Anyone's thoughts on Trump Jr tweeting the name of the whistleblower?
Printable View
Anyone's thoughts on Trump Jr tweeting the name of the whistleblower?
Don't want to bring things down, but my wife and I held and then buried our daughter who was stillborn at 22 weeks. Legally we were told you had to have a funeral beyond 20 weeks term and they are considered to have been a "person". We also have a plot to visit. Tricky ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
Don't really need to do anything here with youQuote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
Your argument is weak and based on avoiding responsibility so I don't need to do much mental gymnastics with you
That fine
You can feel that wayall you want
Just bizarre that you think killing kids is an ok thing
Life begins when you accept our Lord and saviour Griff into your life and giveth yourself unto Him.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Everything else is just 'existing'.
Mental gymnastics again. Too bad your real body isn't as flexible as your morals.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
I'm done arguing with you on the subject. This has just turned into name calling.
If you want science to give facts on life, why wait until an egg and sperm meet to define life? A sperm is a single-cell organism and as alive as any other cells in a male (or female) body. By your interpretation is every sperm that does not fertilise an egg a wasted life?Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Or are you saying there must be two things to create life? If that is the case I'm honestly going to need helping interpreting your good book, starting with chapter one.
AmenQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
along with everything else in this bitch ass cancel culture era, it was a shitty thing to do, but not illegal so what can be done?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
The article he retweeted (containing the whistleblowers name) had been up online for more than a week and had (apparently) already been reported on by the press. If anyone 'wanted' to know the WB's name, it was out there well before that shithead Junior stuck his beak in amongst it.
it does raise a pretty legit question though. For something as serious as potentially removing a President from office, should all names/identities be out there? Should the key witnesses be able to be cross examined as part of the hearings? For some that is a simple due process and the cornerstone of the legal system.
But does putting innocent whistleblowers out in the open prevent people from coming forward in the event of similar indiscretions in the future?
Also, learned today that Monica Lewinsky actually lied under oath about her affair with Clinton, and it was only after she got caught out by one of her friends wearing a wire (****ing snitch) that she did an immunity deal with the investigator and gave a sworn statement. i dont think she was cross examined.
Devoting oneself to a deity has caused my bloodshed and human misery than any other ideology known to man.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Religion and or a belief in a diety provides justification to bring harm to your fellow man without taking responsibility for your actions.
pfffft, as if goals just go in the ****ing net without divine intervention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skirt Boy
so many heathens on this platform.
REPENT, in the name of the Lord, and thy name is GRIFF.
Hail Griff.
GRIFF!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
I can honestly state that none of the goals I've scored were as a result of an almighty power other than my right boot and occasional hand.
Also what if I don't repent? am I going to lose my head, put on the rack, burned at the stake, buried alive with honey poured on my face, castrated........................
If the person Trump Jr comes named into harms way it wouldn't be difficult to link it to the tweet providing his identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
From there, I'd say Trump Jr would be in a whole world of shit.
LInda Tripp illegally taped a conversation with a fellow staffer [Lewinsky]. They were not friends.
Tripp gained immunity for handing the tapes to authorities.
Did you know she was part of the Bush Administration staff and Clinton let her and others keep their jobs when he became president.
Just to be clear also, Trumpf Jr isn't going to get pinned with anything as he's like the 100th person to tweet the identity. It was known for weeks who the guy was.
But it screams of insecurity from the Trumpf team that they want to tarnish the guys name in the public, even though the whistleblower is now not a problem. Republicans have already agreed with his statements and admitted to all the things that he said. Their argument is now that it's not illegal to do what they did rather than did they actually do it.
Trumpf Jr just thinks he's out here playing 4D chess when it reality he's playing Uno with Jenga pieces and Lego.
Further to the release of the Epstein story video.
It looks like ABC found out who leaked the video, it was an ex-employee who is now working for a rival (CBS). Well now she has been fired by CBS on what looks like snitching from ABC.
