Twitch disabled the account following the Jan. 6 riot on the US Capitol in 2021 due to “the current extraordinary circumstances and the President’s incendiary rhetoric” before issuing an indefinite suspension two weeks later, according to a Twitch spokesperson.
Guess we’ll all just collectively forget about this now that’s he’s the Republican nominee again ¯\(ツ)/¯
So three years is the proper amount for an unrepentant failed coup, insurrection and inciting murder? You are just an absolute ding dong and you have boot polish all around your mouth.
Comments like these make me seriously want to leave Lemmy. Some people here are just foaming at the mouth to attack anyone who doesn’t conform exactly to their rhetoric, as opposed to just having a normal discussion.
Insulting that previous poster and calling him a bootlicker diminishes and undermines your actual point. I hate Trump and his actions as much as anyone here, but we gotta be better than this and not polarize everything on our side.
“I hate Trump and his actions as much as anyone here, but…”
Of course, this is the traditional phrasing used by us fellow legitimate, absolutely genuine, haters of fascism and their associated ideals - We just can’t stop qualifying it, we can’t help ourselves…
“Women should have equal rights, but…”
*“Love who you love, marry who you want, but…”
“I’m definitely not racist, but…”
“I support a person’s right to choose what they do with their pregnancy, but…”
“The Nazis were out of line, but…”
“UH, SEE… Now look what YOU made me do!!!”
Will anyone else in this thread commit to stepping up and adding absolutely nothing to this conversation, in this person’s place, if they do leave Lemmy? Who’s going to do their part?
You’re talking as if they were ever able to graduate elementary school. The last time I saw police near an elementary school they were too scared to go in
OK, I’ll argue for the cops on this one. Just this once!
Community engagement is a real thing, gets people talking to cops who otherwise wouldn’t. And that can be a positive experience all around.
For example; The Tulsa cops had a bitchin’ (my 80s coming out) Corvette Stingray they showed off at the fair and every other chance they had. They had quite an audience gathered around, talking about the car at first and then asking questions about LE.
Idea being, it’s not supposed to be a regular cruiser.
For all it’s flaws, you can’t deny it looks different from all the other cars around, and most people aren’t online enough to have an opinion about Musk and his bullshit, so to them it’s just an interesting looking car.
I mean, sure, if a Cybertruck parked next to me somewhere, I’d probably take a close look and talk to the owner if they were around. I’m curious as much as anyone.
I don’t have high expectations, and I’m not interested in owning one, but I’d still check it out.
But that’s just because these cars are rare and novel. If anything, the questions I’d ask would be tilted towards figuring out just how shitty a car it is.
If the police are roaming around in them, they become less novel, and generally speaking people aren’t usually interested in approaching random cops for conversations. People who socialize around cars usually aren’t a big fan of the cops.
most people aren’t online enough to have an opinion about Musk and his bullshit
I don’t understand this point. Not only does Elon Musk’s bullshit appear regularly on boomer tv stations, but you don’t have to be very online to get exhausted with Musk content. It’s not exactly niche content, he owns Twitter and is constantly attracting media attention with dumb stunts. You have to go out of your way to avoid hearing about him.
to them it’s just an interesting looking car.
Anyone interested enough in cars to be influenced by what kind of car the cops drive, is someone likely informed enough to know that the Cybertruck is a misengineered lemon of a car.
To car people. To other people it can be a “generic fancy car”, while the Cybertruck can be something unusual that no other car looks alike. Can’t get everyone.
Ok. They could put police lights on a weiner mobile too. That would get a ton of community engagement. But for some reason I can’t put my finger on, they have chosen a very expensive tiny dick toy instead.
Yeah, brutalist and brutal are different. The cyber truck is a fucking stupid design that will hurt people far more than most vehicles (big dumb truck hoods not withstanding).
They aren’t even going to be able to sell them anywhere that has reasonable pedestrian safety laws. CA needs to pass some and kill the fucking thing, not give them to cops who already want to kill anyone who makes them nervous.
Someone who cannot recognize the sins of their country doesn’t love their country. They just want to worship it.
