Coreece

Powell was at least right about one thing tho - that Warren and Klobuchar had concerns about the software as well: "Warren, Klobuchar, Wyden, and Pocan Investigate Vulnerabilities and Shortcomings of Election Technology Industry with Ties to Private Equity Three private equity-owned election technology vendors serve 90% of eligible voters but fail to sufficiently innovate, improve, and protect deteriorating voting systems; Election security experts have noted for years that our nation's voting systems and election infrastructure are under serious threat" The three vendors -- Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart InterCivic -- collectively distribute voting machines and software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all eligible voters in the United States. Private equity firms reportedly own or control each of these vendors, which "have long skimped on security in favor of convenience," leaving voting systems across the country "prone to security problems." https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-klobuchar-wyden-and-pocan-investigate-vulnerabilities-and-shortcomings-of-election-technology-industry-with-ties-to-private-equity

So far the proof is against Powell. Hard to see how they're going to get 1.6 Billion from her, and how they're going to justify that amount. Which is why they're probably trying to put this on fox for entertaining her accusations.

So you have nothing and won't even try. Exactly what I thought.

I've been trying, but don't see any specific example. What do you have to say about the examples that I've given you thus far?

The courts have not yet spoken, but the smart money is on Dominion winning their case against the Murdoch Empire. If everything you've seen says differently you should probably be looking in some new places. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/20/fox-news-dominion-voting-systems-defamation-case-analysis “I have never seen a defamation case with such overwhelming proof that the defendant admitted in writing that it was making up fake information in order to increase its viewership and its revenues,” Tribe told the Guardian. “Fox and its producers and performers were lying as part of their business model.” Then again, it should be very easy to show me at least one example where they actually lied about it. Maybe Lou Dobbs said something? Not sure. I just know that Fox fired him and canceled his show. Powell is the one that needs to go down for this - and last I checked she was being disbarred. Not sure on how that's going tho.

Fine, but in mentioning the U.S, I think there should've been more emphasis on the British Colonist. And then with the western expansion throughout the 1800's, it was the descendants of those British Colonists along with other Western Europeans in their onslaught against the indigenous, as you claimed - along with slavery. Yet Eastern Europeans who were fleeing imperialistic persecution themselves and didn't get here until like the 1920s are often lumped in with those bloody blokes and are somehow supposed to be ashamed simply for being white for the sins of YOUR fathers - Because, you know, people from hundreds of years ago should've known better.

So again, honest question, can you show me where Fox News actually lied about Dominion, because everything that I've seen doesn't show that. For example: Sidney Powell was on Maria Bartiromo show making her claims about dominion and "how we have so much evidence I feel like it's coming in through a firehose," lmao. Then Bartiromo responds: "Wow, so Sidney, you feel that you'll be able to prove this. Do you have the software in possession, do you have the hardware in possession, how will you be able to prove this, Sidney? Sydney: "Well I got lots of way to prove it, but I'm not gonna tell on national TV what all we have. I just can't do that. Bartiromo: "Ok, but there's a small time frame here, the elections are supposed to be certified in early December, do you believe that you can present this to the courts and be successful in just a couple of weeks?" "And then you just get a load of bullshit from Powell. "oh well, I don't say anything I can't prove and the evidence it rolling in faster than I can even process," lmao. Then Powell goes on making comments about how state officials are receiving substantial sums of money and benefits and million dollar packages for buying this software. Then Bartiromo basically rolls her eyes and immediately follows up with "which government official accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits for their family as they took on this software? Powell: "If I said hundreds of million of dollars, I misspoke. we're still collecting the evidence but it's more than one." Then Bartiromo quickly dismisses it "Ok, so you can't say who you believe took kickbacks" Then Hannity, tho he seems hopeful and doesn't immediately dismiss her claims, basically asks the same things in his interview: "Has anybody forensically examined these machines since the election" and why these supposed witnesses haven't come forward to speak publicly and signed affidavits? Then after all that Tucker calls her out: "We invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would have given her the whole hour. We would have given her the entire week, actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention. But she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of polite requests. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her. When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people in positions of authority, they also told us Powell had never given them any evidence to prove anything she claimed at the press conference. Powell did say that electronic voting is dangerous, and she's right, but she never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one."

