Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 345: Dominion Rush

(+) Yeah! (+)

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trumps claims of voter fraud are literally coming from the 8chan guys kid

https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/1329393694018056192?s=21

This guy and his dad were/are probably Q, so it makes sense.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

People will block red sox but will leave ulti, vlado, wang, seph, etc unblocked. Wild

Does vlado even still post on this board besides his girl battle or whatever topics? I havent seen his white nationalist containment topics in over a year and he already seemed like he was just 1 or 2 shitposts away from being laughed off the site back then. I cant even imagine what he has devolved into by now if he stuck around.
---

I think Trump's base honestly just doesn't understand the concept of Trump's rhetoric, while winning over more people, turned away even more.

Also while I don't think it's especially popular, I HATE the theory that China unleashed the virus just as a gambit to get rid of Trump. Did these people not see how badly China was itself impacted by the pandemic...oh wait, they probably don't pay attention to foreign countries and I guess early 2020 was ages ago. Never mind.

More proof that to Trump supporters, the only other countries that exist are ones that directly threaten national security. So I guess China didn't exist until Covid-19 became a global pandemic.

Also, actual comment on one of Dave Cullen's videos: "Conspiracy theorists just means paying attention". No it doesn't. It means complete failure to accept when things don't go your way. I could just as easily accuse Trump of trying to screw over Hollywood.

---

My ex wife just sent me this

The Fake recount going on in Georgia means nothing because they are not allowing signatures to be looked at and verified.

Do I trust this man over everyone else??

You mean the same everyone else that made up the Russian collusion to discredit Trump and then pushed that narrative for nearly 4 years?? The whole thing has been disproven.

The same everyone else that tried to impeach Trump with baseless claims?

The same everyone else who backs Hillary Clinton, who paid for the Steele Dossier in order to frame Trump to take the publics mind off of Hillarys private email server?? That dossier has now been completely disproven. There was zero evidence to go after Trump in the first place. They literally fabricated the whole thing.

The same everyone else who spied on the Trump campaign, and refused to give him a peaceful transition of power when he entered office? Andrew McCabe, former head of the FBI now says that if he knew then what he knows now, he never wouldve approved the wire tap of Carter Pagebecause Trump did nothing wrong. He was never colluding with Russia.

The same everyone else who have ruined General Michael Flynns (a decades long decorated war hero) life?? He is now a political prisoner because he knows too much!

The same everyone else (social media) who claims Biden to be the President elect when in fact the states have yet to certify the results, which means we do not currently have a President elect yet. Even a letter from Congress states that. Yep Biden masquerades around with his Office of President Elect sign behind him, trying to convince the public of his nonexistent title. If he can get the people on his side, he thinks he can make it stick. Thats why Hillary Clinton told Joe, do not concede under any circumstances she said that if they stick it out long enough, she thinks they will win. Hes not going to win because the evidence of fraud is overwhelming. The legal process must play out and any serious American should not want it any other way. We must have transparent, free and fair elections. Then, may the best man win.

The same everyone else who are on video claiming that the elections are incredibly susceptible to fraud, especially mail in voting, but now that there is a Republican contesting it, they say that there was no evidence of fraud and, it was the most secure election in American history and we just need to move on?? Cmon on, man!! There are 73 MILLION Americans who disagree with that statement so, perhaps, we should just follow the law and the Constitution and let the legal process play out.

The same everyone else who have tried to discredit and villainize Trump at every turn, weaponizing the media, the FBI, the CIA, and Big Tech against him and against the American people to try to regain power and overthrow the government and turn us into a socialist nation? They are also trying to avoid being held accountable for their actions and they know that Trump will not let up. Thats why they hate him and thats why they have villainized him. They know that if Biden gets into office, everything gets swept under the rug and goes away.

Hard pass!

Trust, but verify. I have personally witnessed the way fact checkers lie about and twist facts.

