Rebound

A conservative Republican named George Bush had America’s first pandemic playbook written. That’s where the lockdown policy came from, in the U.S. I’m not a virus expert, but it seems the first Covid strain was incredibly lethal, and the vaccine took nearly a year to roll out. There were so many dead in New York City that they were stacking bodies in refrigerated trucks until they could figure out how to bury them all. There’s no way for someone who knew what they knew at the time to create a perfect policy, but isolation was the best way to limit the spread. Here in the U.S., under the magnificent leadership of Donald Trump, we enjoyed one of the highest Covid death per million rates in the world. Canada did a lot better. Oh, and there was an insurrection in Washington DC on January 6, 2021.

The US did have nuclear-capable ICBM’s in service before 1969, for certain. Of course, the NASA space program began in the 50’s and was the R&D arm used to develop the rockets which were used as ICBM’s. However, I don’t think any manned rocket was ever the same system used for ICBM.

In the US, calling for genocide is free speech. It might be hate speech, but it cannot be punished.

You’re the one who said you think the moon landings didn’t happen. You know who didn’t think the moon landings were faked? The Soviet Union. They were America’s biggest enemy at the time… why didn’t the USSR claim that the moon landings were faked? Cause they were able to trace the path of the rockets to the moon and back, that’s why.

Did you know that Ytou can measure the exact distance from the earth to the moon using a laser beam? And the reason why is because astronauts put a laser reflector on the surface of the moon. So there’s your proof. Point the laser at the reflector, and the light will reflect back. Beyond that? We’ve orbited people around Earth for years at a time. You can point a dish into space and receive TV signals from it. We get weather forecasting from satellites. Satellite radio. Satellite internet. With all that, there’s no reason at all to believe that we cannot send people a little bit further and reach the moon. And, yes, it’s only a little bit farther, because once you’re in space, it takes virtually no fuel at all to move anywhere.

Except… that’s the truth. They stopped because the program was incredibly expensive, we nearly lost Apollo 13, and the American public was no longer captivated by flights to the moon. We did it, we beat Russia, we didn’t need fifty more trips.

Biden wouldn’t need to resign. He’d just order the assassination of all the Republican Senators who would vote for his impeachment. Because he’d be immune from that, too. They get dumber and dumber, and now they’re all the way full circle to “Trump has absolute Presidential immunity and Biden does not.”

If you agree that calling for genocide against the Jews is hate speech, at what point can it be prohibited? We can all sit around and say, “He said something awful” all day long. At what point can the government prosecute or prohibit?

Today, Donald Trump’s attorney argued before a Federal court of appeals that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for crimes he allegedly committed while President. He argued that a President can ONLY be prosecuted for committing a crime if he is first impeached and convicted by the Senate. John Lauro then argued that President Joe Biden should be prosecuted for (get this) violating Donald Trump’s Absolute Immunity. So Donald Trump has absolute immunity from prosecution… but Joe Biden does not.

Tucker Carlson has a theory? And I’m supposed to believe him? No thanks.

It’s not “possible” that he was guilty. He WAS guilty. Convicted in a court of law by a jury of his peers. End of story. GUILTY. The silver lining is that Tarrio gets buttfcked for the next 22 years. He’ll love it!

Melanie Trump didn’t sound like she was kidding when she claimed that Obama hadn’t provided a genuine birth certificate.

Enrique Tarrio was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 22 years in prison. You can go read the court papers if you want. Trump is obviously a Putin stooge. That’s why Trump is happy to hand Ukraine over to Putin.

You’re talking so you must be lying: ”Education. Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%). Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men” https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

People who riot and start fires should be arrested and charged with crimes. I’m sure that many hundreds of people were in the wake of the BLM protests. That’s the law.

BULLSHlT!!! They are convicted criminals. They violently attacked police officers. They were convicted by juries in Federal courts in accordance with the law. There is NOTHING political about it. Zero. They are allowed to believe anything they want. They are allowed to say anything they want. But they cannot violently attack police officers and storm the halls of Congress. It’s against the law.

