Elon Musk Becomes Twitter’s Largest Shareholder…

[Route 45]

We cannot lower ourselves to their level. We have to be better than them.

This is often the trope of losers in the world of politics.

I'm not celebrating that fact, I'm just pointing it out.

 

[jamil]

@KLB maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. But it still looks quite dismissive to me. If I were to distill what it seems you've been saying, is "meh, it's not illegal, so **** up a rope" Or in your words, stop saying it was election interference because it doesn't meet the strict legal term. Because that's the standard everyone must have to use those words.

 

[jamil]

This is often the trope of losers in the world of politics.

I'm not celebrating that fact, I'm just pointing it out.

Sure. Politics is a dirty game. But it looks like people are wiling to adopt a by any means necessary approach. So I'd like the people advocating to get as dirty as Democrats, how far are you willing to go? What dirty tricks cross your line? Do you have a line?

 

[Ingomike]

So are you advocating that republicans do all the stuff you accuse democrats of doing? You gonna do Kraken on them? Rig voting machines? Change zip codes of democrat voters then pick those undeliverable ballots up from the post office and fill them out? I'm just trying to figure out what "dirty" means. Which side of the law are you advocating that "we" operate on?

I am saying we must not bind ourselves to a purity of the constitution that results in the ultimate death of said constitution. I consider RICO and anti-trust laws to be extra constitutional but necessary. We need similar laws to clean up the election process.

 

[Ingomike]

How do you mean to stop something that isn't actually against a law?

Racketeering is against the law and there are laws to prosecute it.

This is what is going on, charge them with RICO violations…

 

[jamil]

I am saying we must not bind ourselves to a purity of the constitution that results in the ultimate death of said constitution. I consider RICO and anti-trust laws to be extra constitutional but necessary. We need similar laws to clean up the election process.

How's that dirty? I think it's fine to advocate for these changes. That is the constitutional process.

RICO and anti-trust laws I don't think are unconstitutional. The federal government has a legitimate concern within their enumerated powers over interstate commerce. I don't think there's much that can be done constitutionally about the election process outside of an amendment to the constitution. It's mostly up to the states. But the courts have certainly allowed more than just that. Can a law be passed that corrects the problems with elections? Not in this congress. Without a veto-proof majority in both houses, it is what it is.

But I don't think that's what is intended by getting "dirty". If we say we need to get dirty, let's be sure of what we're signing up for. If it runs afoul of the law, count me out.

 

[wtburnette]

How's that dirty? I think it's fine to advocate for these changes. That is the constitutional process.

RICO and anti-trust laws I don't think are unconstitutional. The federal government has a legitimate concern within their enumerated powers over interstate commerce. I don't think there's much that can be done constitutionally about the election process outside of an amendment to the constitution. It's mostly up to the states. But the courts have certainly allowed more than just that. Can a law be passed that corrects the problems with elections? Not in this congress. Without a veto-proof majority in both houses, it is what it is.

But I don't think that's what is intended by getting "dirty". If we say we need to get dirty, let's be sure of what we're signing up for. If it runs afoul of the law, count me out.

Exactly, we need to fight the corruption and wrongdoing without stepping into the gutter to do the same. If we resort to the same tactics, we've become our enemy and are no better than they are.

 

[Shadow01]

Sure. Politics is a dirty game. But it looks like people are wiling to adopt a by any means necessary approach. So I'd like the people advocating to get as dirty as Democrats, how far are you willing to go? What dirty tricks cross your line? Do you have a line?

Well the winners do make the rules. How bad do you want to make the rules?

 

[Cameramonkey]

If .gov jackboots push you out of the public square it is clearly a violation of your first amendment rights. So Hogsett cant kick you out of the city park for pointing out he is a failure, and asking where he was during the summer of peace.

But what happens when the town square is universally ignored by almost everyone (people neither go there to speak nor do others go there to listen) and private property is used to get the word out. Lets call it Lilly Park. (Eli Lilly actually has a private park for their employees to use and for them to hold outdoor events)

Lilly lets most people speak. Sure, they may jackboot a handful because they dont like what they have to say about drugs. Heck, they even allow really important local leaders to stay even though they may chant "death to America" because they are the head of a church here. But otherwise they let us be when we try to speak out.

