Elon Musk announces Twitter suppressed Hunter Biden Laptop Story

[Foxi4]

you can vote for someone to get someone out. every single motive for voting doesn't have to go towards "i like this person". in a system as well which only promotes two parties having a given power, you're either choosing in between one or the other. those third party candidates aren't going to receive any power because they don't have the outreach or the ability to gain as much traction; a wasted vote. so, if you want to get the guy you absolutely despise out of office, what's your best option?

as for voting for someone who you don't fully agree with solely for nullifying another person's vote? good. that person whose vote i nullified wanted me and my loved ones dead anyways.

I didn’t say that you can’t. I said that you shouldn’t.

 

[CommanderCool]

I didn’t say that you can’t. I said that you shouldn’t.

your judgment is already pretty warped, so i don't really care about what you think i should or should not do.

 

[Foxi4]

your judgment is already pretty warped, so i don't really care about what you think i should or should not do.

You don’t have to care, so long as you remember and accept that you voted for this.

 

[CommanderCool]

You don’t have to care, so long as you remember and accept that you voted for this.

i love how many times i pointed out to you and the short bus geezer that i didn't and neither of you cared to listen.

 

[Foxi4]

i love how many times i pointed out to you and the short bus geezer that i didn't and neither of you cared to listen.

I wasn’t talking specifically about Biden (which is what I assume you’re implying) - I used him as an example. We’re discussing a hypothetical scenario of voting for a politician whom you don’t actually support - stay on track. If you successfully vote in a politician and he proceeds to enact policies you didn’t support in the first place, you voted for this, you get what you deserve and it’s your fault. Maxima culpa.

As for your phrasing, I don’t know whom you speak of, but you should probably revise your word choice.

 

[CommanderCool]

I wasn’t talking specifically about Biden (which is what I assume you’re implying). We’re discussing a hypothetical scenario of voting for a politician whom you don’t actually support - stay on track. If you successfully vote in a politician and he proceeds to enact policies you didn’t support in the first place, you voted for this, you get what you deserve and it’s your fault. Maxima culpa.

As for your phrasing, I don’t know whom you speak of, but you should probably revise your word choice.

you act as if everyone has the choice of politician that they want and can just vote in a direction in which will allow them to get the maximum benefits from their given politician, institutions which overpower us all be damned. even not voting is the act of being culpable and it being everyone's fault, according to you, who has shown nothing to me but a holier-than-thou attitude towards everything. as a moderator, you also make some sort of grand claim to ethics when it's clear that there are many members here who outrank you in the category due to your unwarranted arrogance. earned through what again?

also, do your best not to threaten me. i know it's hard when you're being challenged to not think of using your almighty "power" bestowed upon you to silence whoever manages to hit a nerve with you, as you've done before. but make the consideration to tone it back a bit.

 

[Foxi4]

you act as if everyone has the choice of politician that they want and can just vote in a direction in which will allow them to get the maximum benefits from their given politician, institutions which overpower us all be damned. even not voting is the act of being culpable and it being everyone's fault, according to you, who has shown nothing to me but a holier-than-thou attitude towards everything. as a moderator, you also make some sort of grand claim to ethics when it's clear that there are many members here who outrank you in the category due to your unwarranted arrogance. earned through what again?

also, do your best not to threaten me. i know it's hard when you're being challenged to not think of using your almighty "power" bestowed upon you to silence whoever manages to hit a nerve with you, as you've done before. but make the consideration to tone it back a bit.

Not everyone has a choice of a politician that represents their values, or at least matches them closely enough to warrant some concessions. Those voters can choose to abstain if they don’t want to feel regret once their decisions, and their negative consequences, catch up with them, which they always do. They can also vote for a third party candidate, who admittedly will have a lower chance of success, but at the very least the vote will be honest.

I issued no threat - my function on this site is to enforce our terms of service and community standards to the best of my ability. You’ve been recently reintroduced to them, and presumably learned that we do not permit flaming other users of the forum. As such, it is perfectly reasonable for me to take issue with what you call other users of the board. Once again, you weren’t very specific, but that’s a thin, weak defense - if you intend to use the forums, you will abide by the rules. I am by no means almighty, and I don’t *like* penalising users. I only do so when my hand is forced, so you make the consideration to revise your netiquette in order to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Nobody is being silenced here. You’re welcome to have an opinion, and to express it however you please, so long as you do so politely and in accordance to community standards. Had that not been the case, you wouldn’t be here, talking with me.

 

[CommanderCool]

Not everyone has a choice of a politician that represents their values, or at least matches them closely enough to warrant some concessions. Those voters can choose to abstain if they don’t want to feel regret once their decisions, and their negative consequences, catch up with them, which they always do. They can also vote for a third party candidate, who admittedly will have a lower chance of success, but at the very least the vote will be honest.