President Truman, who was himself somewhat racist (though less than many contemporary southerners), received a report post-WW2 on the treatment of Black veterans. He reportedly said, “My God, I had no idea it was as terrible as that. We’ve got to do something.” And so he did. Came out swinging on civil rights. Truman was deeply, DEEPLY imperfect, but even he recognized that a common, basic standard of decency and humanity was being violated by the racist behavior of the nation.
When the racial conditions of a country shock a man who is willing to use the n-word in private and acquiesce to his wife’s desire to keep Jews out of the house, something is well and truly FUCKED.
Our history is great not because it is perfect. It is ugly. It is, oftentimes, evil. Our history is great because we can learn from the sins of the past, and learn from those who fought those sins even at the time.
Why was there a spike in violence in 1919? Krugler argues that black service members’ experience in World War I was one of the catalysts. In many places, demobilized black veterans, having fought for their country, had a diminished tolerance for racial discrimination—and their families, having sacrificed on the homefront, felt the same way. Meanwhile, white civilians resented what they perceived as an excess of pride (what an Army captain, registering his concern with the Military Intelligence Division, called “social aspirations”) in those who had served. Servicemen were allowed to wear their uniforms for three months after being “demobbed.” Georgian Wilbur Little was lynched in April 1919, reportedly for the sin of wearing his after the cutoff date—a crime that suggests how much the vision of black men in uniform threatened the racial regime.
[In line link added for context]
Two - this whole “About Face” comic. I think there is something about being in a war and becoming accustomed to an atmosphere of violence, having to dehumanize people who want to kill you so you can more easily kill them, having rigid structure and routine as the thing that allows you to stay grounded and keep moving forward, etc. - that makes it easier to fall into supremacist movements. Like, we had a noticeable uptick in KKK bullshit after WWI and WWII, and I can’t help but feel like a lot of the shit we see today is our War on Terror adventures coming home to roost in some ways.
e; just to be clear, I don’t mean this as a whole insult against all veterans or anything of the sort, because some of the best people I know irl are vets, and I think that service can absolutely have an opposite effect on a person’s moral reasoning
He wasn’t even president at the time of the hush payment was he? There’s no way that could be considered an official act. Unless maybe the supreme Court was full of bribable puppets, with 1/3 of them having been appointed by the convicted felon.
The Supreme Court ruled that if a president is doing something presidential it’s presumed above board and can’t be questioned or used as evidence. Saying talking to Hope Hicks, his aid while in office, makes it Presidential and it need to be littigated that it wasn’t. A few pieces of evidence were used while he was President and in office so he says it’s presidential and he’s presumed immune until otherwise proved.
This is the serious issue with the ruling. The President is responsible for the military branch so if he ordered someone assassinated by Seal Team 6 he’s immune with multiple layers given by the supreme court and it have to be worked upto the Supreme court that just gave him those powers which would take years.
Democrats (Biden) wont test this theory but Trump already admited to becoming a dictator day one. Basically, a republican can never be elected aspresident, and if they do we become a fascist state.
The President is responsible for the military branch so if he ordered someone assassinated by Seal Team 6 he’s immune with multiple layers given by the supreme court
Seal Team 6 is probably pretty squarely in the absolute immunity realm, at least if he doesn’t the absolute minimum to try to say it’s for national security. That’s the stuff that shouldn’t even be challengeable.
He can use Seal Team 6 to assassinate Joe Biden, Bernie Sander, and Chris Gaians for being threats to the nation.
President is in charge of ST6 she’s immune regardless how unlawful it is and you’d have yo worm your way to the supreme court for them to say it was an unofficial duty all while using ST6 to assassinate the next layer of judges.
No he was not, he used campaign finances for the hush money and once he got the pres he stopped upkeeping the agreement and didn’t care which provided proof that it was purely about the election and thus furthered the claim of election interference.
All of that happened before he was pres. It cannot be an official act if you weren’t an official yet.