Pequot War (1636-1638): A conflict between the Pequot tribe and English colonists and their allies in Connecticut. King Philip's War (1675-1678): A conflict between the Wampanoag tribe and other Native American tribes against English colonists in New England. French and Indian War (1754-1763): A war between France and Great Britain that involved many Native American tribes, including the Huron, Ottawa, and Shawnee. Pontiac's War (1763-1766): A conflict between Native American tribes, led by the Ottawa chief Pontiac, and British colonists in the Great Lakes region. Any relation John? And then as for the 1800s: Creek War (1813-1814): A conflict between the Creek tribe and the United States government in what is now Alabama. Seminole Wars (1817-1858): A series of conflicts between the Seminole tribe and the United States government in Florida. Black Hawk War (1832): A conflict between the Sauk and Fox tribes and the United States government in Illinois and Wisconsin. Dakota War of 1862: A conflict between the Dakota tribe and the United States government in Minnesota. Colorado War (1863-1865): A conflict between the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes and the United States government in Colorado. Modoc War (1872-1873): A conflict between the Modoc tribe and the United States government in California and Oregon. Nez Perce War (1877): A conflict between the Nez Perce tribe and the United States government in Idaho, Montana, and Oregon. Apache Wars (1851-1900): A series of conflicts between the Apache tribe and the United States government in the southwestern United States. And then those of us who practically just got here less than 100 years ago (Eastern Europeans for example) have listen ad nauseam to the blowhard descendants of these miserable blokes projecting onto everyone else how WE'RE the toxic, patriarchal imperialistic racists that should be ashamed of ourselves!

Unfortunately "political pressure from idiots" is another way to describe democracy. Idiocracy

Well even democrats say that, lmao. Most recent poll shows that 67% don't want him running in 2024. Apparently many here are too preoccupied with "hate watching" FOX news to see that liberal media shares a similar sentiment. Guess you forgot that it was Obama who built those "Trump cages" that you always cried about, and said that an open border is unsustainable. That it would give the wrong impression and put children's lives at risk. 48% of Democrats said they were less likely to use Disney products. 59% of Democrats said they would support a family-friendly alternative to Disney. The change of heart was in response to a comment made by Latoya Raveneau, an executive producer for Disney : “Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my, like, not-at-all-secret gay agenda, I was just, wherever I could, just basically adding queerness. No one would stop me and no one was trying to stop me.” And recently, liberals also called for a boycott of Disney's Avatar for being a racist white savior film. 76% of republicans are in favor of the government taking steps to reduce carbon and methane emissions. 82% for republicans between the ages of 18-54. 84% of republicans between the ages of 18-54 agree that we should accelerate the growth of clean energy so that our state can be a national leader in competition for economic development and good-paying jobs. The majority of republicans in practically every demographic have been vaccinated. 60% of all republicans and 80% of republicans aged 65+ received the vaccine, and that was a poll from almost 2 years ago. The lowest demographics were the uninsured and those between the ages of 18-29. Ya, back in 70s about 72% of Republicans had confidence in Science while only 67% of Democrats had confidence. Now, 79% of Democrats have confidence and anywhere from 45%-63% for Republicans depending on the level of confidence. (High to moderate confidence) That's likely due to wannabe scientists parroting or misrepresenting something they heard online about evolution and confusing it with abiogenesis/cosmology and then weaponizing their ignorance against Christianity. There were also conflicting statements about the efficacy and need for masks at the start of the pandemic, along with confusion about adverse effects and the potential for vaccinated individuals to transmit the virus. Exaggerated statements from alarmists about climate change probably didn't help either. No thanks. I believe that this is mostly directed at people who participate in performative activism without thoughtful consideration, using self-righteous nagging to gain a political advantage and destroy the livelihood of others over petty offenses without due process. You could probably lump in environmental terrorists (ex. train derailment wokees) and hyperbolic climate alarmists who use exaggerated claims as a means of persuasion. Most are preoccupied with trying to save the world without trying to understand it first. Yep, all those misogynistic women at those pro-life rally's, eh? See, it's not so hard to address various types of gish-gallops. Now you try: "The left wing really has no other agenda other than "fuck you." Fuck The Police Fuck Peaceful Protest Fuck Christians (lock them in their churches and leave them for dead) Fuck White People Fuck Family Values Fuck the right to life Fuck Fetuses (no different than a clump of cancer cells) Fuck Personal responsibility Fuck Nuclear Power Fuck the free world/market Fuck Avatar (Boycott That Racist White Savior Film!) Fuck Capitalism Fuck Homeland Security Fuck A Secure Border Fuck banning drugs and prostitution Fuck the Clevland Indians Fuck Aunt Jemima Fuck FOX News (can't stop "hate watching" it)" I have the feeling that I might've missed a few. . .