I issued no threat - my function on this site is to enforce our terms of service and community standards to the best of my ability. You’ve been recently reintroduced to them, and presumably learned that we do not permit flaming other users of the forum. As such, it is perfectly reasonable for me to take issue with what you call other users of the board. Once again, you weren’t very specific, but that’s a thin, weak defense - if you intend to use the forums, you will abide by the rules. I am by no means almighty, and I don’t *like* penalising users. I only do so when my hand is forced, so you make the consideration to revise your netiquette in order to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Nobody is being silenced here. You’re welcome to have an opinion, and to express it however you please, so long as you do so politely and in accordance to community standards. Had that not been the case, you wouldn’t be here, talking with me.

you have a habit of only making those enforcements upon some members as opposed to others. there's been some super racist shit spouted off in other threads you've gladly turned a blind eye to. i think you are protecting people who don't need it nor asked for it. you claim to not like using that power; your actions disagree with your words.

also, you're saying all should abstain from participating in the democratic process if they do not fit your narrow modus operandi for voting; the democratic process is based on people expressing their voice with what little they're given. thus, their responsibility lies within their intentions of their vote. if i voted to get someone out of office, that is all i will take responsibility for.

 

[Foxi4]

you have a habit of only making those enforcements upon some members as opposed to others. there's been some super racist shit spouted off in other threads you've gladly turned a blind eye to. i think you are protecting people who don't need it nor asked for it. you claim to not like using that power; your actions disagree with your words.

also, you're saying all should abstain from participating in the democratic process if they do not fit your narrow modus operandi for voting; the democratic process is based on people expressing their voice with what little they're given. thus, their responsibility lies within their intentions of their vote. if i voted to get someone out of office, that is all i will take responsibility for.

I’m saying that people shouldn’t vote for things they don’t support because they’re effectively voting against their own interest, purely out of spite. If everybody voted according to what they believe as opposed to voting based on team colours, we’d have a better democracy, not a worse one - one that represents the will of the people, as opposed to their allegiances. Voting for an unpalatable candidate based solely on party affiliation can only be a crushing defeat or a Pyrrhic victory, never a success. That’s what I believe - you don’t have to do as I say, but consider it. Thinking does us well - we should always ingest viewpoints that are contrary to our own.

I don’t know what posts you’re referring to specifically, but as I mentioned before, I am not almighty. You’re mistaking a janitor for a God - I just clean the hallways here. If you find something objectionable, report it so that it’s highlighted for the team - we don’t read every single post.

 

[CommanderCool]

I’m saying that people shouldn’t vote for things they don’t support because they’re effectively voting against their own interest, purely out of spite. If everybody voted according to what they believe as opposed to voting based on team colours, we’d have a better democracy, not a worse one - one that represents the will of the people, as opposed to their allegiances. Voting for an unpalatable candidate based solely on party affiliation can only be a crushing defeat or a Pyrrhic victory, never a success. That’s what I believe - you don’t have to do as I say, but consider it. Thinking does us well - we should always ingest viewpoints that are contrary to our own.

I don’t know what posts you’re referring to specifically, but as I mentioned before, I am not almighty. You’re mistaking a janitor for a God - I just clean the hallways here. If you find something objectionable, report it so that it’s highlighted for the team - we don’t read every single post.

okay where you're coming from makes way more sense based on how you've presented it. voting within our best interests is definitely the ideal. wish it was that simple within the systems itself to make it work for us.

and fair enough.

 

[Foxi4]

okay where you're coming from makes way more sense based on how you've presented it. voting within our best interests is definitely the ideal. wish it was that simple within the systems itself to make it work for us.

and fair enough.

Glad that we have an understanding. We reached it by having a pleasant discussion. Wink wink.

 

[tabzer]

Someone called America a democracy. Were they lying?

 

[Deleted member 586536]

There’s no such thing as a “lesser bad choice”.

Yes there is such a thing.
The United States due to a lack of rank choice voting makes people prioritize likely winnable candidates based not on policy but on funding, aka Republicans and Democrats are in effect, the only choice. Voting for what you actually wanted in our government could result in a situation where the worst case scenario happening, because you couldn't put a preference of who you like in order, just one selection.

Post automatically merged: Dec 25, 2022

Aka, if I vote third party (first choice), who I know is likely going to loose. Then it puts at risk my second choice (democrats), since I am unable to vote for them. And enables the Republican party (last and most dislike option) to win because there's no ranked choice voting.