This certainly isnt a good look for anyone involved here and if its as simple as that, you can see a lawsuit coming.
Its also yet more fodder for the Trump camp to spew the 'cant trust the media' angle. They surely cant be this silly to behave like that when they know they on notice.
Which brings me to another point regarding the 'cant trust the media' angle. Now I know its an American thing, but i find it interesting that people are up in arms about Trump calling the media the enemy of the people, yet we have a very prominent former PM over here, and now a very prominent former opposition leader (who lost a federal election) who are saying exactly the same thing. They are openly saying the media was to blame for their downfall and that the media lies and plays favourites.
Yet because its the Murdoch press its seen as a legitimate gripe.
Now, before you start up. I believe the Murdoch press to be one sided, i also believe ABC (aust) and the Guardian to lean one way. But it seems only one side is 'fair and balanced' in the eyes of many.
its like Australia is ok with accepting that 'some' of the media is the enemy of the people.
weird that.
oh cmon, even you've gotta admit Don Jnr skewering Joy Behar on her own TV show yesterday was great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
Its more concerning the further this goes that this bloke is gonna shoe horn his way into the 2024 race.
it will be hilarious, as he doesnt have any of the clout of his old man, but he sure thinks he does.
Many said the same thing about Donald Trump with respect to his father.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
I wouldn't underestimate Jnr. He's a chip off the old block only better educated.
Out of interest Plague have you recently retired ? You seem to have almost as much free time as I do.
Personally, I think they do each lean to their respective sides. I just think one side leans way further and has no interest in bothering to attempt to remain somewhat neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
The more left leaning agencies (depending on the writers etc) probably go too far their way too, although still much less than others.
I think some of it comes down to the echo chamber / social media type environment we exist in where people are generally super happy to hear whatever they believe over and over. And thus are happy to keep consuming the same strand of content. Almost like choosing what show to watch on Netflix. And I'm not immune to that either. But I try to take a step back every now and then and look at stuff objectively.
There's only two sides. Rich and Poor. Can't recall any poor people reading the news or owning a Tv station or Newspaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
and this is my point. You, as a private citizen, have a distrust of a certain section of the media. id be shocked if the overwhelming majority of the population didnt have a similar issue with their own certain section of the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Its just when an elected official who seems to have plenty of evidence says the same thing its seen as a hangable offence.
its also another example of Trump positioning himself as relatable to the 'common man'. "SEE I HAVE PARANOIA TOO!!!!!"
nah man, im only required when the well oiled machine breaks down. everything running on all cylinders at the moment so as all good bosses do, i have my staff doing the work while i sit around and watch tv/play golf etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
Out of curiosity refusing to run that story aren't the ABC a guilty of a conspiracy by not running the storyand also protecting child abuse predators??
Surprised they ain't being hung drawn and quartered for this shit as they have allowed many child predators to continue on unchecked
The MSM keep going on they are legit and accuse others of running with conspiracy theories. Well they are not running theories they are running conspiracies
That would also mean under that logic everytime you strangle the chicken you committing mass genocide wouldn't it??Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
These questions are all aimed at youQuote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
nah, they arent breaking any laws. they can have any number of reasons for not running the story. funnily enough the only 'crime' committed here is actually against the ABC if it can be proven that they were being extorted to withhold the info they had.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
the way the reporter was accusing the ABC of not running the story because Buckingham Palace wouldnt let them interview Will and kate is an example but its such a stretch to suggest, then prove they were committing a crime.
as for withholding any info about Epstein, it looks like their story didnt have any accusations that werent already in the public domain, the problem with their story was the people surrounding it like Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton. They are the only people they were 'protecting' and since neither of those 2 have been accused/charged or committed of a crime then ABC is in the clear.
ABC merely looks like a bunch of hypocrites here, not criminals.
