All house republicans except 8, vote against codifying access to birth control

[dazindude]

I'm well aware of the Emmett Till case. But if you have to go all the way back to 1955 for an example, then one can conclude that it is not an issue in today's society. We have major issues today that the corporate media and the uniparty are trying to ignore. Namely child sexual abuse that affects millions of children worldwide. For the life of me, I don't understand how people can turn a blind eye against it or worse yet, actively protect the practice.

Why are you trying to deflect to child sex abuse? That's not at all what we were discussing but sure why not can you give me an example of child sex abuse that the corporate media ignores?

 

[TraderPatTX]

Why are you trying to deflect to child sex abuse? That's not at all what we were discussing but sure why not can you give me an example of child sex abuse that the corporate media ignores?

I'm not deflecting, just stating an example of a more immediate problem. The left likes to focus on the distant past because it gives them a way to virtue signal without ever doing real work.

You do understand that Ghislaine Maxwell was just sentenced to 20 for child sex trafficking and you do understand that there is another party to that transaction, right? People had to receive those trafficked children. There's also NXIVM and the fact that around 180 teachers have been indicted on child sex abuse this year alone. Not to mention John of God, Oprah's guru was convicted of international child trafficking.

Why am I having to give you examples? There are so many examples, I shouldn't have to list the biggest ones for you. Are you not the least bit curious about this topic or do you believe it just doesn't happen? It's not just white kids who are abused, its kids from all races. One would think the left would be all over this, but they are not for some reason. It's the weirdest thing. Who is the left and the media protecting? Guess we'll find out soon enough.

 

[dazindude]

I'm not deflecting, just stating an example of a more immediate problem. The left likes to focus on the distant past because it gives them a way to virtue signal without ever doing real work.

You do understand that Ghislaine Maxwell was just sentenced to 20 for child sex trafficking and you do understand that there is another party to that transaction, right? People had to receive those trafficked children. There's also NXIVM and the fact that around 180 teachers have been indicted on child sex abuse this year alone. Not to mention John of God, Oprah's guru was convicted of international child trafficking.

Why am I having to give you examples? There are so many examples, I shouldn't have to list the biggest ones for you. Are you not the least bit curious about this topic or do you believe it just doesn't happen? It's not just white kids who are abused, its kids from all races. One would think the left would be all over this, but they are not for some reason. It's the weirdest thing. Who is the left and the media protecting? Guess we'll find out soon enough.

Sorry if I offended you The only reason I said deflection was because you're acting as though a lack of action in these cases or in these situations is due to a lack of media attention when that's not the case. The people in power in the Republican party and the Democratic party or both implicated in these cases so are many other rich people the control of information is a class issue. Also I'm in no way defending corporate media but you can literally see CNN referencing it right here it took me half a second of googling to find this everyone is covering as information for all the cases you mentioned comes out if incredibly rich people are preventing information from coming out and preventing the investigation from going forward that's the thing that needs to be resolved You're angry at the wrong people https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn.../ghislaine-maxwell-prison-transfer/index.html

This is the same problem Qanon had they were so busy trying to attack specific people in politics and specific perceived sexual trafficking they literally ignored that Q was literally posting to 8 Chan which was a place where people shared and enabled others to produce child pornography people really do try to whitewash it and say that he was posting to 4chan which is still a deplorable shithole but it doesn't have as big of a focus and content sections dedicated to specifically sharing and enabling child pornography. And now we literally have Jim Watkins the person who was running 8chan running for a political seat and literally being supported by people who refer to themselves as the most anti child abuse group. The point I'm trying to make here is typically the same people shouting from the rooftops about this problem are directly involved or are some of the worst advocates against it. This is why I asked for an example because I had a feeling that you were going to choose things that are being widely talked about and reported on by news as the information comes out.

 

[Foxi4]

@Foxi4, how does it feel to be the adopted father figure for those experiencing belated (or prolonged) teenage angst?

I am only to be called “daddy” in an erotic context, and only by my missus.

And, unsurprisingly, you'd be wrong, as usual, as I'm not questioning the dataset, I'm questioning your questionable conclusions which you questionably are trying to draw for your (un)questionable aims.

Heh, the man of mystery again!

I read it before I posted, luckily I also understood it - disagreeing with you is part of it.

You do you. If you want to live in a reality where Twitter functions as a conservative news aggregator, that’s fine. I personally find the platform insufferable, as do most right-leaning people.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I am only to be called “daddy” in an erotic context, and only by my missus.

Please never ever mention something so horrific ever again.