 

[Foxi4]

Yes there is such a thing.
The United States due to a lack of rank choice voting makes people prioritize likely winnable candidates based not on policy but on funding, aka Republicans and Democrats are in effect, the only choice. Voting for what you actually wanted in our government could result in a situation where the worst case scenario happening, because you couldn't put a preference of who you like in order, just one selection.

Post automatically merged: Dec 25, 2022

Aka, if I vote third party (first choice), who I know is likely going to loose. Then it puts at risk my second choice (democrats), since I am unable to vote for them. And enables the Republican party (last and most dislike option) to win because there's no ranked choice voting.

We’ve explored that earlier, I already covered that scenario and provided my reasoning. The notion that you should settle for a mouldy sandwich because you might not get the chance to get proper lunch later is not the W you think it is - you’re eating a mouldy sandwich unprompted, with a smile on your face, and then act surprised when you get a stomach ache. In fact, you’re asking for that sandwich specifically, knowing ahead of time that it’s spoiled - who’s to blame for your resulting troubles if that’s what you picked for lunch? A choice between getting shot in the forehead or the back of the head is no choice at all. You might believe that you’ll be more presentable in the casket with a bullet hole in the back - I’m of the opinion that at that point you won’t care much, on account of being dead. If I’m going to get shot either way, I’d rather abstain altogether than accept responsibility for requesting to be shot - I don’t have to accept a false choice, I can choose to reject it altogether.

Your response exemplifies what I described earlier - voting based on team colours rather than based on whether or not you support the policies. This isn’t sports, it’s politics. If you elect representatives who espouse policies you disapprove of purely because they’re from a specific party, you’re actively supporting those policies against your own interest, and thus waive any right to complain when the consequences of your choice catch up to you - you voted for this, so you get what you deserve. You’re actively weakening democracy by giving your vote to politicians who don’t deserve it and lay the groundwork for laws that shouldn’t be enacted. You’re making things worse, not better - not only are you committing to a false choice, you’re propagating bad policies, creating the impression that they have widespread support when they don’t.

You can’t think one-dimensionally - it is better to lose a battle and win the war than to win every battle and get wiped out in the process. There is no point in victory when the prize is a barren wasteland - if what you’ve “won” is a hellscape then you’ve fought for nothing. Let’s assume your nightmare scenario, let’s say that your party loses time and time again because their candidates were awful - what then? Presumably, they’re going to push *different candidates*, hopefully ones that are progressively closer to who *you* would want to see nominated. The party will necessarily select nominees who are more electable and more closely match the will of their electorate, or it will perish. If they can win even when the candidates they push forward do not represent the sentiments of the people then there is no impetus for progress. They simply don’t have to change, policy ceases to matter because regardless of how awful it is, “sports fans” will vote based solely on the party alignment anyway. That’s a terrible way to run a country, and a complete failure of basic civics.

This is, in part, the hilarity of the American political dilemma. Everybody is tripping over themselves complaining that there are only two major parties and no viable third party candidates. Yeah, no kidding - none of you are willing to vote for them. You want to win *right now*, so your plight is self-inflicted and deserved. You settle for the “lesser evil”, so that’s what you get. You make your own bed - lay in it.

 

[titan_tim]

Yeah, the FBI really screwed the pooch on that one. Even known pedophile Matt Gaetz somehow made a copy of the harddrive, so who knows who else has tampered with this so-called "laptop from hell". Nothing on that laptop will hold up in court as evidence now, even if it showed him poisoning the queen of england.

As long as the MD5 of the original image was verified with the original image, and the copies made matched that MD5, then the evidence should be fine.

But inside those images, if any of the metadata shows dates modified AFTER the laptop was last in the possession of Hunter, then the evidence would be considered unusable in court. It's super easy for forensic practitioners to check to see if any strange things have been done to a HDD.

That being said, if they've had this HDD image for this many years, and the worst things they can find is some lude pics, and a couple emails using vague language, it's basically admitting that they have nothing.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Your response exemplifies what I described earlier - voting based on team colours rather than based on whether or not you support the policies. This isn’t sports, it’s politics. If you elect representatives who espouse policies you disapprove of purely because they’re from a specific party, you’re actively supporting those policies against your own interest, and thus waive any right to complain when the consequences of your choice catch up to you - you voted for this, so you get what you deserve. You’re actively weakening democracy by giving your vote to politicians who don’t deserve it and lay the groundwork for laws that shouldn’t be enacted. You’re making things worse, not better.

Alright foxi4. Let me draw up a scenario.

One party, let's call them party "X", says that killing a certain group of people is fine, that they deserve it.
Party "Y" provides lipservice to that group of people, and doesn't actively attempt to harm them nearly as much, but doesn't help their situation much.
And Party "Z", is actively against harming that group of people, and wants to aid them.

