Politics - wait for it... wait for it... 2020 isn't over yet

[Volourn]

All drugs should be legal. PERIOD.

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, majestic said:

Was freey available for a while as a pick me up in Nazi Germany. Seems like a good idea.  

Was (maybe still is) used by lots of countries' air crews during and since WW2 especially in situations where alertness had to be maintained for long periods. Not as systematically as the nazid did though, but...

Still a lot of it going on, eg captagon in Syria (very extensively used by ISIS and inghimasi type jihadis) and (albeit natural) Khat/ Qat in the horn of Africa and Yemen where it's ubiquitously chewed by shoeless Houthis when blowing up expensive Saudi hardware. Kind of funny really, the extremes that don't like drugs in theory are often the ones who use them most in practice.

[Volourn]

L0L

[ktchong]

WhatsApp (the American app) is way more intrusive than WeChat (the Chinese app.)  I have been using WeChat (to make free international calls) and avoiding WhatsApp due to WhatsApp being owned by -- and sharing data with -- Facebook.  Now, I am being forced to switch to WhatsApp from WeChat in anticipation of the Trump ban in 45 days.  

So, after I had installed WhatsApp, it refused to let me manually add contacts unless I allowed it to scan my phone contacts... which it would share with Facebook.  I refused to let WhatsApp/Facebook to scan my phone or contacts, so I have to tell my friends and relatives on WhatsApp to add me from their ends.   

And then I could not use the call feature in WhatsApp... unless I allowed it to scan my phone, like, WTF?   WeChat has never demanded me to let it scan my contacts and phone or share my personal data when I wanted to use any of its features.  The American WhatsApp is so much more intrusive and offensive than the Chinese WeChat.

[Azdeus]

3 hours ago, ktchong said:

WhatsApp (the American app) is way more intrusive than WeChat (the Chinese app.)  I have been using WeChat (to make free international calls) and avoiding WhatsApp due to WhatsApp being owned by -- and sharing data with -- Facebook.  Now, I am being forced to switch to WhatsApp from WeChat in anticipation of the Trump ban in 45 days.  

So, after I had installed WhatsApp, it refused to let me manually add contacts unless I allowed it to scan my phone contacts... which it would share with Facebook.  I refused to let WhatsApp/Facebook to scan my phone or contacts, so I have to tell my friends and relatives on WhatsApp to add me from their ends.   

And then I could not use the call feature in WhatsApp... unless I allowed it to scan my phone, like, WTF?   WeChat has never demanded me to let it scan my contacts and phone or share my personal data when I wanted to use any of its features.  The American WhatsApp is so much more intrusive and offensive than the Chinese WeChat.

WeChat just did it and never asked instead.

[Orogun01]

6 hours ago, ktchong said:

WhatsApp (the American app) is way more intrusive than WeChat (the Chinese app.)  I have been using WeChat (to make free international calls) and avoiding WhatsApp due to WhatsApp being owned by -- and sharing data with -- Facebook.  Now, I am being forced to switch to WhatsApp from WeChat in anticipation of the Trump ban in 45 days.  

So, after I had installed WhatsApp, it refused to let me manually add contacts unless I allowed it to scan my phone contacts... which it would share with Facebook.  I refused to let WhatsApp/Facebook to scan my phone or contacts, so I have to tell my friends and relatives on WhatsApp to add me from their ends.   

And then I could not use the call feature in WhatsApp... unless I allowed it to scan my phone, like, WTF?   WeChat has never demanded me to let it scan my contacts and phone or share my personal data when I wanted to use any of its features.  The American WhatsApp is so much more intrusive and offensive than the Chinese WeChat.

The point isn't that these apps aren't intrusive, the point is that there is no separation between Chinese business and the CCP. Also this false equivalency is bull since if we compare China to the US every US app is banned in China or is required to comply with their totalitarian censorious nature. But if you want to keep giving a foreign hostile entity your data, why don't you call them every once in a while with your WhatsApp

[Zoraptor]

When it comes to privacy there's as much separation between the Chinese State and their companies and the US State and its; excepting maybe Apple. The main, indeed in most cases only, evidence that Chinese apps and Chinese hardware is phoning home with everything is that US apps and US hardware definitely do, so the presumption is that China does too. People really ought to complain equally about both, including those in the US. After all, outside war or extraordinary personal circumstances you're always at greater risk from your own government than from a foreign one.

But yes, hard to complain about the US reciprocally banning Chinese apps without seeming like a hypocritical CCP tool.

 

Edited August 9, 2020 by Zoraptor

[Orogun01]

4 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

When it comes to privacy there's as much separation between the Chinese State and their companies and the US State and its; excepting maybe Apple. The main, indeed in most cases only, evidence that Chinese apps and Chinese hardware is phoning home with everything is that US apps and US hardware definitely do, so the presumption is that China does too. People really ought to complain equally about both, including those in the US. After all, outside war or extraordinary personal circumstances you're always at greater risk from your own government than from a foreign one.