You do you. If you want to live in a reality where Twitter functions as a conservative news aggregator, that’s fine. I personally find the platform insufferable, as do most right-leaning people.

What are you talking about, they were doing cartwheels of joy at the idea of Elon Musk buying it!

 

[Foxi4]

Please never ever mention something so horrific ever again.

Okay prude.

What are you talking about, they were doing cartwheels of joy at the idea of Elon Musk buying it!

As were most people thoroughly disappointed by the current management of the site. Twitter is the only SM giant that sucks such a big one that the community came up with not one, not two, but multiple alternatives with the same/similar framework. They exist solely due to Twitter’s aggressive policing of content. Mastodon instances are pretty great, but they still don’t have the same kind of reach despite being connected into a giant mesh - too nerdy for the average user. People aren’t ready for decentralised SM’s.

 

[AleronIves]

Here’s a more populated version from 2018, lifted from Wikipedia (some publications have moved a little since then).

I get most of my news from the local newspaper, which uses a combination of local reporting and AP/NYT/WP etc. for national news, depending on current licensing agreements. I've gotten the impression that the AP is more balanced than the other national news sources, so it's good to see some data that supports my hunch.

 

[Foxi4]

I get most of my news from the local newspaper, which uses a combination of local reporting and AP/NYT/WP etc. for national news, depending on current licensing agreements. I've gotten the impression that the AP is more balanced than the other national news sources, so it's good to see some data that supports my hunch.

AP *used to* be pretty unbiased, their specific business model lends to objectivity because they generate “news for sale”. Their articles are primarily designed to be picked up by other news sources rather than the public, so they tend to stick to the facts and leave the spin for the experts. Nowadays I do notice them slipping every now and then though in articles aimed at the public, they’re getting into that space themselves more than they used to. Still relatively good, but not gospel by any means - nothing is.

If I want to research something, I tend to look at articles from multiple sources that have different alignments, eliminate any information that is not corroborated by all (or at least most) of those sources and whatever’s left is what everybody agrees upon. That tends to be closest to the truth, but even after extrapolating the useful information you still need to use some critical thinking to determine if it’s worthwhile or not. A lot of times an event, when stripped of partisan politicking, is simply not that newsworthy, but sources still report on it because it’s a slow news week and we can’t have a 24/7 news cycle without any news to report on.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Sorry if I offended you The only reason I said deflection was because you're acting as though a lack of action in these cases or in these situations is due to a lack of media attention when that's not the case. The people in power in the Republican party and the Democratic party or both implicated in these cases so are many other rich people the control of information is a class issue. Also I'm in no way defending corporate media but you can literally see CNN referencing it right here it took me half a second of googling to find this everyone is covering as information for all the cases you mentioned comes out if incredibly rich people are preventing information from coming out and preventing the investigation from going forward that's the thing that needs to be resolved You're angry at the wrong people https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn.../ghislaine-maxwell-prison-transfer/index.html

This is the same problem Qanon had they were so busy trying to attack specific people in politics and specific perceived sexual trafficking they literally ignored that Q was literally posting to 8 Chan which was a place where people shared and enabled others to produce child pornography people really do try to whitewash it and say that he was posting to 4chan which is still a deplorable shithole but it doesn't have as big of a focus and content sections dedicated to specifically sharing and enabling child pornography. And now we literally have Jim Watkins the person who was running 8chan running for a political seat and literally being supported by people who refer to themselves as the most anti child abuse group. The point I'm trying to make here is typically the same people shouting from the rooftops about this problem are directly involved or are some of the worst advocates against it. This is why I asked for an example because I had a feeling that you were going to choose things that are being widely talked about and reported on by news as the information comes out.

Wow, you found one story on CNN about Ghislaine Maxwell and it was about her prison transfer. You do know that the corporate media has to pepper in some truth or the people's trust in them would be lower than the current 14%.

There's no such thing as QAnon.

If you are going to draw a link just because Q posts to an open message board that has child porn, then let's connect Joe Biden and every other Twitter user since there is massive amounts of child porn there. Same with Facebook or Meta or whatever their name is this week. Guilt by association is not a winning argument, especially since there is no association there.

Of course I would use widely talked about examples over obscure examples. I have no idea what knowledge you possess. Typically, leftists ignore these stories unless they can somehow include the bad orange man without showing proof.

 

[dazindude]

Wow, you found one story on CNN about Ghislaine Maxwell and it was about her prison transfer. You do know that the corporate media has to pepper in some truth or the people's trust in them would be lower than the current 14%.

There's no such thing as QAnon.

