Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 147: Banned From The Mall

(+) Yeah! (+)

Stewart isnt representing people though
---

Eddv posted...

Though yeah the bit about an ethics investigation confused me but maybe that's a response to McConnells call for an investigation.

I feel like hes admitting to the groping (or at least the sexual harassment of pretending to grope), but denies her accusation of the kiss (which is the far more disturbing allegation). Thus, hes calling for the investigation specifically for the kids accusation.
---

Honestly they should vote to have him expelled instead of giving him time to resign just to force the Dems hand.

Either expel him or show they are hypocrites. It really is a win win for Mitch, and the country as well since that Scum is now also gone.

It's also very, very different to say a joke in bad taste and become more progressive on an issue philosophically than it is to be grabbing a woman who didn't want to be grabbed and then, after you're called out, going "well now I know not to assault women".

I'm fine with growth, but this is something you should have ironed out already. He's like what, 50? 60? In that photo? This isn't "youthful indiscretions".
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

In "the last person in the world we need to be hearing from right now" news:

https://twitter.com/MooreSenate/status/931222390821941248

EDIT: Wait, is he not verified for some reason? That is the account that posted the "open letter to Sean Hannity" but I am not 100% positive it is his actual Twitter account >_>

No its him. Hes legit not verified.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/15/twitter-verified-blue-checkmarks-richard-spencer

Twitter has new rules for verification after they verified Jason Kessler. They said they'll remove verification from "accounts whose behavior does not fall within new guidelines", specifically focusing on promoting hate/violence and supporting hate groups.

Moore probably fell into that group.
---

fedorafreak posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

In "the last person in the world we need to be hearing from right now" news:

https://twitter.com/MooreSenate/status/931222390821941248

EDIT: Wait, is he not verified for some reason? That is the account that posted the "open letter to Sean Hannity" but I am not 100% positive it is his actual Twitter account >_>

No its him. Hes legit not verified.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/15/twitter-verified-blue-checkmarks-richard-spencer

Twitter has new rules for verification after they verified Jason Kessler. They said they'll remove verification from "accounts whose behavior does not fall within new guidelines", specifically focusing on promoting hate/violence and supporting hate groups.

Moore probably fell into that group.

They're Unverifying conservatives ONLY, and congress obviously needs to make what they are doing illegal. And if it continues shut down Twitter.

In regards to the investigation he is denying the kissing part of the story isn't he? Wouldn't that be the investigation?
---

What would Trump do without Twitter though
---

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

They're Unverifying conservatives ONLY, and congress obviously needs to make what they are doing illegal.

i thought you conservatives were supposed to be against anti-business regulations?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

What would Trump do without Twitter though

Seeing EVEN less negatives to congress shutting then down all of a sudden.....

My Immortal posted...

In regards to the investigation he is denying the kissing part of the story isn't he? Wouldn't that be the investigation?

Maybe, but Im not sure how you investigate a story where the only two people present have already given their sides.
---

My Immortal posted...

In regards to the investigation he is denying the kissing part of the story isn't he? Wouldn't that be the investigation?

Yeah. This is my interpretation.
---

Kenri posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

They're Unverifying conservatives ONLY, and congress obviously needs to make what they are doing illegal.

i thought you conservatives were supposed to be against anti-business regulations?

Tell you what....you let businesses ban you for being against their religious beliefs, and then we'll talk on only unverifying conservatives....

Jakyl25 posted...

My Immortal posted...

In regards to the investigation he is denying the kissing part of the story isn't he? Wouldn't that be the investigation?

Maybe, but Im not sure how you investigate a story where the only two people present have already given their sides.

This was a USO show. Surely there are others at least in proximity to the events who might be able to attest to either Franken or Tweedens state of mind at the time.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I am not entirely sure how you can get a politician charged for bribery any more, unless you are literally as dumb as Rob Blajovich (probably not spelled right) and make recordings of yourself saying you are going to do things specifically for cash. Otherwise why not just go (like Menendez did in this case) "hey we were just friends I did it because we were friends not because of all the money" and get a hung jury apparently.