That was actually part of a $100 Million dollar campaign. I was keeping an eye out for them, but apparently I missed it. I really liked the Bud Light commercial with the guy dancing to that song on the phone while being on hold. I actually did the same thing with that exact song awhile back. It was usually the hold song when dealing with medical institutions. Edit to add ad:

I thought the lies were pretty obvious and didn't need fact checking to begin with.

So like I said to begin with, it’s anti-woke people trying to redefine woke to mean any lefty thing they disagree with. Well now you're ignoring the part where it said: “woke” has evolved into a single-word summation of leftist political ideology, centered on social justice politics and critical race theory. This framing of “woke” is bipartisan: It’s used as a shorthand for political progressiveness by the left, and as a denigration of leftist culture by the right. Shifting a Black Lives Matter slogan away from its original meaning is arguably the least woke thing ever — yet that seems to be just what happened with, of all things, “woke” itself. To be woke is to have a native relationship to Black language, culture, and knowledge of social issues that arise in our lived experiences” Black Americans know their language is constantly being appropriated. . ." So maybe "woke" wouldn't have these negative connotations if liberals didn't steal it from the AAVE and weaponize it for their own political advantage in a culture war. I mean I just showed you how blacks are calling this theft of the language cultural appropriation and you guys deliberately refuse to acknowledge it, just like Bill is refusing to acknowledge that both blacks and natives have called Avatar a racist film and should be boycotted, yet here he is still boasting about how great it is to score political points in some silly woke war with Brent. So welcome to the club, I guess. . .

Great, I'm glad you've begun to recognize the negative consequences of cancel culture and its role in perpetuating this divisive and fruitless culture war.

Nothing, at least not in the sense of the historical definition. People like Bill Maher and other left leaning comedians that I agree with in their criticisms of cancel culture are using the word "woke" as a synonym for "political correctness gone awry" and is usually used sarcastically or to point out a phony show of progressive activism as referenced in the article. As I mentioned upthread, if one is going to criticize cancel culture, then it's probably wise at this point to do so without invoking 'wokeness' given all the confusion: From the article: "as use of the word spreads, what people actually mean by “woke” seems less clear than ever. “Discourse” can be about a zillion different things, but attaching “woke” to it usually denotes a perception of embittered exhaustion at progressive semantics and arguments. What’s telling is that the exhaustion seems to come from moderates and leftists themselves as often as from conservatives — as if there’s a shared agreement that embodying wokeness is a kind of trap, no matter what side of the aisle you’re on." And that's interesting because we can see how that's all playing out in this very thread.

Actually it kind of reminds me of those British parliment debates that are like rich people's Jerry Springer with all the oooooz and ooooohs, lmao. Quite entertaining actually. I'd like to see Jakee up there.