I have watched the social media censorship of Conservatives and the Senate hearings in response to that censorship. They censor and fact check comments that they politically disagree with even if and especially if they are true. However, when a similar comment is made by a Democrat, it flies over their radar. Every. Single. Time. Dorsey and Zuckerberg couldnt name a single liberal that they had censored It is not a social media platforms job or right to censor or fact check. People are allowed to say what they want in America unless it is a terrorist threat or child exploitation. Not to mention that most of things they are fact checking are actually facts to begin with, but thats not their decision to make. They are supposed to be a platform for free speech, not editors. We have to amend Section 302 so that they can be held liable when they wrongfully censor content. Right now they are protected by section 302 because they claim to be a platform for free speech. They are acting as editors, censoring and fact checking and they must be able to be held liable. You say that they are just fact checking false and fake news, but in the Senate hearings, there were multiple instances brought up where they censored literally factual content just because it didnt fit their narrative and was against their political bias. Not ok!

Ive watched Gina Haspel from the CIA refusing to unredact documents that are pertinent to proving wrongdoing from the Obama Administration.

Our freedom and democracy are at stake, but when all of this ballot fraud is revealed and Trump gets back into office, things are going to get real.

I have made good life decisions

---

Your ex wife sounds like a lunatic.

---

That is an impressive density of false claims

---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-won-almost-every-election-where-redistricting-was-at-stake/

---

Delusions, delusions

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That is an impressive density of false claims

A false black hole if you will
---

Trump's base is so full of self-projection it's scary.

---

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1329434161057296384?s=21

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

This guy and his dad were/are probably Q, so it makes sense.

Not sure about Ron himself but Jim definitely did post as Q, by Ron's own admission. Nothing out of either should be trusted; Jim's power hungry and has wanted 8chan/8kun to be a central hub of news, Ron will lie to your face before stabbing you in the back. But considering Boomer larpers make up the bulk of the site's financing, makes sense.

---

Kinglicious posted...

But considering Boomer larpers make up the bulk of the site's financing, makes sense.

Go back in time and tell that to 8channers of 2016
---

oh they felt the difference by 2018, don't worry there. Jim hates /v/ after all.

---

Didn't the site only start getting big when 4chan exiled the gamergaters? What a ride.

---

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1329196297056817157?s=19

You want to talk about a fucking swamp, or packing the courts? The democrats could load up the SC with six new justices and it still wouldn't be close to the packing that Republicans have done.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1329434161057296384?s=21

i'm shocked

shocked

well actually not that shocked

---

Peace___Frog posted...

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1329196297056817157?s=19

You want to talk about a fucking swamp, or packing the courts? The democrats could load up the SC with six new justices and it still wouldn't be close to the packing that Republicans have done.

Packing the court is what Democrats wanted to do. Filling open slots with nominated people when such a spot is open is not packing courts.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Filling open slots with nominated people when such a spot is open is not packing courts.

Filling them with horribly unqualified judges who's loyalty is to Trump and/or the GOP is absolutely packing the courts.

If I'm a lawyer and I select to have all jurists who openly state my client is innocent, no one is gonna say "my what a fair and impartial jury you've selected."

---

Corrik7 posted...

Packing the court is what Democrats wanted to do. Filling open slots with nominated people when such a spot is open is not packing courts.

Id argue that holding slots open under Obama until you can cram unqualified people in under your guy is also packing the courts

---

https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing

People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. A political party that's engaged in court packing will usually violate norms that govern who is appointed (e.g., only appoint jurists who respect precedent) and how the appointment process works (e.g., no appointments during a presidential election).

---

If the American Bar Association had given them anything above a Not Qualified rating, then you'd have an argument, corrik.

---

---

TheRock1525 posted...

https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing

People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. A political party that's engaged in court packing will usually violate norms that govern who is appointed (e.g., only appoint jurists who respect precedent) and how the appointment process works (e.g., no appointments during a presidential election).

You can find many more links that state otherwise and many more links that point to the left of America trying to redefine the term to incorporate things they feel would let them justify actually packing the courts.

Packing the courts has meant to add seats to it. All the goal post moving regarding the definition to say "Well, we should pack the courts because they already did when they... " Is just trying to provide justification.

Peace___Frog posted...

If the American Bar Association had given them anything above a Not Qualified rating, then you'd have an argument, corrik.