No, but the issue is that some of the evidence that was presented at trial came from after Trump was President, and members of his inner circle had White House roles. Under this new doctrine, simply presenting that evidence that involved White House officials would no longer be allowed, even if that evidence pointed to a crime. So the judge now has to make a determination of how much of the prosecution’s case depended on that. The Judge himself may have to throw the verdict out, if too much of that seeped into the trial. It wouldn’t let Trump totally off the hook, but would necessitate a new trial. Which is bullshit, because there’s nothing the prosecution could have done about it. The SC changed the rules after the trial was over.
This was the very point that Amy Coney Barrett wrote about in her concurring opinion, she felt this part went too far. So this evidentiary point was really decided 5-4, and seems to be the most egregious part of it.
And now, all any corrupt President needs to do is give their corrupt friends roles in the Administration, and they can do all the crime they want, knowing that prosecutors are shielded from ever using evidence from those people in court.
Other way around. It was business funds paying her, but since the payment was for a political purpose it should have been campaign funds and so it was an illegal political contribution that was then covered up (the actual crime in the end).
This is wrong too lmao. It was not about covering up the payments that caused the trouble, it’s because he USED CAMPAIGN FINANCES to fund the hushmoney payments to ensure none of it reached the public before the election (hence the evidence showing he didn’t give a fuck once he had the pres)
The article itself is worth reading, but it includes a link to a Sacramento bee article about this woman and her trans kid. It seems like after the kid came out as trans, the mom really went off the deep end :
This woman is so wrapped up in her anti-trans crusade that it’s not just ruining her relationship with her child, but it’s consuming her to the point that it’s all she talks about. The article mentions that her friends and co-workers have had to ask her to stop sending articles about it. And now she’s been kicked out of the hotel she was staying at because she saw some guys in dresses and started throwing a fit. The hotel even offered to refund her stay, but she persisted and got escorted out by the cops instead.
She seems stuck in a misery of her own making. At least her kid seems to have a level head about all of it. I will never understand how some parents would let stuff like that get in the way of their relationship with their kids.
Well if there is one thing conservatives have never understood (and feel angry and small and left out because of it), it’s art. Especially performance art.
I don’t know enough about the man himself to confirm or deny… I guess he was the propaganda minister when Leni Riefenstahl was “discovered” (though according to wiki, it was Hitler who was mesmerized by her work and had Goebbels assign her to the task)
This will give you a lot of information (although it contains a lot of highly offensive Nazi imagery, so you might want to view it somewhere people can’t see you just in case) - www.dw.com/en/…/a-55751640
The disconnect that exists is that people don’t see the good things he does. You know, green energy, chips act, unions, drug price controls, student debt relief, telling them to look at marijuana rescheduling, infrastructure building. It just goes on and on. You’re doing mental gymnastics to say B-B-Biden bad! Ciao.
Lol you all caps shouted “YES” agreeing to what I said and literally said “Biden is bad”.
Bare minimum huh? Back to your mental gymnastics. Biden’s doing fucking great.
You want more? He doesn’t even have control of the house of representatives. If you want more give him and Dems consistent and resounding victories.
I think this is where I inform you that Dems have had control of all three (house, Senate, and presidency) for a whooping 4 years of the last 24 years. If you include Bill Clinton, then it’s 6 of the last 32 years. You want more progress? Give Dems consistent and resounding victories. Not a measly half term every second president.
While it’s obviously not good to have a low approval rating, it also doesn’t tell you whether or not a person will vote for him. I don’t approve of him, but will still vote for him because there’s no other viable non-fascist alternative.
it also doesn’t tell you whether or not a person will vote for him
It doesn’t tell you whether a person will vote against them, but its a classic litmus test for turnout in favor. Below 50% approval rating signals a higher than average likelihood of an incumbent losing one’s seat. And the only countervailing narrative is when the primary opposition also has low approval.
Obama beating Romney in '12 was a case of two Presidential candidates being underwater and Romney simply having worse negatives than Obama on election day. Both parties saw a drop-off in voter participation relative to the '08 high water mark.
Fucking lol dude. That you admit it in one thread, but then try to beat around the bush and deny your deep seated hatred in another doesn’t help you. People can see through it and call you out. That you only admit it in a different chain doesn’t matter. You’re playing games, shouting it in one chain and then denying it another. This doesn’t help you at all.