Well, like I said, how could he lose? If he has an established relationship, was only doing it for him, and was not doing it for other donors... What is your case? You can't prove bribery. Just nepotism or whatever. That is an ethics violation. Not a bribery crime.
---

Kenri posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

They're Unverifying conservatives ONLY, and congress obviously needs to make what they are doing illegal.

i thought you conservatives were supposed to be against anti-business regulations?

https://twitter.com/jbillinson/status/930923632188182530
---

GOP tax bill passed the house.
---

I mean, if GameFAQs started banning... I don't let's go with Asians they always get left out of things... If GFaqs stated banning all asians, Congress couldn't 'shut them down.'

It's a private business.

So is twitter, or reddit, or whatever else website.

The best you can do is band together and not give them page clicks.
---

There's also the performances themselves where observers and video could show how uncomfortable she was.
---

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

I am not entirely sure how you can get a politician charged for bribery any more, unless you are literally as dumb as Rob Blajovich (probably not spelled right) and make recordings of yourself saying you are going to do things specifically for cash. Otherwise why not just go (like Menendez did in this case) "hey we were just friends I did it because we were friends not because of all the money" and get a hung jury apparently.

Well, like I said, how could he lose? If he has an established relationship, was only doing it for him, and was not doing it for other donors... What is your case? You can't prove bribery. Just nepotism or whatever. That is an ethics violation. Not a bribery crime.

I dunno, I think the connection between "this guy gave me 750k, several private vacations, and a bunch of other goodies" and then "I got this guys girlfriends all visas, helped with a medicaid issue he had, and got him a sweetheart deal" is a pretty straight line. "We're friends though" isn't enough plausible deniability. You shouldn't be accepting gifts of this magnitude if you are also doing personal favors for him using the power of your office.

Perhaps you're right that it is too hard to prove outright bribery here in a court of law, but I feel like it is a fairly reasonable conclusion to come to.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

There's also the performances themselves where observers and video could show how uncomfortable she was.

She did say that she did her best to be professional on stage and he didnt force himself on her there
---

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Tell you what....you let businesses ban you for being against their religious beliefs, and then we'll talk on only unverifying conservatives....

1) They're not comparable and 2) aren't you in favor of banning people based on their religion?
---

Kenri posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Tell you what....you let businesses ban you for being against their religious beliefs, and then we'll talk on only unverifying conservatives....

1) They're not comparable and 2) aren't you in favor of banning people based on their religion?

They are comparable. I'm sorry (but not surprised, it is one of the main liberal calling cards...) you are a hypocrite.

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

I am not entirely sure how you can get a politician charged for bribery any more, unless you are literally as dumb as Rob Blajovich (probably not spelled right) and make recordings of yourself saying you are going to do things specifically for cash. Otherwise why not just go (like Menendez did in this case) "hey we were just friends I did it because we were friends not because of all the money" and get a hung jury apparently.

Well, like I said, how could he lose? If he has an established relationship, was only doing it for him, and was not doing it for other donors... What is your case? You can't prove bribery. Just nepotism or whatever. That is an ethics violation. Not a bribery crime.

I dunno, I think the connection between "this guy gave me 750k, several private vacations, and a bunch of other goodies" and then "I got this guys girlfriends all visas, helped with a medicaid issue he had, and got him a sweetheart deal" is a pretty straight line. "We're friends though" isn't enough plausible deniability. You shouldn't be accepting gifts of this magnitude if you are also doing personal favors for him using the power of your office.

Perhaps you're right that it is too hard to prove outright bribery here in a court of law, but I feel like it is a fairly reasonable conclusion to come to.

If someone donated 750k and did not get special treatment upon request, the entire case is lost already for the most part.
---

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/360709-woman-who-accused-franken-says-she-accepts-his-apology

So are people acting like completely reasonable adults here?
---

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Kenri posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Tell you what....you let businesses ban you for being against their religious beliefs, and then we'll talk on only unverifying conservatives....

