Man_in_White
No bio...
User ID: 1124
Yeah, nothing big do far, but some small evidence that they were talking in 2017. Still, I'd say Trump acts differently compared to other allegations, how it's "boring" and so on. Some sycophants already try "it's actually ephebophilia", but I doubt it's that. I can't figure out what he's scared of now that didn't scare him off earlier. Guess we'll find out.
Man_in_White
2mo ago
Something like that? https://x.com/DefiantLs/status/1943443522058883549
Man_in_White
2mo ago
If violence escalates (and based on the violence only over the last year, that is likely to happen), what do they expect him to do? What would a democrat president do? Would it be any less ‘fascistic’?
I think if Trump did something like with colors reversed
“I knew Charlie, and I admired his passion and commitment to debate. His senseless murder is a reminder of how important it is for all of us, across the political spectrum, to foster genuine discourse on issues that deeply affect us all without resorting to political violence.”
“The best way to honor Charlie’s memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse. In a democracy, ideas are tested through words and good-faith debate — never through violence.”
Yeah, that would be great, even if cynical
Man_in_White
2mo ago
No, because I am still not a high ranking politician. Deep personal scrutiny of high ranking politicians is an absolutely normal, moreover -necessary thing. With great power comes great responsibility. This responsibility, and attached scrutiny, is voluntarily accepted when the person wants to achieve the position of power. I do not hold a position of power and thus do not welcome scrutiny. If and when I will be (never!), then I would change my mind, and only then.
I assume that you view WSJ and 60 secods having similar ammounts of power as high rankin politician, so they should handle the lawfare?
Who would scrutinize them, and when?
I wouldn't mind if Trump went "ok, time for clean up" and started suing. But doing it only after they push against Trump is intimidation.
But again, the original context was "Trump never does anything, just rants". And it is seems you aprove that nowadays he does more than just rants
Man_in_White
2mo ago
No, it won't be OK because I am not a high ranking politician.
Fair enough, would you change mind when it's not a politician? 60 Minutes, WSJ
The idea that if somebody is a politician then they are above scrutiny and any crime revealed about them must be dismissed because it's just "dirt"
I don't think it should be dissmissed. But I do think that it shouldn't be politically motivated either. What would change your mind that is intimidation mostly?
Man_in_White
2mo ago
Unfortunately for both of us, basically no one out in the real world wanted to have a well-thought and careful conversation
I disagree. Some people did and ditched Qualified Immunity. Colororado, New Mexico, Nevada comes to mind. But I agree that a lot of people went full stupid.
Man_in_White
2mo ago
I did several mortgage applications and never had to lie, why can't they do the same?
So if some high ranking politician for some reason started to look up dirt on you to fight in court, you think it would be OK? It's not direct violence, sure, but I think it way over "rants over social media". I'm objecting that part
Man_in_White
2mo ago
Ah, I see, was confused on "bit back" part, thanks. But if they can stay progressive and not promote censorship, that list can be much bigger. Plenty of progressives got flack for Harper's letter but didn't change tune. Noam Chomsky, Katha Pollitt, Loretta Ross, Orlando Patterson, Joy Ladin, Greil Marcus. The list exist indeed :)
Worst he did is to call people insulting names and rant about them on Twitter or Truth Social.
Eh, lawsuits are not nothing. New York Attorney General and California Senator with mortgage fraud. John Bolton with FBI searches. Now he targets law firms that had represented Democrats(security clearances were suspended). Federal Reserve is getting some action. Hell, even Musk was threatened to end contracts with SpaceX. I'd say it's more than rants.
Man_in_White
2mo ago
I have a hard time coming up with any examples of progressive targets of cancel culture who, after getting any support from conservatives, haven't turned around and bit back.
You mean that became more right after cancelation? Bari Weiss, JK Rowling, Maajis Nawaz, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Helen Joyce, Dave Chappele, Alice Dreger comes to mind. Brett Weinstein, Lindsay Shepherd if we talk even more right
Man_in_White
2mo ago
Who else is arguably on Kirk's level?
Destiny(Steven Bonnell), Hasan Piker, Ethan Klein, Vaush(Ian Anthony Kochinski)
The documents we are seeing now are in response to a subpoena to Epstein’s estate. As for DoJ/FBI my guess they couldn't reach “beyond a reasonable doubt” standart. So they don’t bring it and they don’t release investigation evidence.
More options
Context Copy link