But yes, hard to complain about the US reciprocally banning Chinese apps without seeming like a hypocritical CCP tool.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but I would say that the US federal government is more accountable to its people than the CCP. Plus tech giants can stonewall the US government, even lie to them without major repercussions. Zuckerberg did just that and I haven't heard anything of him being tried for perjury. I agree that both are bad but I asked myself the question "If a country had to be the world empire, would I be Ok with it being China" One look at their concentration camps and I had my anwser

Edited August 9, 2020 by Orogun01

[Volourn]

There is a reason people are able to be more critical of the US gov't. Youc an do it without fear of execution. Can't say the same about China.

[ComradeYellow]

https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/detention/guantanamo-bay-detention-camp

*Ahem*

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/ten-years-later-look-three-scariest-provisions-usa-patriot-act

*AHEM*

[Volourn]

1. GB  had some disgusting practices but it was designed to hold suspected terrorists not people who simply criticized the US gov't.

2. While I agree that the PA has a lot of over reaching Nazi anti freedom scumbag laws that should be abolished nothing in your link shows people being arrested and thrown in prison for simple criticism of the US gov't.

 

Do you not read? But, then again, you are  a 'comrade' and we all know what that means. Amongst many things it shows a lack of reading skills and ignorances of history.

Edited August 9, 2020 by Volourn

[ComradeYellow]

Marxism is all about reflection and analysis, especially on history. 

[ComradeYellow]

Also, all these videos of torture by "Chinese Communism" appear to be fake, but Westerners still seem to eat it right up.  No idea why some circles still trust sources from the U.S. Deep State.  I guess some people really just have a hard time letting go of the notion of an "exceptional America/West".

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/viral-fake-footage-of-chinese-atrocities-shows-the-power-of-narrative-spin-487587fc6dd7

Edited August 9, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, Volourn said:

2. While I agree that the PA has a lot of over reaching Nazi anti freedom scumbag laws that should be abolished nothing in your link shows people being arrested and thrown in prison for simple criticism of the US gov't.

The people of Portland disagrees...

https://www.9news.com.au/world/us-protests-military-troops-detain-protesters-into-unmarked-cars-george-floyd-black-lives-matter/ac9f6da3-829d-457b-9dc6-0253a0fc9f72

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/18/call-kidnapping-federal-officers-accused-using-unmarked-cars/

 

[Volourn]

1. Use of unmarked cars isn't cool. Not going to defend that Nazi behavior.

2. Those 'protestors' were not targeted because they were critical of the US gov't. LMAO And, no, just because they claim theyw ere doesn't mean it's true.

3. I'll stress it again, use of unmarked cars is not cool. Neither is the Nazi, abusive, violent, murderous actions of Antifa and BLm who enjoy targeted black,slatinos, whites, and Asians for murder, violence, assault, and rapes.

There is a difference between peaceful protestors and Antifa and BLM.

Nobody is being targeted or arrested for saying mean things about Trump (or any politician in the US). meanwhile, in China and other actual dictatorships, they have actual laws to make that kind of criticism illegal. LMAO

 

US isn't perfect (because all governments are naturally bent towards Nazism), but compared to China (or Russia) it's not even close. 

[Gromnir]

7 minutes ago, Gorth said:

The people of Portland disagrees...

https://www.9news.com.au/world/us-protests-military-troops-detain-protesters-into-unmarked-cars-george-floyd-black-lives-matter/ac9f6da3-829d-457b-9dc6-0253a0fc9f72

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/18/call-kidnapping-federal-officers-accused-using-unmarked-cars/

 

one way the trump administration is getting away with this nonsense, other than too many Americans turning a blind eye to such excesses, is the fact that extreme few people has been charged. the arrests is a terror tactic, bold and unapologetic, but w/o charges, the basis for a civil rights claim for those whisked away in vans w/o warrants or probable cause is functional eliminated. the feds don't have authority to do what they is doing, but w/o charges to create a cause o' action, the Courts can't stop the fed police from continuing their naked villainy

people are being imprisoned (dictionary definition) w/o there being a real threat o' prison. 

is not as if trump is coming up with these schemes. oh sure, trump is demanding his justice department make a show o' force, but william barr is the guy who is actualizing this crap and weaponizing legislation which is only tangential related to what is being done. the portland protesters is not, save for perhaps in the tortured imagination o' vol, serious attempting to overthrow the government o' the United States of America. nevertheless, william barr is using insurrection laws to arrest and Not charge people as a way o' displaying the tough on crime stance trump wants to project. 

get rid o' trump in november elections is increasing vital given the extremes william barr is going to to enable the corrupt and tyrannical whims o' the President.

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadySands]

What's the likelihood that Barr could ever see charges for any of the stuff that's happened since he's been the AG? Assuming Trump loses and doesn't pardon him. 