Link? I am not aware of an “original autopsy report” which concluded that Epstein was murdered. He had previously attempted suicide, after all.

Sorry, I meant to refer to the US law, but really I’m interested in people’s opinions. After all, the decision to permit hate speech in America has been legislated from the bench, not by law.

College teaches critical thinking, which is why most college educated people can see right through Trump’s lies. As I said, the Maine SoS applied Maine law, and the US Constitution. No matter which decision she made, it was subject to judicial appeal, so why are you upset with her decision? It’s clearly not a final decision, so don’t get your panties all twisted up. I’m almost certain the SCOTUS will rule in Trump’s favor on this. If they were seriously thinking of declaring him ineligible, they’d rush to do it before the primaries, but they’re taking their time and their ruling will probably be in April or May, after Super Tuesday. It would be a disaster to rule him ineligible after eighteen states have already held their Presidential primaries. But, we shall see.

“As far as you know” isn’t far enough to reach a conclusion that the man was murdered. I’m not saying that Epstein wasn’t murdered; I have no idea. What I am saying is that it’s not possible to conclude that the man was murdered, and I think it is more likely that he did kill himself than he didn’t. The people who say that Epstein was definitely murdered are full of nonsense, because there aren’t enough facts available to make that conclusion. There’s a lot of talk about security cameras being turned off and sleeping guards. If I were the investigator, what I’d want to know is whether that was the only incident of sleeping guards, or is it common? And I’d want to know if those were the only two broken security cameras, or were broken cameras more common. Because, yes, if these were the only incidents of broken cameras and sleeping guards, it would raise a lot of suspicion and then I would investigate the financial records of those two guards to see if any money suddenly showed up. But Rikers is a notoriously awful prison, so I imagine those lapses were commonplace.

When should hate speech be prohibited, and how? For instance, if someone advocates for genocide against Jews, is it hate speech? Should it be banned? Most importantly, what if the speaker claims he was not advocating genocide while the listener believes he was advocating genocide? One Definition of Hate Speech: “Any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin.” However, the Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is usually legal, unless it targets a person or group with imminent harm. Seems as though this puts universities in a pickle: If a group is calling for genocide, but not for immediately killing or hurting people, they are apparently exercising their legal free speech rights. How should the university respond?

Example: There was a ridiculous conspiracy theory that Barack Obama’s single, unemployed mother, for no reason whatsoever, bought an international plane ticket, flew to a secret foreign nation, had her baby, flew back to Hawaii and obtained falsified witnesses and documents to cover it all up… for no apparent reason. Pretty stupid. But this lunacy continued, so the Secretary of State of Hawaii personally inspected the certificate. The lunatics continued, so Obama produced his long form birth certificate. So… yes, government officials do sometimes respond to ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Cause conspiracy theorists put pressure on the authorities to study the results more thoroughly, and while they didn't change their conclusion, the senior guy wanted to add more details about the cause of death.

Maine law is not the same as the laws of other states. The other states refused to remove Trump from the ballot for a variety of “kick the can down the road” reasons: Plaintiffs lacked standing, or the 14th Amendment is not self-executing, or we don’t have the authority. One judge’s excuse was that the 14th states that the person must have taken an oath to “uphold” the Constitution, but the Presidential oath Trump took is to “defend” the Constitution, not to “uphold” it (that wins “dumbest excuse ever” award, but I think there was a clever strategy behind it). I don’t know if any court or authority has denied that Trump took part in, or supported, an insurrection. However, the Maine SoS knew perfectly well that her decision was subject to judicial appeal, and that it will be appealed, and it would be appealed whichever way she ruled… so why get upset with her?

You have strange ideas. The U.S. government is filled with checks and balances, and the Democratic Party is far from a single set of policies.