Now Hogsett decides he doesnt like Jamil asking the question or talking about the summer of peace. So he leans on Lilly's team to kick him out of the park and silence him. Is THAT a violation of 1A rights? I think so. At least if it is Hogsett and his team. Maybe a powerful PAC that supports Hogsett's reelection might not count, but his administration, IMPD'd brass, etc. would.

Bottom line, it doesnt matter WHERE you are. When .gov punishes you for speaking or silences you, even indirectly at their behest, its still a violation of your rights.

 

[J Galt]

Exactly, we need to fight the corruption and wrongdoing without stepping into the gutter to do the same. If we resort to the same tactics, we've become our enemy and are no better than they are.

I believe that this philosophy has led to letting extreme liberals doing whatever they want and getting away with it. Taking the moral high ground is nice in a movie or TV show. In the real world it is like fighting a homeless, naked, crack head with the MARQUESS OF QUEENSBURY RULES. It is a guaranteed loss, and that is what has been happening consistently.

I think Tim Kennedy had some good observations on this based on real life experience and studying history.

The Marquess of Queensbury Rules

plural noun Marquis of Queens·ber·ry rules \-ˈkwēnz|ˌber|ē- -b(ə)r|, |i-\Definition of MARQUESS OF QUEENSBERRY RULES: a code of fair play presumed to apply in any fight <recognize no Marquis of Queensberry rules by which moral decorum should regulate and govern their differences — Lucius...

www.britishboxers.co.uk

 

[wtburnette]

Or, you know, instead of letting the Left "get away with it" we prosecute them fully every opportunity we get. Why is it we always see corrupt Leftist pieces of get away with obvious crimes? We have namby pamby chickensh*t Republicans who refuse to engage when the darn well should. Why do we get a few voices like Hawly and Paul who get up and rail against obvious corruption when everyone who isn't on the Left should be in lockstep, like the Left is. Instead of getting corrupt and dirty like the Left, we need to call it out and prosecute it when we can and avoid it. It's not just for movies. If we use the same tactics to get our way, where is the division between us and them?

 

[jamil]

Well the winners do make the rules. How bad do you want to make the rules?

So tamper with elections? Hiw bad do you want to make the rules.

Yeah. I didn’t think so.

 

[jamil]

I believe that this philosophy has led to letting extreme liberals doing whatever they want and getting away with it. Taking the moral high ground is nice in a movie or TV show. In the real world it is like fighting a homeless, naked, crack head with the MARQUESS OF QUEENSBURY RULES. It is a guaranteed loss, and that is what has been happening consistently.

I think Tim Kennedy had some good observations on this based on real life experience and studying history.

The Marquess of Queensbury Rules

plural noun Marquis of Queens·ber·ry rules \-ˈkwēnz|ˌber|ē- -b(ə)r|, |i-\Definition of MARQUESS OF QUEENSBERRY RULES: a code of fair play presumed to apply in any fight <recognize no Marquis of Queensberry rules by which moral decorum should regulate and govern their differences — Lucius...

www.britishboxers.co.uk

Okay. I guess that means doing all the things that democrats are accused of doing. You gonna get yourself in as an election official and start changing democrats’ zip codes?

 

[jamil]

Or, you know, instead of letting the Left "get away with it" we prosecute them fully every opportunity we get. Why is it we always see corrupt Leftist pieces of get away with obvious crimes? We have namby pamby chickensh*t Republicans who refuse to engage when the darn well should. Why do we get a few voices like Hawly and Paul who get up and rail against obvious corruption when everyone who isn't on the Left should be in lockstep, like the Left is. Instead of getting corrupt and dirty like the Left, we need to call it out and prosecute it when we can and avoid it. It's not just for movies. If we use the same tactics to get our way, where is the division between us and them?