[Gromnir]

48 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

What's the likelihood that Barr could ever see charges for any of the stuff that's happened since he's been the AG? Assuming Trump loses and doesn't pardon him. 

barr is dangerous because he is competent. just one example, but multiple federal judges has criticized barr for his summary o' the mueller report, observing how the conclusions the ag reached were inconsistent with any plausible reading o' the report. is a couple o' crimes possible barr could be charged with related to his summary, but such requires proof o' criminal intent and even if there is such evidence to be found, is it practical to charge? short o' an email where barr states he knew his summary were a criminal misrepresentation o' a federal government document and that his purpose in misrepresenting were to personal benefit trump as 'posed to the PotUS, criminal charges is unlikely.

is dozens o' instances where is not reasonable to believe barr were acting in the interest o' the American people as is his duty as ag. however, reasonable is not the language which is appropriate in a criminal prosecution. for criminal, need a significant step beyond unreasonable and typical the intent o' criminal purpose need be proven. 

barr's dangerous belief the authority o' office o' the President is limitless save for the obvious accountability to the electorate every four years and the possibility o' impeach and convict by Congress is extreme. is almost no legal scholars who share barr's view, but such a fringe reading o' article 2 while misguided and obvious dangerous is not necessarily criminal in and of itself. 

barr could be impeached and convicted by Congress. maybe. wouldn't necessarily matter if barr were no longer ag. for instance, if the senate weren't a bunch o' sniveling cowards and sycophants and it became obvious earlier this year the senate were gonna vote to convict trump, the President could not have resigned before conviction and then still run for Presidency in november. no longer in office don't necessarily prevent Congress from acting. 'course what would be the point? worse, would establish a dubious precedent.

the framers never considered the possibility o' our current Congress. in 1787 it were believed senators would obvious recognize the abuse o' power o' a President or ag and regardless o' partisanship they would be more concerned with the integrity o' the Constitution than party loyalty. how could senators ignore something like fed police acting against the will of state and local government to arrest protesters? w/i a few decades o' the adoption o' the Constitution, the framers no doubt realized their error, but it were already too late. their mistake is our burden.

HA! Good Fun!

ps barr is our nominee for most dangerous man in washington dc. much o' trump's early legal efforts were marred by gross incompetence and almost comical bungling. barr, whatever his faults, is not incompetent... possible glaring exception were barr's firing o' the us attorney o' ny. competence makes barr a threat to democracy but also makes his prosecution for crimes unlikely.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Gromnir

[Raithe]

For that dose of around the world...

Hong Kong Media Mogul "held" over alleged foreign collusion under new national security law

 

Quote

Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai has been arrested under the city's new national security law on suspicion of collusion with foreign forces, one of his aides has said.

"Jimmy Lai is being arrested for collusion with foreign powers at this time," Mark Simon, a senior executive at Mr Lai's media company Next Digital, tweeted in the early hours of Monday.

Mr Simon said police searched both Mr Lai and his son's home, as well as other employees of Next Digital.

Police also searched the offices of his Apple Daily newspaper.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Amentep
Please do not republish copyrighted material in its entirety.

[Volourn]

The destruction of Hong Kong is underway.  If you are a foreigner - especially if you own a business - flee while you can.

[Guard Dog]

Protesters assault and attempt to murder WI Police Officer

Who didn't see this coming?

[Hurlshort]

30 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Protesters assault and attempt to murder WI Police Officer

Who didn't see this coming?

These headlines drive me nuts.

When you attempt to murder someone, you are no longer a protester. You are an attempted murderer. You have crossed a line and do not deserve any protection.

Just like when a police officer kneels on someone's neck for over 8 minutes and kill them, you are no longer a cop. You are a murderer and should be held fully accountable for that.

[Malcador]

6 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Protesters assault and attempt to murder WI Police Officer

Who didn't see this coming?

Indeed, this is more proof all protestors are bad.

[Bartimaeus]

8 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

These headlines drive me nuts.

When you attempt to murder someone, you are no longer a protester. You are an attempted murderer. You have crossed a line and do not deserve any protection.

Just like when a police officer kneels on someone's neck for over 8 minutes and kill them, you are no longer a cop. You are a murderer and should be held fully accountable for that.

The words chosen for these sorts of headlines are definitely carefully picked to portray things in a certain light, so I understand you from that angle, but in a more real sense, if the person was part of a protest and considered themselves a protestor and especially if that's what they were doing up until they decided to commit a crime, it does make sense to label them that way. Things get a little fuzzier, of course, when you have a case like this where trying to assault and potentially murder a cop is only tangentially related to their protesting activities, but as tangential as it may be, there is still an obvious connection. There is nevertheless a long and pretty terrible history of news outlets very loudly identifying certain kinds of people as belonging to certain groups (or involved in particular activities such as protesting) in relation to these kinds of events while conveniently not doing the same thing for others in equal circumstances, though, and it's unlikely to be an accident.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[Orogun01]

9 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

These headlines drive me nuts.

When you attempt to murder someone, you are no longer a protester. You are an attempted murderer. You have crossed a line and do not deserve any protection.

Just like when a police officer kneels on someone's neck for over 8 minutes and kill them, you are no longer a cop. You are a murderer and should be held fully accountable for that.

Ok, so peaceful protesters are asking for the defunding of police because of their protections of  bad police (murderer). By that same logic they should disperse as their gatherings shield murderers, looters from being arrested. Semantics don't change the result.