Have to point out your projection of “rage”. You are raging, so you project it.
And then you play the game, after I listed off all the good things he did, of asking me what he should do differently to change? Do you mean chance? Whatever, all you’re doing it playing games. Any answer will be met with mental blackflips for whatever game. Ok I said it before, ciao
Expanding the oil industry and shutting down strikes then giving them a pittance isn’t good. Liberals keep lying ig, maybe if you lie hard enough biden will stop being a piece of shit
/s nothing and no one will stop him from being a piece of shit, telling blatant lies isn’t gonna get people to like him
Whether we like it or not, gas prices play an outsized role. Have to do that while we get some rail infrastructure up, gas milage up, EVs up and the green energy to go with that. And guess who wants to kill all that?
“Polls have “called” elections correctly 78 percent of the time” according to that article. Just because they are more accurate than in another time frame does not mean they are accurate overall. This is an incredibly poor rate in the larger picture. Independent groups are notoriously hard to poll and they are the ones that decide elections. If it’s a landslide then of course the poll will be correct. Completely unreliable in close elections. However they make excellent time filters for news networks.
“Polls have “called” elections correctly 78 percent of the time” according to that article. Just
Maybe you should just read their argument as to why this is a garbage metric. Especially if you are arguing they don’t even “relate to reality.”
If always predicting who will win is the requirement for polls, the problem isn’t the polling itself, but your understanding of what a poll means and how statistics work.
Polls only predict well in places where you don’t need polls… hence their 78% success rate. What is their rate in closer elections? Likely right at 50%…useless.
The article talks about this and why it’s a bad metric. If you’re going to ignore their descriptive argument, you’ll just ignore my less than descriptive argument here.
But rest assured that at least part of the problem here is that you don’t understand statistics and probability.
This is a thread where someone made the statement “Trump would win if the election was today.” based on polls. You said yourself, that’s not what polls are for. Take it up with the person who is misusing the poll to make definitive statements like that rather than the person saying you can’t trust the polls for that.
The reason people go to “No relationship with reality” is because many people use the polls to say “will” instead of “favored” or conflate “will” and “favored.” When that’s the standard you are often presented, of course you are going to come to conclusion polling doesn’t have all that much to do with reality. Because it isn’t that predictive. Especially when you’re looking at things where we take this somewhat fuzzy number and turn it into a binary yes or no while the cloud of possibilities comfortably encompasses both outcomes.
So when talking to some making definitive statements about the outcome of an election based on polls, how they are using polls only has a tenuous relationship to reality.
So, like I said, they don’t understand polls and probability? I’m not sure why I have to be pedantic with the other poster, when this poster is just ridiculously wrong.
They’re the exact same mistake. Since the commenter you were responding to wasn’t the one to originally make the mistake, but instead was arguing with someone who’s premise relied on that mistake, it’s weird to only get on them about it.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the polls are likely skewed towards the GOP, and it’s thought that this is because of random text/calls, which boomers are more likely to respond to.
Ford did himself in. Apparently in 1976, American’s didn’t like the fact that the President could commit crimes while in office and get off with a pardon from his former VP. Crimes he was never charged with or convicted of.
Today, a scandal is like a badge of “honor” and being a convicted criminal and morally bankrupt sleezeball is basically a requirement for the Presidency. At least it is if you’re a Republican.
So, AT&T, the Deutsche tel / pacNWBell fka AT&T Frankenstein, and Bell Atlantic fka AT&T
They’re all AT&T except for the part of Pac NW Bell AT&T that got bought by, essentially, German AT&T.
I want to believe they don’t collude and perform, but I’ve lived in Canada and seen the decades-long dance between Rogers(fka Shaw fka AGTel + BCTel) and Rogers(Rogers) before they became just Rogers.
And now I’m sure that was all founded on a sugar empire.
But our major players have been dancing around each other for a long time before one bought the other – and I’m sure it’s just to save on Green Fees at the club because it’s not one corporate rate.
In 2, there’s generally no difference whether they go under or not. If they had anything valuable when they went under, it’s absorbed by a competitor. Machines, labor, etc.