1) They're not comparable and 2) aren't you in favor of banning people based on their religion?

They are comparable. I'm sorry (but not surprised, it is one of the main liberal calling cards...) you are a hypocrite.

Conservatism is not a religion, and even if it was, the people losing their verification are not doing so because theyre conservatives. Theyre losing verified status because verified accounts are held to a higher standard than unverified accounts, and they pushed hateful and incendiary rhetoric towards people of color, the LGBT community, women, whatever group served as an easy target for pushing an identity political agenda.

If its mainly conservative accounts getting hit for this, isnt it possible that its a result of negative behavior on THEIR part, rather than an anti-conservative agenda from Twitter?
---

The article, along with a 2000 Playboy column in which Franken talked about fantasizing a machine would perform oral sex on him, was used to attack Franken during his 2008 Senate campaign in Minnesota. Republican women also gathered to demand Franken explain himself, according to the Pioneer Press.

Franken eventually apologized for his crude remarks, but he later wrote in his book, Al Franken: Giant of the Senate, that he faked the apology to get the necessary support for his election win, according to the New York Times.

To say I was sorry for writing a joke was to sell out my career, to sell out who Id been my entire life, he wrote in the book. And I wasnt sorry that I had written Porn-o-Rama or pitched that stupid Lesley Stahl joke at 2 in the morning. I was just doing my job.

(Lesley Stahl joke was a rape skit idea)
---

Espeon posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Kenri posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Tell you what....you let businesses ban you for being against their religious beliefs, and then we'll talk on only unverifying conservatives....

1) They're not comparable and 2) aren't you in favor of banning people based on their religion?

They are comparable. I'm sorry (but not surprised, it is one of the main liberal calling cards...) you are a hypocrite.

Conservatism is not a religion, and even if it was, the people losing their verification are not doing so because theyre conservatives. Theyre losing verified status because verified accounts are held to a higher standard than unverified accounts, and they pushed hateful and incendiary rhetoric towards people of color, the LGBT community, women, whatever group served as an easy target for pushing an identity political agenda.

If its mainly conservative accounts getting hit for this, isnt it possible that its a result of negative behavior on THEIR part, rather than an anti-conservative agenda from Twitter?

No. No it's not. Liberalism is hate incarnate... show me ONE prominent liberal who lost verification. (It can't be Weinstein or Franken because libs are going full on hypocrites and using them as scapegoats) Congress needs to do something.

remember one day ago when mwc was saying we shouldn't make things partisan lmao
---

wait.... the offensive part is that he imagined a masturbation machine? i don't get it
---

FFDragon posted...

remember one day ago when mwc was saying we shouldn't make things partisan lmao

Not for child rape...

TWITTER SHUTTING DOWN CONSERVATIVES IS LITERALLY PARTISAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

FFDragon posted...

remember one day ago when mwc was saying we shouldn't make things partisan lmao

No because I have him on ignore as anyone sane should
---

banananor posted...

wait.... the offensive part is that he imagined a masturbation machine? i don't get it

It is referring to two different stories. The Stahl rape joke and the masturbation machine.

He made a public apology regarding them both. When he wrote his book, he said his apology was fake, and he just did it so he could win the seat. Thus, he was not really sorry.

I only posted that because it kind of puts a bit of shade on his apology to the woman here and questions the sincerity of it.

That said, the entire thing is overblown imo.
---

Conservatives: We have a right to deny gay people services!

Also conservatives: TWITTER IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST US BY UNVERIFYING (not banning, but unverifying) ACCOUNTS!
---

won't somebody think of the racists
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Conservatives: We have a right to deny gay people services!

Also conservatives: TWITTER IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST US BY UNVERIFYING (not banning, but unverifying) ACCOUNTS!

I would point out the obvious on #1.... they don't.