If you are going to draw a link just because Q posts to an open message board that has child porn, then let's connect Joe Biden and every other Twitter user since there is massive amounts of child porn there. Same with Facebook or Meta or whatever their name is this week. Guilt by association is not a winning argument, especially since there is no association there.

Of course I would use widely talked about examples over obscure examples. I have no idea what knowledge you possess. Typically, leftists ignore these stories unless they can somehow include the bad orange man without showing proof.

Yeah I'm just going to stop talking clearly you don't actually live in reality. This conversation is going nowhere and it's a waste of my time. And also the Qanon mention was mostly a comparison about how people like you get weaponized in very dumb ways by political causes. You literally couldn't give me an example of a case not even covered by mainstream media. It's very weird how you made requests of me in the conversation that I had to comply with otherwise I would be wrong but whenever I asked any questions or asked for a source on anything you just start deflected like some kind of seething SJW. Have a nice day.

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah I'm just going to stop talking clearly you don't actually live in reality. This conversation is going nowhere and it's a waste of my time. And also the Qanon mention was mostly a comparison about how people like you get weaponized in very dumb ways by political causes. You literally couldn't give me an example of a case not even covered by mainstream media. It's very weird how you made requests of me in the conversation that I had to comply with otherwise I would be wrong but whenever I asked any questions or asked for a source on anything you just start deflected like some kind of seething SJW. Have a nice day.

He made a very clear and concise point, actually. Maxwell and Epstein were arrested under the suspicion of engaging in sex trafficking minors, and they happened to be very well-connected. Someone bought those child prostitutes, and if anyone would know who, it’d be Maxwell, the only living person we can ask (considering Epstein was conveniently left alone in his cell with no supervision for long enough to die). Presumably a business like this has a ledger, or a record of clients, or any sort of paper trail we could use. One would think we’d eventually hear about who those clients were, no? Unless, of course, it’d be inconvenient to publicise this list or investigate it in any way. You’re asking him to show you cases that weren’t covered by the media. How can he show you cases that weren’t covered? They weren’t covered - there’s nothing to show, by definition.

Not that this has anything to do with codifying access to birth control, it doesn’t and the whole discussion is grossly off-topic.

 

[dazindude]

He made a very clear and concise point, actually. Maxwell and Epstein were arrested under the suspicion of engaging in sex trafficking minors, and they happened to be very well-connected. Someone bought those child prostitutes, and if anyone would know who, it’d be Maxwell, the only living person we can ask (considering Epstein was conveniently left alone in his cell with no supervision for long enough to die). Presumably a business like this has a ledger, or a record of clients, or any sort of paper trail we could use. One would think we’d eventually hear about who those clients were, no? Unless, of course, it’d be inconvenient to publicise this list or investigate it in any way. You’re asking him to show you cases that weren’t covered by the media. How can he show you cases that weren’t covered? They weren’t covered - there’s nothing to show, by definition.

Not that this has anything to do with codifying access to birth control, it doesn’t and the whole discussion is grossly off-topic.

My point is all of these cases were covered in corporate media he said they weren't and then he tried to deflect by saying well portions of them were which is why I asked him for examples if he could give me examples of things that weren't covered in corporate media again he's acting as though the lack of legal action in these cases is because of a lack of attention when that's not the case these people were very well connected they were all incredibly wealthy people it seems like the issue here is that they're incredibly wealthy people getting away with crime I am asking for that to be addressed it's very simple while he just wants to deflect and say well it's the left wing who aren't talking about this and corporate media doesn't want to cover this again he has to defer to conspiracy because he doesn't actually have an argument.

 

[TraderPatTX]

My point is all of these cases were covered in corporate media he said they weren't and then he tried to deflect by saying well portions of them were which is why I asked him for examples if he could give me examples of things that weren't covered in corporate media again he's acting as though the lack of legal action in these cases is because of a lack of attention when that's not the case these people were very well connected they were all incredibly wealthy people it seems like the issue here is that they're incredibly wealthy people getting away with crime I am asking for that to be addressed it's very simple while he just wants to deflect and say well it's the left wing who aren't talking about this and corporate media doesn't want to cover this again he has to defer to conspiracy because he doesn't actually have an argument.

It's obvious you failed to understand my comments. I said the media has not covered who Epstein and Maxwell were serving. We've heard of a little black book and flight logs. We've seen pictures of people actually on Epstein's plane and we know the FBI has all of Epstein's videos. And we still have nothing from the media. They are not even questioning the story. Why do you think trust in media is at 14%?

And where have I stated any conspiracy? You are the one who brought up QAnon and trying to link it to child porn because it's on the same site. I destroyed your argument by pointing to the fact that Twitter and Facebook have child porn also.