Party "X", and Party "Y" have the most funding, the most power in this system because of their finances, from large companies.
Party "Z" has little to no funding, and as a result, very little power. They are rarely seen in ads if at all. Unable to have a social media presence because of said lack of ads.

Objectively, Party Z is the correct choice. Harming that group of people for the sake of hate, is agreed that it's not good or right. And Objectively, Party X is wrong.

HOWEVER, because party X and party Y, have so much funding, that's the two choices people will end up deciding between.
Party X does a political campaign to fear monger about that certain group of people. And party Y does a bit of lipservice, and maybe some policy.

And people voting for Z, while objectively correct, is a throw away vote, unless you somehow manage to break those (visibility) odds, which is statistically unlikely. Not enough people will know that party Z exists. Or if they do know, aware that it's unlikely to win based on visibility.

People voting for Z, likely agree to a lesser extent with party Y. And absolutely do not like X.

It's in their interest not to hurt that certain group of people. But by putting that vote in, in a contested race, it hurts party Y, the people they secondly would agree with, and helps Party X, the party they absolutely don't like for their policy.


I'm talking politics and strategy. What actually happens in the real world specific to the United States. You can guess who is party x, party y, and what party z represents.

 

[Foxi4]

Alright foxi4. Let me draw up a scenario.

One party, let's call them party "X", says that killing a certain group of people is fine, that they deserve it.
Party "Y" provides lipservice to that group of people, and doesn't actively attempt to harm them nearly as much, but doesn't help their situation much.
And Party "Z", is actively against harming that group of people, and wants to aid them.

Party "X", and Party "Y" have the most funding, the most power in this system because of their finances, from large companies.
Party "Z" has little to no funding, and as a result, very little power. They are rarely seen in ads if at all. Unable to have a social media presence because of said lack of ads.

Objectively, Party Z is the correct choice. Harming that group of people for the sake of hate, is agreed that it's not good or right. And Objectively, Party X is wrong.

HOWEVER, because party X and party Y, have so much funding, that's the two choices people will end up deciding between.
Party X does a political campaign to fear monger about that certain group of people. And party Y does a bit of lipservice, and maybe some policy.

And people voting for Z, while objectively correct, is a throw away vote, unless you somehow manage to break those (visablity) odds, which is statistically unlikely.

People voting for Z, likely agree to a lesser extent with party Y. And absolutely do not like X.

It's in their interest not to hurt that certain group of people. But by putting that vote in, in a contested race, it hurts party Y, the people they secondly would agree with, and helps Party X, the party they absolutely don't like for their policy.


I'm talking politics and strategy. What actually happens in the real world specific to the United States. You can guess who is party x, party y, and what party z represents.

I addressed this above. Change takes time. If you want to start seeing viable choices, worthwhile third party candidates and the overall stabilisation of the political process, you must necessarily start voting accordingly, and propagate that view among your fellows. If you choose to vote for the “lesser evil” time and time again because it grants you short-term victory, you will only ever get to vote for evil, and you’ll only ever get bad outcomes. You can’t change the world single-handedly, but you can choose not to partake in evil - that is my personal preference. You can prefer to win every battle no matter the cost, but you must accept the consequences, however infinitesimally small your contribution was. You can’t repeatedly complain about only having “bad choices” when all you’re voting for is “bad choices” - you’re getting what you voted for.

 

[phil3254]

I predict that nothing will come from this just as nothing has came from the Epstein Case, Ray Epps, or anything else of importance, though I hope I am wrong.

^ nough said exactly this ^ 100%

 

[Deleted member 586536]

addressed this above.

You did not at all, you made the claim that it was for "teams"
Don't go trying to make yourself look good here as if you actually addressed what I said.
Most people would agree with party Z, but they don't even know it's an option because of money in politics. What your saying now is extremely superfluous, an absolute nothing burger.

This is, in part, the hilarity of the American political dilemma. Everybody is tripping over themselves complaining that there are only two major parties and no viable third party candidates. Yeah, no kidding - none of you are willing to vote for them. You want to win *right now*, so your plight is self-inflicted and deserved. You settle for the “lesser evil”, so that’s what you get. You make your own bed - lay in it.

You laugh at it, but you don't seem to grasp the issue of not being able to vote based on ranked choice. Nor how fundamentally broken the system is over here, or the scale.

It's not that the third parties are not viable. It's that they have no visibility. You cannot vote on what you cannot see.

 

[Deleted member 194275]

Someone called America a democracy. Were they lying?

Democracy yes, not the most democratic, not the "lighthouse of democracy", but USA still is way above the average.

Now, there is a fracture opening in the American society. This can break democracy badly if not managed in time.