Matt Gaetz Withdraws...

[Black Dog]

11 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

The DOJ reviewed the evidence and said it was not a crime. You can bìťch and moan all you want, but you've got nothing.

No, they reviewed the evidence and decided there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction, which again, is not the same thing as no crime being committed. And even if he is innocent of the underage rape thing, he almost certainly paid multiple women for sex. I know that kind of thing isn't a big deal to republicans but most people would consider it disqualifying.

A bombshell leaked document from the Justice Department investigation into Matt Gaetz alleged there was a web of payments between the former congressman and friends and associates said to have been with him at drug-fueled sex parties.

The meticulously detailed diagram, obtained by the New York Times, was assembled by federal investigators during the sex-trafficking investigation into Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general.

It charts how Gaetz and associates, including convicted sex trafficker Joel Greenberg, allegedly sent thousands of dollars via Venmo to dozens of people who were reportedly involved in the sex parties between 2017 and 2020, according to testimony to federal and congressional investigators, the Times reported.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Black Dog

[gatomontes99]

3 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

No, they reviewed the evidence and decided there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction, which again, is not the same thing as no crime being committed. And even if he is innocent of the underage rape thing, he almost certainly paid multiple women for sex. I know that kind of thing isn't a big deal to republicans but most people would consider it disqualifying.

A bombshell leaked document from the Justice Department investigation into Matt Gaetz alleged there was a web of payments between the former congressman and friends and associates said to have been with him at drug-fueled sex parties.

The meticulously detailed diagram, obtained by the New York Times, was assembled by federal investigators during the sex-trafficking investigation into Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general.

It charts how Gaetz and associates, including convicted sex trafficker Joel Greenberg, allegedly sent thousands of dollars via Venmo to dozens of people who were reportedly involved in the sex parties between 2017 and 2020, according to testimony to federal and congressional investigators, the Times reported.

Aka...no crime.

[Black Dog]

11 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Aka...no crime.

I mean I guess if that's where you have to set the bar to cope with the fact your party is led by gross shitheads.

[gatomontes99]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

I mean I guess if that's where you have to set the bar to cope with the fact your party is led by gross shitheads.

There was no crime.

Why?

There was no evidence.

Why?

There was no reliable witness.

Why?

Because it didn't happen.

 

Edited November 22, 2024 by gatomontes99

[Black Dog]

Just now, gatomontes99 said:

There was no crime.

Why?

There was no evidence.

Why?

There was no reliable witness.

Why?

Because it didn't happen.

So you're theoretically ok with a guy who merely pays people for sex as AG, then?

 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

So you're theoretically ok with a guy who merely pays people for sex as AG, then?

 

How theoretically ok were you with a presidential candidate who got into politics counting ceiling tiles?

[Black Dog]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

How theoretically ok were you with a presidential candidate who got into politics counting ceiling tiles?

Leaving aside the stupidity that you think serving on a couple of obscure boards and commissions is some kind of fast track to the political big leagues, the fact you think two adults having a consensual relationship is equivalent to paying teenagers for sex says a lot about your character.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Black Dog

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Radiorum said:

that's not how probability works with genetics. Look up Punnet squares.

 

We're not talking about genetics. We were talking about population groups and their diversity. Did you think people' are ONLY a result of their genetics? Genetics determines every thing about who a person is?  Nothing outside of genetics plays a role? That's your argument?

Kid - you find new and exciting ways to look dumb every day. 

And on top of it it does still work that way more or less for genetics, otherwise there'd be a very similar number of redheads to everyone else. There are still dominant and passive genetics. 

Quote

I’m not sure how this is a counterpoint to my point about the genetic variation possible in one offspring from two parents.

Why would it be? We weren't talking about genetics. I was very specific that we were talking about population groups.

So this seems to be your usual trick of when you lose an argument you go back and pretend we were talking about something else and then try and argue that. 

SO basically you're lying because you can't man up and admit you were wrong. Pathetic. 

Kid, you are not smart enough to be discussing things here.  You need to seriously step up your game.  Your elementary school debate club tricks may work elsewhere but you're going to get eaten alive here pulling that crap. 

The majority of people in any group or subgroup will cluster within a certain range with a few outliers. Lying doesn't change that. 

 

 

 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Leaving aside the stupidity that you think serving on a couple of obscure boards and commissions is some kind of fast track to the political big leagues, the fact you think two adults having a consensual relationship is equivalent to paying teenagers for sex says a lot about your character.

Lol...poor Pup.

Cry for us Pup. Whine as loud as you can.

Oh and...I heard Kamala wants her knee pads back. Would you please return them?

[Black Dog]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...poor Pup.

Cry for us Pup. Whine as loud as you can.

Oh and...I heard Kamala wants her knee pads back. Would you please return them?

"Paying teenagers for sex" or as Nationalist calls it: "How I met your mother."

[Radiorum]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

We're not talking about genetics.

I was. This is what I said and what you responded to with talk of "probabilities:"

Quote

When two parents mate, there are more possible genetic combinations in the offspring than there are stars in heaven.

But I think I understand you now. You are talking about gene frequencies in a population.

How allele (one form of a gene) and genotype frequencies are related are described by the Hardy-Weinberg Principle.

So, no, you’re wrong - gene frequencies in a population do not fit standard probability distributions/curves. That doesn’t even make sense – what would you put on the X-axis? Gene/allele frequencies are described with just one number.

For example, according to twin studies, there is a heritable contribution to gender incongruence, when looking at allele frequencies. One significant association was identified - transgender women had a significant overrepresentation of short ESR1(TA)n compared to cisgender men (p = 0.0089).