Deepfake

Is it? Why? If you want effective social work programs as well as effective law enforcement agencies then you support defunding the police. That's fine, but I don't want to give the impression that I'm somehow embittered or indignant to the point that I'm going to go out and protest or show contempt for law enforcement. Or even worse, start throwing rocks and setting police cars on fire which might give the impression of anarchy or wanting to get rid of police altogether in some areas, which might turn off would be supporters. Also, maybe 'defund' is too strong of a word. Simply reducing the amount of financial support isn't necessarily going to solve the problem in and of itself, nor would giving more money necessarily exacerbate the problem or allow it to persist, after all they're going to need extra funds for better training and more qualified personnel. It also might help to make a distinction between police brutality and racial disparities, which in my mind are two sperate issues. For example, by isolating racial disparities it allows us to focus on the problems directly causing that disparity such as racism and implicit bias. It also helps to identify other factors beyond the woes of the law enforcement that are also contributing to the disparity, such as socioeconomic constructs and the fact that blacks more often than whites live in densely populated areas where there are more police in general, thus increasing the number of interactions in a dipropionate manner. Then once the disparity is equalized, we can say ok, now let's start focusing on the reasons for brutality across the board in general as it relates to all people. By doing so, I think it helps to us to address the problems more thoroughly and maximize support.

In what sense are they a modern extension of your strict definition of wokeness? I was attempting to link cancel culture to wokeness in a broad sense, where a person might face cancellation for making a statement or taking an action that is deemed un-woke, or if their words are seen as an offense by a group that identifies as woke or is perceived to be woke.

Nope. You don't have to do any work that you don't want to do. You are free to just complain. My focus and interest are more centered around possible solutions related to those complaints. As you may or may not know, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was passed last year and there's a lot to unpack. Some issues it addresses: -Additional requirements for background checks. -Additional provisions for school violence prevention. -Provisions for mental health services. -$800,000,000 for Health Surveillance Programs? -BILLIONS for a community violence intervention and prevention initiatives! -Provisions for additional policing? -Provisions for suicide prevention. -Provisions for extreme risk protection order programs (red flag laws) Obviously the violence prevention programs are good news, so I guess I can stop bitching about that for now. Just trying to figure out the specifics on how/where they going to be implemented here in Michigan. Little concerned about the additional policing and the country's historical woes of "unintended consequences" under Biden's Violent Crime Act of 1994 as there doesn't seem to be much info on specific guidelines or national standards, so hopefully this isn't history repeating itself. Trying to understand the Health Surveillance Programs and how that data is gathered/handled by various organizations and how it relates to red flag laws and additional requirements for Background checks. Also, your comment about AR-15's makes me question if you're arguing in good faith. Even if you are, it seems any results would be inconclusive given the problems with your sample that I mentioned. I mean, if we don't have enough information, it's ok to say that we just don't know. Unless of course you're just looking for a reason to entertain your selective bias and beat conservatives over the head with it, which you do pretty much on a daily basis. Yep, supporting a cause should come from the heart, not a political playbook. Unity is not uniformity, so why waste it by following the herd mentality of those who prioritize division and political gain over genuine progress? Groove to your own rhythm, and let the positive impact of your actions speak louder than any political rhetoric.

Well that's one of the foremost issues I've advocated against in these threads over the years so that's unfortunate and certainly a step backward. Well that's kinda funny given that you're the one that made the claim and now asking others to do the work since it's too difficult for you to figure out if criminals are more of a threat to the general public than law abiding citizens.

It's hard these days to know what a person means when they say 'defund the police' as I certainly support effective law enforcement, but I think Weber's use of law enforcement being "defanged" is a pretty helpful illustration.