I agree there is probably tons of experienced judges out there that could have possibly filled the seat. I also agree that pandering to supporters may likely be going on. I do not agree this is packing the court. I also would like to say that being "not qualified" by the ABA simply from lack of experience to go over doesn't mean the person cannot be exemplary at the job. Just like a job requiring a high school degree doesn't mean someone without one can't be a great choice for a job and the best candidate.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Packing the courts has meant to add seats to it.

To media pundits yes. Because they are morons.

To actual law professors, no.

---

Corrik, as someone who always abides by the literal definition of words with a stunning frequency, you should know that packing the courts means exactly what Rock is saying. Expanding the courts INCLUDES packing, but that doesn't mean you can't pack the courts without expanding them. The GOP withheld nominations under Obama and then packed the courts with their own nominations under Trump.

Basically, if I say I'm packing my bags, I can stuff as much clothing into the bag as possible. But then if I buy a second bag, I've added more space in which I can pack clothing, but that doesn't mean I haven't already packed that original bag.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Didn't the site only start getting big when 4chan exiled the gamergaters? What a ride.

yep. simplified timeline basically goes...

pre-2014: Fredrick Brennan, aka Hotwheels, makes 8chan, a cross between 4chan and reddit. same anon style as 4chan/image boards, same board creation style as reddit.

2014-2015: /v/ has its exodus, gamergate. /pol/ has multiple exodus. plenty of in-fighting on boards but generally things hold up well, though traffic is pretty crazy high. for this time frame was normal to get 8 figures of unique IPs a day and with features like built in webm playback at a max of 8MB, storage demands are fucking nuts, well in the petabytes. hotwheels works on making an updated software called Next with a programmer named Josh, who was better known for being the owner of CWCki which would become kiwifarms in these years. ultimately Next falls through because it's a lot more complicated than anybody expected and is ultimately a failure.

as this was happening over in Japan, 2channel was having an internal fight. Hiroyuki Nishimura and Jim Watkins were essentially co-owners but a split had occurred and Jim, person in charge of the backend, went to take control. for the most part i think Jim was in the right here but we've a clearer picture of how both are nowadays; Hiroyuki would indeed sell data, aligned himself with government, and would exploit the userbase to the maximum extent possible. Jim has a god complex and goes all in for maximizing whatever he wants. this results in Jim owning 2channel, Hiroyuki owning 2ch, and this proxy fight gets brought over to the west when Jim provides the backend for 8chan and is the real owner despite hotwheels being admin. Moot sells 4chan to Hiroyuki. so now it's 2ch/4chan and 2channel/8chan.

2016-2018: Jim officially takes full ownership of 8chan. Hotwheels quits and does a full heel turn on the site, saying it was a mistake, that it should be shut down, etc. blames Jim for various issues and says a lot about the man's personality, like how much of a self centered asshole he really is. Hiroyuki just kind of lets 4chan be for the most part and this has held true to today. like yeah don't trust the man for anything and if you give that site any money in any way that's on you. but as a basic admin, is a lot more hands off. he occasionally messes with /pol/ or whatever but keep in mind this is also the time period when other extremist sites like stormfront started getting deplatformed hard. can't exactly complain there, especially as the already "uh these people ain't larping or being dumb" trend 8/pol had got significantly worse. this ultimately led to 8/pol getting nuked and splintered even more than it already was. what we now know is that Jim during this time was also trying to push /news/ the entire time as a central part of the site, that 8chan would become a news aggregate source and house new news as well. it'd be a central hub, a social media platform that's a weird cross of sites on the internet. there's some elements to 2channel like this so he's probably using that idea as a reference but i mean, it's 2channel. it's not comparable at all. anyway this is when the audience shift happens and /v/ loses its placement as the majority board, if not in traffic then in Jim's mind. the owner of /v/ also is officially working for Jim at this point, with his job primarily being to work on /news/, not that we knew that at the time.