And therefore this is wrong too and congress needs to severely punish Twitter, if not outright shut it down if it continues

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

And therefore this is wrong too and congress needs to severely punish Twitter, if not outright shut it down if it continues

should congress also punish gamefaqs for banning you 3 million times?
---

congress should punish gamefaqs for not banning him enough
---

TheRock1525 posted...

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/360709-woman-who-accused-franken-says-she-accepts-his-apology

So are people acting like completely reasonable adults here?

Thinking emoji

Seriously though calling for a legit investigation to the matter is a much better thing than Franken's laughable statement from earlier. It's improvement!

Still don't think it's far enough at a glance, and that he should probably step down
---

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Espeon posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Kenri posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Tell you what....you let businesses ban you for being against their religious beliefs, and then we'll talk on only unverifying conservatives....

1) They're not comparable and 2) aren't you in favor of banning people based on their religion?

They are comparable. I'm sorry (but not surprised, it is one of the main liberal calling cards...) you are a hypocrite.

Conservatism is not a religion, and even if it was, the people losing their verification are not doing so because theyre conservatives. Theyre losing verified status because verified accounts are held to a higher standard than unverified accounts, and they pushed hateful and incendiary rhetoric towards people of color, the LGBT community, women, whatever group served as an easy target for pushing an identity political agenda.

If its mainly conservative accounts getting hit for this, isnt it possible that its a result of negative behavior on THEIR part, rather than an anti-conservative agenda from Twitter?

No. No it's not. Liberalism is hate incarnate... show me ONE prominent liberal who lost verification. (It can't be Weinstein or Franken because libs are going full on hypocrites and using them as scapegoats) Congress needs to do something.

MWC, your statement is highly inflammatory, and unnecessarily so. One could argue that by making such hyperbolic and all-encompassing assertions, you yourself are hate incarnate. But I think youre better than that. As I said recently, your reactions to the Moore pedophilia allegations and the non-anthem booing tell me that you can be reasonable.

Lets look at those instances. With Roy Moore, you have some conservatives staunchly defending him and attacking his accusers, and smashing their Keurigs because Keurig took a stand against a network that tried to justify pedophilia. With the booing, you have the very act of kneeling being treated with scorn, even when disrespect to the anthem/troops is removed from the equation. YOU disagree with these things and have said as much.

Isnt it POSSIBLE that the kind of mentality that allows those mindsets to occur might be overly negative and aggressive in how they address OTHER issues as well? Isnt it possible that its that aggressive negativity that got Twitters attention, and not their political alignment?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

And therefore this is wrong too and congress needs to severely punish Twitter, if not outright shut it down if it continues

should congress also punish gamefaqs for banning you 3 million times?

Not quite the same. Most mods here suck at life, but I can't show that they ban Conservatives for conservative opinions Though Ulti can.

Espeon posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Espeon posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Kenri posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Tell you what....you let businesses ban you for being against their religious beliefs, and then we'll talk on only unverifying conservatives....

1) They're not comparable and 2) aren't you in favor of banning people based on their religion?

They are comparable. I'm sorry (but not surprised, it is one of the main liberal calling cards...) you are a hypocrite.

Conservatism is not a religion, and even if it was, the people losing their verification are not doing so because theyre conservatives. Theyre losing verified status because verified accounts are held to a higher standard than unverified accounts, and they pushed hateful and incendiary rhetoric towards people of color, the LGBT community, women, whatever group served as an easy target for pushing an identity political agenda.

If its mainly conservative accounts getting hit for this, isnt it possible that its a result of negative behavior on THEIR part, rather than an anti-conservative agenda from Twitter?

No. No it's not. Liberalism is hate incarnate... show me ONE prominent liberal who lost verification. (It can't be Weinstein or Franken because libs are going full on hypocrites and using them as scapegoats) Congress needs to do something.

MWC, your statement is highly inflammatory, and unnecessarily so. One could argue that by making such hyperbolic and all-encompassing assertions, you yourself are hate incarnate. But I think youre better than that. As I said recently, your reactions to the Moore pedophilia allegations and the non-anthem booing tell me that you can be reasonable.