I mean we haven’t really started calling them out. Traditional Republicans would never do that. Hiw about we start there instead of masking desires to be as dirty as they are behind some strawman claim of Marquise of queensberry rules. No one is talking about purity. But we shouldn’t have to break reasonable laws to expose the cheating.

 

[J Galt]

Or, you know, instead of letting the Left "get away with it" we prosecute them fully every opportunity we get. Why is it we always see corrupt Leftist pieces of get away with obvious crimes? We have namby pamby chickensh*t Republicans who refuse to engage when the darn well should. Why do we get a few voices like Hawly and Paul who get up and rail against obvious corruption when everyone who isn't on the Left should be in lockstep, like the Left is. Instead of getting corrupt and dirty like the Left, we need to call it out and prosecute it when we can and avoid it. It's not just for movies. If we use the same tactics to get our way, where is the division between us and them?

You have some legit points. I'll try and respond but typed words are a really really poor substitute for the meaning and intent for actually speaking. I hope to do a reasonable job of getting meaning and intent across.

Yes, non-left politicians need to prosecute other politicians when they violate laws. Part of what I'm referring to is that some non-left politicians want to "take the high" road and not increase animosity. This is wrong.

Yes, we should be more lockstep / unified in combating them.

I'm not suggesting getting corrupt. You seem to be taking what I say and using an extreme example of what I'm saying to make an argument against.

What I am saying is that we (anyone non-left) are hurting ourselves by taking a "high road" approach. The only example I can think of off hand is "legal" ballot harvesting. I got this idea from Tim Pool (https://timcast.com/) recently, but can't find the clip he explained it in.

Here is a very rough example: If you know people who want to vote against the left but may not be able / willing to get to the polls, literally go to them and help them fill out mail in voting or early voting. Some states require you to register as a caregiver - do it with their consent. Get a mini van and pick up elderly voters to drive them to the polls. (I would literally take the day off of work to help with this.)

Even in situations where we do need to get in the gutter to fight then do it. The difference (to address your question) in us is that we recognize that to end a gutter beast we need to go to the den of the gutter beast. We go to the gutter for a purpose. Once that purpose is done, we return to the regular world. We don't go with the intent to set up a new regime in the gutter.

Extreme example: Another example is killing. That is typically viewed as being "dirty". When the Greenwood Mall shooter started killing people in the mall, that was corrupt and dirty. However, Elisjsha Dicken got into the gutter to stop that threat with intent and necessity. When his work was done, he exited the gutter and got back to his life. If he took the "high road" and shielded his girlfriend with his body while running away more people would be dead.

Another extreme example: When Tim Kennedy deploys he does so to stop "dirty and corrupt" activity (killing) by engaging in the same tactics. Thank god there are men like him willing to do so home and abroad. When he is done, he returns home and gets out of the gutter. If we took the high road and sent counselors to try and talk the terrorists Tim (and others) deal with then there would be more hostages killed and raped.

 

[J Galt]

@jamil

That's pretty funny.

You typed:
Okay. I guess that means doing all the things that democrats are accused of doing. You gonna get yourself in as an election official and start changing democrats’ zip codes?

I said nothing about breaking laws.

Then you type:
I mean we haven’t really started calling them out. Traditional Republicans would never do that. Hiw about we start there instead of masking desires to be as dirty as they are behind some strawman claim of Marquise of queensberry rules. No one is talking about purity. But we shouldn’t have to break reasonable laws to expose the cheating.

1. I agree on the need to call them out. This is the first step in prosecuting them. I also agree that it largely has not been done.
2. Never did I say to be as dirty as them. You are incorrect and putting words in my mouth.
3. You would do well to look up the meaning of straw man as well as what an analogy is before conflating an analogy with what someone's actual position is.
4. Again, never said anything about breaking "reasonable," or any other kind, of law. I won't go into your implication of picking and choosing what laws to follow on what you decide is "reasonable".