The frequency of any one specific allele in a population depends on several things, most notably the direction natural selection takes.

 

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There are still dominant and passive genetics. 

The correct terms are dominant and recessive. And no, this is not related to their frequencies. It is possible for a recessive allele to be more common in a population than its dominant partner.

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The majority of people in any group or subgroup will cluster within a certain range with a few outliers.

Going back to my original claim - how does this make them unnatural?

[Nationalist]

12 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

"Paying teenagers for sex" or as Nationalist calls it: "How I met your mother."

LOL...such a disgusting loser.

Good Pup...

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Radiorum said:

I was.

No you weren't you lying sack of crap  

You mentioned it like once out of context and I'm rambling rant that didn't mean anything and I corrected you. Trying to pretend otherwise now is just doubling down on your ignorance.  You brought it up later again when you realized you were entirely wrong and wanted to CHAGE the discussion. 

Quote

 

This is what I said and what you responded to with talk of "probabilities:"

But I think I understand you now. You are talking about gene frequencies in a population.

 

I'm well aware that what you did was take something that wasn't a conversation about genetics and attempts to turn it into a conversation about genetics after you lost the original argument. Did you think it would look less stupid if you repeated it?

And the rest is just your usual attempt to try and change the subject when you realize you've lost.

I gave you a chance to do better than that kid and you blew it. Don't forget to take an apple to your teacher for school today.

Vast majority of people fall Within a range of what is perceived of as normal. There are a handful that fall outside of that but most of a population is clustered around what is 'normal'.  People are not determined by genetics. 

Do better kid. 

 

[impartialobserver]

The allegations against Matt Gaetz have not been legally proven. That being said.. there is lots of circumstantial and witness testimony. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. I can't say for sure being that I do not trust secondary sources (media of any kind what repackages the information). However, this is not the last that we see of him. He could resurface sooner rather than later in another cabinet position or in the Senate in a few years. 

[Black Dog]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

LOL...such a disgusting loser.

Good Pup...

I don't care about your home movies bud.

[Radiorum]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No you weren't you lying sack of crap

Your lack of understanding does not invalidate my position.

“Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.”

― Samuel Johnson, The Life of Samuel Johnson

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Radiorum said:

Your lack of understanding does not invalidate my position.

 

Your lack of position does not survive my understanding   

This isn't a question about your position this is a question about facts. You claim your argument was one thing when it very clearly wasn't and you're very clearly doing it to change the channel from the fact that you were wrong.

And now you can't address that so you are trying desperately to make it my fault that you behaved in a stupid and childish fashion, which is entirely common on the left. We see it all the time. You're wrong and stupid therefore it's somebody else's fault.

Do better next time. This level of stupid isn't even entertaining it's just boring. It's like watching a puppy pee itself.

[gatomontes99]

56 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

So you're theoretically ok with a guy who merely pays people for sex as AG, then?

 

I'm ok with not assuming someone's guilty when there is no evidence.

[Black Dog]

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

I'm ok with not assuming someone's guilty when there is no evidence.

There's evidence he paid teenagers for sex.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Black Dog said:

There's evidence he paid teenagers for sex.

Then why wasn't he charged?

The answer is that the evidence isn't very good. That doesn't mean it didn't happen but it serves hell doesn't mean it did.

[Aristides]

9 hours ago, Legato said:

You got it!

That's what I figured.

[herbie]

White House List of Qualifications:

contemptible

 

loathsome

 

hateful

 

detestable

 

reprehensible

 

abhorrent

 

abominable

 

awful

 

heinous

 

beyond the pale

 

odious

 

execrable

 

repellent

 

repugnant

 

repulsive

 

revolting

 

disgusting

 

horrible

 

horrid

 

horrifying

 

obnoxious

 

nauseating

 

offensive

 

distasteful

 

beneath/below contempt

vile

 

base

 

low

 

mean

 

abject

 

shameful

 

degrading

 

ignominious

 

cheap

 

shabby

 

miserable

 

wretched

 

sorry

 

scurvy

 

infamous

 

villainous

 

ignoble

 

disreputable

 

discreditable

 

unworthy

 

unscrupulous

 

unprincipled

 

unsavory

 

dirty

 

filthy

 

dirty rotten

rotten

 

lowdown

 

no-good

 

beastly

 

lousy

 

caitiff

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

White House List of Qualifications:

contemptible

 

loathsome

 

hateful

 

detestable

 

reprehensible

 

abhorrent

 

abominable

 

awful

 

heinous

 

beyond the pale

 

odious

 

execrable

 

repellent

 

repugnant

 

repulsive

 

revolting

 

disgusting

 

horrible

 

horrid

 

horrifying

 

obnoxious

 

nauseating

 

offensive

 

distasteful

 

beneath/below contempt

vile

 

base

 

low

 

mean

 

abject

 

shameful

 

degrading

 

ignominious

 

cheap

 

shabby

 

miserable

 

wretched

 

sorry

 

scurvy

 

infamous

 

villainous

 

ignoble

 

disreputable

 

discreditable

 

unworthy

 

unscrupulous

 

unprincipled

 

unsavory

 

dirty

 

filthy

 

dirty rotten

rotten

 

lowdown

 

no-good

 

beastly

 

lousy

 

caitiff

 

Sure, keep calling Americans who disagree with you those kind of names. Eight more years of republicans is exactly what the country needs and exactly what you'll deliver.

[herbie]

Ok, I will.

and Thank God I won't dance with the Devil to force my dogma on others.

[User]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Ok, I will.

and Thank God I won't dance with the Devil to force my dogma on others.

Are you an anarchist-leaning libertarian now?