The challenge is the startup costs and retaining skilled help. The only folks with the resources to cover these costs do so with the expectation of selling the company for more money, a long term investment for the investor. Gathering these resources without the expectation of selling or being the one buying others is probably untried and hugely difficult.
It is not “cold political analysis” at all. She is still simping for Trump morons, by pretending anything connecting to Hunter Biden is somehow important for Biden voters. It is just Fox News pathetic attempt at trying to mitigate the Hunter Biden slander lawsuit.
And if she struggles because of the ants and moves around, she gets beaten, shot with a heart attack machine, and/or shot with a gun, then charged with resisting arrest
It’s an idiom, not a word in the dictionary. You might even notice there are three words in “write it off” if you look carefully and count them out. At this point I’m going to assume you’re just trolling but in case you want to educate yourself: idioms.thefreedictionary.com/to+write+it+off
Used in the context you claim, it’s even more of an idiotic thing to say.
The company is being fined. It’s a real penalty. Since we don’t know how much product was sold, we don’t how punitive it is but damn, when the government gets a win you take it.
The fine is inconsequential to the profit they made from lying. If stealing $10,000 from a bank was only punishable by a $500, it would be foolish not to rob the bank since you will make $9,500 in profit, writing the $500 off as an expense alongside gas money and the gun used used to hold up the teller.
Williams & Sinoma made over $7billion in profits last year. This fine is absolutely inconsequential to them and will do nothing to discourage doing it again since the punishment is trivial to the reward.
What? Sure you can’t deduct them, but if I make $200 million doing something illegal, and the government catches me and fines me $10 million, then that’s just a “cost” I can account for. Make $190 million even after spending $10 million in fines.
Write off means write off the books. Otherwise it makes no sense as that the dictionary term for the phrase. You can’t write off a fine. It isn’t “written off”.
“Write off” has evolved to have an additional, more casual meaning, and I think it was clear to most of us that the author you’re referring to was using it in that sense.
Edit: Since you’re being pedantic, I checked three dictionaries. This sense of the phrase is in all of them.
All I’m hearing is that made in USA is a meaningless label because it’s cost-effective to simply apply it and pay the fine if they ever get to you. Corporations mis using the label can breathe a sigh of relief. No real punishment inbound.
The bottom line is operating income, not revenue. And WSM had an operating income of ~$1.5 billion last year.
The FTC found seven products were falsely advertised, starting with a mattress cover. But Pottery Barn sells over 10,000 products, in fact there are over 500 products in their bedding section alone. And Pottery Barn is just one part of WSM.
It’s near certain that a $3 million fine wiped out whatever profit these seven products made for WSM, and then cut into profits made by other products. So breaking the law was not a profitable strategy for WSM.
Of course 50% of gross revenue would immediately bankrupt WSM.
But if you still think that’s an appropriate deterrent, what if we imposed the same penalty on cannabis dispensaries? After all, they are not simply violating FTC regulations, they are engaged in federal felonies.
No, but causing a business to fail is not necessarily the best response to a violation. I don’t want WSM to fail over “made in the USA” labels for the same reason I don’t want dispensaries to shut down.
Violating DEA regulations often kills people in some circumstances.
It’s true that a cannabis dispensary is unlikely to kill someone, but the same is true of a “Made in the USA” label.
If the specific circumstances of a violation matter for a dispensary, then they should also matter for WSM. Dispensaries don’t sell narcotics, and WSM doesn’t sell Teslas.
That’s the problem the companies don’t fear the consequences for their action. If the fine was huge enough to bankrupt a company. Then the other companies will take a second guess before committing any fraud or deception against the consumers like you and me.
Why? We want to disincentivize malicious business practices, and fines proportional or greater to earnings from those practices are more than enough to convince a for-profit corporation to keep it clean.
fines proportional or greater to earnings from those practices are more than enough to convince a for-profit corporation to keep it clean.
Lol. This is the real world, and it’s already proven that the current system is inadequate, it is not enough to stop companies from doing it.
The fact that companies keep continuing to do it is the proof. The fines are NOT enough to disincentivize the practice. The current fines are still less than the benefit the company receives from the act, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it.