Lets look at those instances. With Roy Moore, you have some conservatives staunchly defending him and attacking his accusers, and smashing their Keurigs because Keurig took a stand against a network that tried to justify pedophilia. With the booing, you have the very act of kneeling being treated with scorn, even when disrespect to the anthem/troops is removed from the equation. YOU disagree with these things and have said as much.

Isnt it POSSIBLE that the kind of mentality that allows those mindsets to occur might be overly negative and aggressive in how they address OTHER issues as well? Isnt it possible that its that aggressive negativity that got Twitters attention, and not their political alignment?

Possible yes. Probable, no

Why not probable?
---

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Not quite the same. Most mods here suck at life, but I can't show that they ban Conservatives for conservative opinions Though Ulti can.

so when people get banned here for stupid reasons that are not "they had a conservative opinion," it's not a big deal?

shake got banned because a mod personally disliked him. forceful dragon got banned for calling someone scum in a mafia game. but congress shouldn't get involved in these cases?
---

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

They are comparable. I'm sorry (but not surprised, it is one of the main liberal calling cards...) you are a hypocrite.

Explain how they're comparable in your eyes.
---

Corrik posted...

banananor posted...

wait.... the offensive part is that he imagined a masturbation machine? i don't get it

It is referring to two different stories. The Stahl rape joke and the masturbation machine.

He made a public apology regarding them both. When he wrote his book, he said his apology was fake, and he just did it so he could win the seat. Thus, he was not really sorry.

I only posted that because it kind of puts a bit of shade on his apology to the woman here and questions the sincerity of it.

That said, the entire thing is overblown imo.

that makes sense. this might sound strange, but over time i've decided to view people as having shrodinger's intentions.

when someone does something good, you can never know whether it was out of the goodness of their heart or simply because they wanted praise. if they do something bad, you can never prove 100% that it was an accident. in this case, there is zero way of knowing if the apology is heartfelt or machiavellian.

so, as with shrodinger's cat, i have to go on knowing it might be either
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Not quite the same. Most mods here suck at life, but I can't show that they ban Conservatives for conservative opinions Though Ulti can.

so when people get banned here for stupid reasons that are not "they had a conservative opinion," it's not a big deal?

shake got banned because a mod personally disliked him. forceful dragon got banned for calling someone scum in a mafia game. but congress shouldn't get involved in these cases?

FD mod should have been fired for stupidity....

I don't know enough about the Shake situation. If he was modded for his political leanings, gender, sexuality race, etc then yes. If it was just the guy didn't like him, again, the mod should clearly be relieved of his duty. But really nothing the government could do there. They can't force SB not to fail at picking people.

Regaro posted...

Seriously though calling for a legit investigation to the matter is a much better thing than Franken's laughable statement from earlier. It's improvement!

He called for the investigation himself in that laughable statement you're talking about?
---

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/11/e017722

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/tory-austerity-deaths-study-report-people-die-social-care-government-policy-a8057306.html

A study in the British Medical Journal has found an increase in mortality of 120,000 people due to spending cuts in health and social care. Absolutely disgraceful.
---

banananor posted...

Corrik posted...

banananor posted...

wait.... the offensive part is that he imagined a masturbation machine? i don't get it

It is referring to two different stories. The Stahl rape joke and the masturbation machine.

He made a public apology regarding them both. When he wrote his book, he said his apology was fake, and he just did it so he could win the seat. Thus, he was not really sorry.

I only posted that because it kind of puts a bit of shade on his apology to the woman here and questions the sincerity of it.

That said, the entire thing is overblown imo.

that makes sense. this might sound strange, but over time i've decided to view people as having shrodinger's intentions.

when someone does something good, you can never know whether it was out of the goodness of their heart or simply because they wanted praise. if they do something bad, you can never prove 100% that it was an accident. in this case, there is zero way of knowing if the apology is heartfelt or machiavellian.

so, as with shrodinger's cat, i have to go on knowing it might be either

Just say "superposition" it's easier to spell and is actually relevant
---