From a random web page:

What Is a Straw Man Argument? Definition and Examples

Imagine arguing with a scarecrow. You can make any argument you want and the scarecrow won’t argue back. In fact, you can do…

www.grammarly.com

 

[BugI02]

I guess I don't understand your position then. Does it have to be illegal to care? IANAL, so I don't know what the legal issues are with what Twitter did. But it looks to me like you're trying awfully hard not to care. This doesn't seem like you though. So I'd like to make sense of it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I think we're talking about the claim from Musk that Twitter interfered with the election. Is anyone going to be arrested? Probably not. By definition, they did interfere. By a legal definition? I don't think that's the standard to which it must rise before we may be legitimately concerned or upset. And it certainly does not require the legal definition to say the words "election interference".

Not to mention that government seeking to co-opt the media to serve government's purposes is real assed fascism, not the bull**** kind the left always goes on about

 

[BugI02]

So are you advocating that republicans do all the stuff you accuse democrats of doing? You gonna do Kraken on them? Rig voting machines? Change zip codes of democrat voters then pick those undeliverable ballots up from the post office and fill them out? I'm just trying to figure out what "dirty" means. Which side of the law are you advocating that "we" operate on?

The side where a remotely piloted vehicle targets them with an AGM-114 and only leaves a crater and burned, fragmented remains. It's a 'side of the law' we are already familiar with operations being carried out on

ETA: Extraordinary rendition would also work for me, since they're already doing unlimited detention without trial to the 1/6 people. Maybe a few months in a Turkish prison would refresh the memory of some of these people

 

[wtburnette]

You have some legit points. I'll try and respond but typed words are a really really poor substitute for the meaning and intent for actually speaking. I hope to do a reasonable job of getting meaning and intent across.

Yes, non-left politicians need to prosecute other politicians when they violate laws. Part of what I'm referring to is that some non-left politicians want to "take the high" road and not increase animosity. This is wrong.

Yes, we should be more lockstep / unified in combating them.

I'm not suggesting getting corrupt. You seem to be taking what I say and using an extreme example of what I'm saying to make an argument against.

What I am saying is that we (anyone non-left) are hurting ourselves by taking a "high road" approach. The only example I can think of off hand is "legal" ballot harvesting. I got this idea from Tim Pool (https://timcast.com/) recently, but can't find the clip he explained it in.

Here is a very rough example: If you know people who want to vote against the left but may not be able / willing to get to the polls, literally go to them and help them fill out mail in voting or early voting. Some states require you to register as a caregiver - do it with their consent. Get a mini van and pick up elderly voters to drive them to the polls. (I would literally take the day off of work to help with this.)

Even in situations where we do need to get in the gutter to fight then do it. The difference (to address your question) in us is that we recognize that to end a gutter beast we need to go to the den of the gutter beast. We go to the gutter for a purpose. Once that purpose is done, we return to the regular world. We don't go with the intent to set up a new regime in the gutter.

Extreme example: Another example is killing. That is typically viewed as being "dirty". When the Greenwood Mall shooter started killing people in the mall, that was corrupt and dirty. However, Elisjsha Dicken got into the gutter to stop that threat with intent and necessity. When his work was done, he exited the gutter and got back to his life. If he took the "high road" and shielded his girlfriend with his body while running away more people would be dead.

Another extreme example: When Tim Kennedy deploys he does so to stop "dirty and corrupt" activity (killing) by engaging in the same tactics. Thank god there are men like him willing to do so home and abroad. When he is done, he returns home and gets out of the gutter. If we took the high road and sent counselors to try and talk the terrorists Tim (and others) deal with then there would be more hostages killed and raped.

I agree. As long as we're not doing the same unethical garbage that they pull. I never said we shouldn't fight back, we just need to be cleaner about it than our opposition.

 

[BugI02]

@KLB maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. But it still looks quite dismissive to me. If I were to distill what it seems you've been saying, is "meh, it's not illegal, so **** up a rope" Or in your words, stop saying it was election interference because it doesn't meet the strict legal term. Because that's the standard everyone must have to use those words.

This would seem to exactly echo YOUR position vis a vis 2020 voting fraud