completely different statements. Did you mean to start explaining to me exactly why I shouldn’t believe in god, or did you just get stuck halfway through this argument?

I hat makes you say that? Clearly you never did - but you say he sorted you out. In fact, you literally just said it was the other way around for you - god first, humble second. So why one rule for you and one rule for everyone else? Are you really that special?