But it not new life until it combines with another cell to create new DNAQuote:
Originally Posted by pv4
By your point getting a hair cut would be the same
So you don't care about all life, just new life?Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
I'm genuinely trying to figure out when your argument starts and stops here. It isn't consistent in any way.
heres one thats been floating around twitter recently.
Gervais explains his why, and Colbert (a religious person) has some valid points about what God is to him.
i thought the point about burning all the books was pretty well said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ZOwNK6n9U
to be fair, we (pro choice people) havent explained when we think life starts either.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
we kind of just picked a number and have since changed it round a fair bit.
our justifications (other than the main one of being none of anyones business except the women's) have always been open to criticism.
At least one person in Frodo clearly detailed his/her definition of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
I'd also argue your point about only the womens business, without trying to force red pills down anyone's mindtanks.
sorry, meant to say 'pro choice lawmakers' not being able to define when it starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
I don't like Ricky Gervais, and I think he's a perfect poster boy for Atheists since he thinks he's intelligent but he just used big words to hide the fact that he has nothing big worth to say. Atheism is exactly as bad as modern religion. People with no facts yelling at other people because they disagree on a thing that they don't have any proof of either way. And both of them argue knowing full well they can't convince the other to change their minds. Such a waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Also, he has Atheism wrong completely there and he knows it. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, not a soft arse I don't really know but I don't think there is. That's a new take that lazy arse people are trying to mould it into since their original argument is impossible to prove
I'm agnostic, but I would rather talk to a person of faith than an atheist when those sorts of topics come up. At least a religious person can handle criticisms towards their faith (well most can). Atheists can't handle being disagreed with and will waste plenty of energy/time "proving" you wrong.
yeah i kind of gathered that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
I admit my biases.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Persecution of the Lollards, Hussite Wars, German Peasants War, Protestant Reformation, 30 Years war, Albigensian Crusades, Northern Crusades and I haven't even started on the Middle East and there is a lot more. But all because people of a different faith that you get the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
Sorry, I did mention "modern" religious people earlier in the post. I very much don't like religions and we could sit here for hours listing the heinous things they've done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skirt Boy
But I don't put the blame of past acts on every person of faith. That's not fair.
except the Westboro Baptist Church.
**** all those assholes straight to hell, or Gosford, whichever they hit first.
I interpreted what he said in that video differently and don't believe he got atheism wrong at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
When he wasn't being cut off mid sentence and actually given the opportunity to explain himself he said he is an agnostic atheist. He then says the agnostic part is because he cannot say definitively that there is a god, and then says by definition all humans are agnostic then. Then he says, after being cutoff and able to come back to it, that he is atheist as the definition of atheism is the lack of belief in god (google the definition if needed), and his example is when a person with faith says they can't prove god exists he says he does not believe in it.
I found him very transparent with all of that and don't think he got it wrong in any way.
I have also never personally heard the 1000 year burn the books example between fiction and science, but adored it.
For the record i define myself as an agnostic but refer to the TV show Community where they call that out as a lazy mans atheist. And I'm cool being that.
i think it is too broad a statement to say you'd rather speak to one side over the other assuming they can or can't handle things better or worse. There are smart and dumb people on both sides, and people that can and can't hold an argument either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
As a general vibe I find it much harder to cut thru the bullshit when speaking to a religious person. I get told their good book is written in black and white and see genuine arguments about the exact wording of a sentence in there (even though it has been translated several times and there are various current versions going, and let's not get into when the Romans dictated what did and didnt get put in there also..) but then when they want to disagree with something that doesn't fit their narrative they have these caveats or unwritten contexts that need to be taken into account. At least for the most part an atheist will say their exact thoughts, almost always I do not believe in it because it has zero proof, and you can go about your business from there.
Oh yeah, screw those guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Thought i made it pretty clear that life begins at conceptionQuote:
Originally Posted by pv4
Once that has occurred we shouldn't be killing the child
Which part of that is hard for you to understand??