 

[tabzer]

Corporate media is obviously complacent and there is obviously a conspiracy. Too bad we can only theorize. +1 for transparency.

 

[LainaGabranth]

There's no such thing as QAnon.

A correction, I was in the first Q thread on 4chan. Q wasn't really in the government, but they indeed are a real person as far as "A person posting on 4chan" is the criteria. The whole thing was a far right LARP that caught on and was either started by, or has been hijacked by Jim Watkins.

So the guy exists, the movement exists, the rhetoric exists, and the cultists exist. It, ergo, demonstrably exists. It's like saying Antifa doesn't exist because there's no leader, very politically illiterate behavior.

 

[TraderPatTX]

A correction, I was in the first Q thread on 4chan. Q wasn't really in the government, but they indeed are a real person as far as "A person posting on 4chan" is the criteria. The whole thing was a far right LARP that caught on and was either started by, or has been hijacked by Jim Watkins.

So the guy exists, the movement exists, the rhetoric exists, and the cultists exist. It, ergo, demonstrably exists. It's like saying Antifa doesn't exist because there's no leader, very politically illiterate behavior.

I never said that Q didn't exist. I said there's no such thing as QAnon. There is Q and there are anons, but no QAnon. This is how I know when people do not understand the subject they are talking about. They tend to use corporate media labels that are fed to them.

 

[tabzer]

People who think they know Jim Watkins is Q are probably the same people who think Craig Wright is Satoshi. "I was in the original Q post". Lol. Unless you have a moronic post that you want to take credit for, everyone was in it.

 

[dazindude]

It's obvious you failed to understand my comments. I said the media has not covered who Epstein and Maxwell were serving. We've heard of a little black book and flight logs. We've seen pictures of people actually on Epstein's plane and we know the FBI has all of Epstein's videos. And we still have nothing from the media. They are not even questioning the story. Why do you think trust in media is at 14%?

And where have I stated any conspiracy? You are the one who brought up QAnon and trying to link it to child porn because it's on the same site. I destroyed your argument by pointing to the fact that Twitter and Facebook have child porn also.

Again you keep doing this deflection about the media but every time I try googling any is the things you talk about I find that the media has covered it and not only the media has covered it literally basically every corporate media group has covered it. I think it's kind of weird that you would provide that argument that 8chan is just like these other sites and the sites have user generated content. 8chan existed expressly for that purpose it's not a website that exists for people to socialize and generate whatever content you wanted it's that the entire site had specific sections for specific kinds it existed specifically to facilitate the exchange of that material wow I can't I can't believe you would even like try to use a false equivalency here again like maybe you need to reevaluate some of your view on the world if you think there's no difference between a website that is created for people to share normal things and a website that literally advocates for illegal material to be uploaded to it. I don't really argue with people who are just being completely disingenuous if you applied the same standard of judgment across the board you would see see that there is no comparison.

 

[dazindude]

People who think they know Jim Watkins is Q are probably the same people who think Craig Wright is Satoshi. "I was in the original Q post". Lol. Unless you have a moronic post that you want to take credit for, everyone was in it.

Yeah those people are crazy but you can definitely see how he profited off of it he founded several websites in order to receive donations to create promotional materials as well as merchandise I don't think he's Q I just think he's a person who saw an easy way to profit off of dumb conspiracy boomers.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Again you keep doing this deflection about the media but every time I try googling any is the things you talk about I find that the media has covered it and not only the media has covered it literally basically every corporate media group has covered it. I think it's kind of weird that you would provide that argument that 8chan is just like these other sites and the sites have user generated content. 8chan existed expressly for that purpose it's not a website that exists for people to socialize and generate whatever content you wanted it's that the entire site had specific sections for specific kinds it existed specifically to facilitate the exchange of that material wow I can't I can't believe you would even like try to use a false equivalency here again like maybe you need to reevaluate some of your view on the world if you think there's no difference between a website that is created for people to share normal things and a website that literally advocates for illegal material to be uploaded to it. I don't really argue with people who are just being completely disingenuous if you applied the same standard of judgment across the board you would see see that there is no comparison.

Your gonna have to prove that 8chan was created expressly for the purpose of sharing child porn.

I used Twitter and Facebook as examples to show the fallacy of your "guilt by association" argument. Just because Twitter and Facebook were designed for people to socialize does not absolve them of the content that is hosted on their servers, many here in the US under US jurisdiction. Funny how they can ban memes but can't find a way to ban illegal content of children. What a mystery.