Nope. Woke has always been defined as being alert to social injustice, especially with regards to racism. Right. It was a term in the African American Vernacular referring to social injustice against blacks that's been around since the 1920s or 30s. Modern leftist co-opted and imposed it's own political ideology on the term that now includes things like awareness of climate change, gun control, abortion, Avatar, vegan catering, saving whales and editing out 10-minutes of gun violence from feature films. I think much of the criticism from both the left and right wrt "wokeism" is in addressing underlying issues like identity politics and cancel culture which in a sense is a modern extension of being woke. And then of course there are those solely on the right that use it to criticize practically everything liberal just for the sake of it. Here are some excerpts form a rather interesting article I found on Vox that explains the history, if it helps: A history of “wokeness” Stay woke: How a Black activist watchword got co-opted in the culture war. Before 2014, the call to “stay woke” was, for many people, unheard of. The idea behind it was common within Black communities at that point — the notion that staying “woke” and alert to the deceptions of other people was a basic survival tactic. “woke” has evolved into a single-word summation of leftist political ideology, centered on social justice politics and critical race theory. This framing of “woke” is bipartisan: It’s used as a shorthand for political progressiveness by the left, and as a denigration of leftist culture by the right. On the right, “woke” — like its cousin “canceled” — bespeaks “political correctness” gone awry, and the term itself is usually used sarcastically. But as use of the word spreads, what people actually mean by “woke” seems less clear than ever. After all, none of these recent political concepts has anything to do with the idea of demanding that people “stay woke” against police brutality. Despite renewed activism against police brutality in 2020, the way that terms like “woke” and “wokeness” are used outside of the Black Lives Matter community seems to bear little connection to their original context, on either the right and the left. Shifting a Black Lives Matter slogan away from its original meaning is arguably the least woke thing ever — yet that seems to be just what happened with, of all things, “woke” itself. The earliest known examples of wokeness as a concept revolve around the idea of Black consciousness “waking up” to a new reality or activist framework and dates back to the early 20th century. In 1923, a collection of aphorisms and ideas by the Jamaican philosopher and social activist Marcus Garvey included the summons “Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!” as a call to global Black citizens to become more socially and politically conscious. To be woke is to have a native relationship to Black language, culture, and knowledge of social issues that arise in our lived experiences” because Black Americans know their language is constantly being appropriated, the language itself is constantly changing. “By the time these terms get into the mainstream,” he observed, “new ones have already appeared. [...] A few Negroes guard the idiom so fervently they will consciously invent a new term as soon as they hear the existing one coming from a white’s lips.” By 2018, the cultural reception of “woke” had turned chilly: An NPR commentator begged leftists to retire the term, and the connotation of “woke” as a phony show of progressive activism had taken hold on the right. “woke” seems to represent a consciously progressive mindset — but that concept is loaded with irony and cynicism. Even on the left, the idea of being “woke” can be a double-edged sword, often used to suggest an aggressive, performative take on progressive politics that only makes things worse. “discourse” can be about a zillion different things, but attaching “woke” to it usually denotes a perception of embittered exhaustion at progressive semantics and arguments. What’s telling is that the exhaustion seems to come from moderates and leftists themselves as often as from conservatives — as if there’s a shared agreement that embodying wokeness is a kind of trap, no matter what side of the aisle you’re on. https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/stay-woke-wokeness-history-origin-evolution-controversy

He didn't offer a solution nor list any laws that he might be referring to. This is strictly about whether or not the general public is more at risk of being shot by a criminal or law abiding citizen that suddenly snaps. If we click on the comprehensive list on the linked wiki page, we see that 762 people were killed during mass shooting in 2022. Are we to simply believe that the general public wasn't at risk during the other 18,000+ homicides? That they were just gang vs gang, drug dealer vs drug dealer? Call me woke, but even if that was the case, it sorely ignores the fundamental problem of why inner-city youth are prone to gangs and drugs in the first place and undermines the argument/need for violence prevention programs that have a history of being underfunded and outright ignored by both democrats and republicans despite years of research and positive results, hence 50+ years of the same SSDD. But by all means lets just keep ignoring all that and focus incessantly on those scary conservative AR-15's that were responsible for about 54 of those 762 mass shooting deaths. I mean WTF is going on here? Anyway, to limit his sample strictly to mass shootings is probably one of the most blatant cases of selection bias I've seen in awhile, if not ever. The sample of the general public in this case should also encompass all the innocent that have been murdered, including kids caught in the crossfire at playgrounds where gangs conduct business. They should include those killed in various kinds of robberies, crimes of passion, public brawls, road rage, etc. I mean why stop only at instances where 3-4+ people were killed or injured?

Ya I saw that too, but film was the brainchild of Laurie David and the director/producers documented and created the screen adaptation for public speeches he had already given, much like AOC's film documented her own speaking engagements/interviews.