2018-today: this part i'm least familiar with because at this point Jim's power tripping like crazy and the site's completely gone to shit at every level. 8chan gets shut down after the shootings in '19, months later comes back as 8kun. owner of /v/ quits, releases logs on how Jim really is, works with a few other users to make a smaller /v/ elsewhere. hotwheels renegs on even that nickname and seems to have made it his life's mission to ruin 8chan/8ch/8kun. pretty much everyone who was involved with the site from pre 2016 washes their hands on it and wants nothing to do with it anymore, leaving the audience it got after that year... which ended up primarily being boomer larpers, Q addicts, people kicked off reddit/facebook/twitter, stormfront, and so on. this is more of a banned from social media audience than an image board one.

can be more precise on stuff in there but these general ranges give a good outline to how 8chan (and to a lesser extent, 4chan) has been at a more macro level. the only person who came out of that mess winning is probably Josh as kiwifarms has its niche.

---

Why we will never see true progress in our country, in less than 25 words:

Even with all this brazenly open corruption by the Trump administration, you still have people who believe "same thing, both sides."

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

https://twitter.com/owillis/status/1329492698680619008?s=21

can trump really not find better people to handle this
---

trump's campaign blaming hugo chavez for the election loss is maybe the funniest thing i've heard all year

what is going on in this country holy shit

---

A Wisconsin Elections Commission representative just answered a question at a press conference saying that it's possible that a Biden voter would get their vote tossed even though a Trump voter had made a mistake on an envelope. Not sure that she understood what the question was asking, but uh.......

---

Inviso posted...

Corrik, as someone who always abides by the literal definition of words with a stunning frequency, you should know that packing the courts means exactly what Rock is saying. Expanding the courts INCLUDES packing, but that doesn't mean you can't pack the courts without expanding them. The GOP withheld nominations under Obama and then packed the courts with their own nominations under Trump.

Basically, if I say I'm packing my bags, I can stuff as much clothing into the bag as possible. But then if I buy a second bag, I've added more space in which I can pack clothing, but that doesn't mean I haven't already packed that original bag.

This is incorrect. This term was created to reference FDR's attempt to add seats to the supreme court. The term means to add seats. You can reference a dictionary if needed. This is where the revisionist part comes in. People are arguing that it could be used to describe other things, when the term itself was created specifically to refer to adding seats.

You can make any stupid analogy you want or example. It doesn't change what the actual term stands for. It is also why that it's such a taboo thing and also why Democrats are trying so hard to package a broader, less accurate definition to create justification to try and make it more publicly acceptable.

Appointing judges is a normal thing. It is the presidential power. Obama was criticized for appointing judges for less urgent courts to get the judges he wanted in the courts he wanted for political majorities also. And Grassley and others said he was packing the courts just as erroneously. And, it was agreed on that it was a normal power of the president and not packing the courts.

Peaf believes a not enough experienced person got the job. And, maybe that is true and even ultimately correct for their lack of ability down the road. However, this is the same as approving any other conservative judge by the Senate powers and the presidential appointment powers. It is not packing the court, which means to expand it.

---

I will say that Rutgers article is blatantly partisan. They cite not confirming judges in an election year as a longstanding precedent. According to who? Mitch McConnell 2016? Joe Biden 1992? That is clearly not a longstanding precedent.

---

red sox 777 posted...

I will say that Rutgers article is blatantly partisan. They cite not confirming judges in an election year as a longstanding precedent. According to who? Mitch McConnell 2016? Joe Biden 1992? That is clearly not a longstanding precedent.

Legal scholars that are liberal say it's one thing. Conservative ones say the other. Yet they all agree where the term came from! Progressives trying to tell you what something means now instead of what it was. Literally their political and legal philosophy. So it is not exactly shocking.

All the top legal institutions for the most part staying silent on the matter.

The point is the term was created to reference FDRs attempt to add seats to the court. The term was created for that. To expand a court.

Just because people are arguing well so and so could also be packing the courts too has nothing to do with the term. It's trying to redefine it. To justify actually doing it.

---

I will say the basis of this being 'words can change meaning over time' does feel very progressive vs conservative mindset lol

---

First of all, if youre going to say packing the courts refers specifically to and ONLY to expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court based on FDR, then why are you even adding the s, because the Supreme Court is one court.

If you allow the definition to apply to adding Judges in different circuit courts, then you are already expanding the definition so just stfu about changing what it means.

Tl;dr who cares

---

Trying to imagine inviso over here trying to explain what knocking it out of the park truly means when it comes to an interview.