Bullshit like false advertising should have a dramatic punishment, not a slap on the wrist. I don’t give a shit if it bankrupts a business. A business lying to their customers should destroy it. If they want to take a chance at destroying the entire business over something as small as a fake label, they can decide to roll those dice, but don’t be surprised when they lose it all.
As a whole you’re correct, it often is inadequate, but in this very specific case of 7 products including some teen bed-padding, then the fines seem pretty proportional.
It depends on how much they made from these products. If the profit from the sale of those products is more than the $3.2M in fines, it is still just a cost that can be planned for when determining sale price and margins. The penalty needs to be higher than the profit from the deceptive practice or else it’s just a cost that can be planned for, not a real deterrent.
According to their 10-K end of year SEC Filing they made $1.7 Bn cash inflow profits, which resulted in a $1.3 Bn cash balance.
So, hypothetically, if they had made 3.175 Million net profit on selling one of their hundreds of types of bedding products, one of thousands of types of products total, then it would be 1/500th of their total profits across their many brand names and stores, or another possible scenario would be if everything else they sold at a cost and they actually did make this much profit from this specific bedding.
They actually saw a 9.9% decline in net revenue that year, attributed to store closures.
I wish people would be open to changing their opinions when new information is introduced, instead they’re just downvoting you because they don’t want justice they want to be mad.
But the fine for lying in the reports is the same as this fine: much, much lower than the profits. The fines are inconsequential, so fake reports are also inconsequential.
The FTC has no teeth here. No one will be jailed. The fines will never be more than a fraction of a penny on the dollar. So, the required reports and even the fines mean nothing at all. Nothing. Even the bad press is likely to help them sell more goods.
That’s wrong, actually. The fine they got last time was much smaller than this one, the fine they get next time can be expected to be even larger. The $3.175 Mn penalty for the 7 specific items sold with improper labeling is a new record for this specific violation.
While I agree with your Zeno’s Paradox method, the previous commenter’s counting method better reflect the absurd kid-gloves approach that the “justice” system has been treating that scumbag with.
True, but most parents aren’t anticipating an attempt to overthrow the government or legitimate death threats against them and their family if they make the “wrong” move.
You’re not kidding, they get so many chances even when security needs to be called. Part of me is cynical though. It’s always white guys in white courts, at least from what I’ve seen. I wonder how a black guy in a white court in one of those redneck states would be treated.
It’s always important to remember that “putting up with stuff” for judges is mostly them making their case appeal prove. Because the judge accepts the bond, now they can’t really bring it up on appeal. That’s the whole reason.
The judge is only more lenient because he wants to pin Trump down and leave him without good arguments on appeal, which is what we want - nothing would be worse than to see everything get overturned.
abbreviation? what? Nothing is being abbreviated anywhere.
you wrote “appeal prove”. That doesn’t make any sense. “Prove” is the wrong word. The correct word is “proof”.
Specifically, prove is a verb. A doing word. You prove things. Like walk, or run. But things cannot have or be “prove”. I walk down the road. I prove my case.
Proof is either a noun or an adjective, depending on which word of it you use. In this instance, proof means resistant. Like waterproof speakers.
edit: and to add, I hyphenated appeal-proof because appealproof isn’t a word. Perhaps you confused hyphenation with abbreviation somehow?
I guess shells are in high demand, currently. I don’t expect much but I hope the Senate votes it down or removes the majority of the Israel aid package. Currently it’s about 12 Billion USD worth of various support in addition to 14 Billion “Unconditional Military Support” while dealing with Iran.
If I had to rationalize it, I expect they simply want to give the bare minimum to avoid requiring sending soldiers to invade Iran directly. In my opinion, we’d be justified to “invade” Israel and oust the Netanyahu administration, solving the entire problem a lot cheaper.
The realpolitik answer is that they’re the only country in the region with highly functioning western-style market economy. That is valuable to other functioning western style market economies. Its a system trying to help itself propagate.
My eyes nearly rolled out of my head seeing that he had the stock symbol be his initials, but after a moment of thought, I realized it must be killing him to see “his” value plummet. That’s wonderful.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.