Well, knocking means to strike or make contact with something to make a noise or provide momentum to another object view a collision of force. And a park can me a small or large play area or wilderness area or water park or amusement or etc. However, this means to remove it from those premises.

Thus knocking it out of the park on an interview means you interviewed in a park and you collided with the interviewer and ended up outside the park upon being done. Thus, you were turned down for the park ranger job and removed from the property. = /

Like lmfao at what inviso wrote.

---

of course judges have been confirmed, including supreme court ones in an election year, that's happened some 30 times. never happened when the senate and president were of opposing parties. and yes, court packing has always meant adding in more judges. trying to redefine that to meaning something else is a newer definition that only sprung up in the past few months. corrik's right on this - it has traditionally meant adding people to the supreme court and was coined because FDR was trying to do exactly that. it has not meant partisanship, which has always been a thing.

---

Wanglicious posted...

trying to redefine that to meaning something else is a newer definition that only sprung up in the past few months.

Wrong, as Corrik himself pointed out.


---

Wanglicious posted...

of course judges have been confirmed, including supreme court ones in an election year, that's happened some 30 times. never happened when the senate and president were of opposing parties. and yes, court packing has always meant adding in more judges. trying to redefine that to meaning something else is a newer definition that only sprung up in the past few months. corrik's right on this - it has traditionally meant adding people to the supreme court and was coined because FDR was trying to do exactly that. it has not meant partisanship, which has always been a thing.

Changing the definition is something that is newer but it has been leveled as an accusation by both sides in the past decades or so. Like I said, Grassley and some idiots leveled it at Obama cuz he tried to fill lower courts that would change majority by filling over higher level courts missing judges because their majorities were already set.

And ppl just basically said that is dumb, and it is not packing the courts.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/jun/05/chuck-grassley/barack-obama-trying-pack-dc-circuit-court-appeals/

---

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1329454313895321604?s=19

Wonder how many people Trump has to kill before he's satisfied?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Trying to imagine inviso over here trying to explain what knocking it out of the park truly means when it comes to an interview.

Well, knocking means to strike or make contact with something to make a noise or provide momentum to another object view a collision of force. And a park can me a small or large play area or wilderness area or water park or amusement or etc. However, this means to remove it from those premises.

Thus knocking it out of the park on an interview means you interviewed in a park and you collided with the interviewer and ended up outside the park upon being done. Thus, you were turned down for the park ranger job and removed from the property. = /

Like lmfao at what inviso wrote.

Corrik, you have LITERALLY quibbled over exact wording in arguments so that you don't have to admit you're wrong in the past. The fact is that "packing the courts" does not inherently mean the same thing as "expand the courts", unless you're specifically trying to tie those two phrases together.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Changing the definition is something that is newer but it has been leveled as an accusation by both sides in the past decades or so. Like I said, Grassley and some idiots leveled it at Obama cuz he tried to fill lower courts that would change majority by filling over higher level courts missing judges because their majorities were already set.

And ppl just basically said that is dumb, and it is not packing the courts.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/jun/05/chuck-grassley/barack-obama-trying-pack-dc-circuit-court-appeals/

that's a pretty dumb claim of them for the same reason too, yeah. fortunately that attempt to change it failed back then since packing's got a pretty clear definition to it. seems like a standard wordplay trick of redefine what your opponent is doing with doing something immensely unpopular because what they're doing is otherwise well within standard actions.

---

Wanglicious posted...

that's a pretty dumb claim of them for the same reason too, yeah. fortunately that attempt to change it failed back then since packing's got a pretty clear definition to it. seems like a standard wordplay trick of redefine what your opponent is doing with doing something immensely unpopular because what they're doing is otherwise well within standard actions.

Exactly. But, in this case, Democrats are trying to level it onto things people don't care about really to try and make it seem more palatable and justifiable for them to actually do.

---

I'm pretty sure the term "packing" actually predates FDR. I think it was used in 1911 to describe the proposed plan for the UK King, operating on the advice of the Prime Minister and a majority in the House of Commons, to create enough new lords to "pack" the House of Lords with lords who would vote through the Parliament Act 1911, which removed the House of Lords' veto power over all legislation. Ultimately the House of Lords gave up and agreed to pass the act, and the new lords were not created.

---