Still waiting for some justification for this comment. Do the same strictures apply to accusations of "a certain poster" calling other posters fascists, which you have a wont to do, with zero justification. Please explain your apparent hypocrissy, so it may no longer be considered such, or do the honourable thing, and withdraw the comment.
This whole discussion has been about Sauvy's intent. I find unconvincing the suggestion that an internationally-respected academic would have intentionally originated a phrase clearly referencing the success of a previously maligned group that he knew would leave him open to opprobrium and criticism from the very group he was implicitly supporting. You are convinced he did intentionally do so; this means we have to accept we will not agree on this. It is 'very simple' to you, because that is how you seem to view things. The 'fascist' issue has already been explained to you. On more than one occasion you have expounded on how the 'modern left' is the current repository of fascist ideology and acts accordingly; you then go on to call posters 'middle class lefties', which means, quite clearly, you consider those posters to be supporting ideology and action you consider 'fascist'. Slightly surreptitious, but obvious all the same.
Where have I called anyone a fascist. Simple question. You (not me) saying that Moose said I do doesn’t cut it. ETG called me Nazi adjacent just for being an NHS union rep who doesn’t hate Trump. You say I call people fascists, and only justify it by saying that other people have said so. Where is your justification for it? What you say above certainly isn’t. As for the point you are clearly ignoring regarding third world, Sauvy didn’t create it as an insult, he created it to describe how the first and second worlds saw the third world. It is, and always has been, it’s use to define a group of countries using his phrase that is elitist and white supremacist. I am afraid, if you cannot figure that out, there is little point in expecting you to figure out any simple subject. For the sake of the forum, I’ll (try) to ignore any future reference you make to it. I don’t think anyone reading the thread will come to any conclusion other than that you find it difficult to accept when you are wrong. Me? I have apologised to everyone every time it turned out I said something wrong. I don’t think there is anyone on here will say I don’t admit when I have got something wrong. Even if they know I will not back down when I believe I am right. Very different to your absolutist approach to discussion. Practically the entire world disagrees with you on third world, believing it has always been a derogatory racist phrase . Good luck to you with that, but don’t make out that me quoting the original source is more harmful to you than you defending it as if you had coined it.
https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/1763647872472416494?t=-h2Uul01ed0U_oc2z08x2A&s=19 BRILLIANT! If you have not read Eric Swalwell's questions to Hunter Biden during his hearing, you have to. SWALWELL: Any time your father was in government, prior to the Presidency or before, did he ever operate a hotel? BIDEN: No, he has never operated a hotel. SWALWELL: So he’s never operated a hotel where foreign nationals spent millions at that hotel while he was in office? BIDEN: No, he has not. SWALWELL: Did your father ever employ in the Oval Office any direct family member to also work in the Oval Office? BIDEN: My father has never employed any direct family members, to my knowledge. SWALWELL: While your father was President, did anyone in the family receive 41 trademarks from China? BIDEN: No. SWALWELL: As President and the leader of the party, has your father ever tried to install as the chairperson of the party a daughter-in-law or anyone else in the family? BIDEN: No. And I don’t think that anyone in my family would be crazy enough to want to be the chairperson of the DNC. SWALWELL: Has your father ever in his time as an adult been fined $355 million by any State that he worked in? BIDEN: No, he has not, thank God. SWALWELL: Anyone in your family ever strike a multibillion dollar deal with the Saudi Government while your father was in office? BIDEN: No. SWALWELL: That’s all I’ve got
Ha. But he got 20 million from China, Ukraine and Russia whilst his father was vice-president for 'work' which he had no expertise in, and he explained that his father was involved, both by phone and in person, in meetings with Hunter's Chinese, Ukrainian and Russian business partners. Trump has been indicted for his suspicious behaviour. Biden, it was found, does not have the faculties to face indictment. If he did, he would have been indicted. This is a good game. Can we play some more?
I would still like you to prodiuce the evidence of me accusing anyone on here a fascist. It is horrible that you make it, but worse that you cannot find the supporting evodence that Skyla told us all we should provide if we accuse someone of something unpleasant. Please show us that you are able to live up to the same standards you expect me to adhere to.
Hardly surprising but AI could play a crucial role in the upcoming elections. Fake images plus social media has the potential to fool a lot of people. This BBC article shows how some Trump supporters are using it to make out that Trump has a lot of support from black voters. I'm sure it will be used by all sides, both here and across the pond, in the elections this year though. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68440150
That's just plain wrong. Go read the exec summary of the special counsel's report first hand rather than relying on whatever sources have lead you to believe that: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf Biden was not charged because there was little to no evidence supporting a charge of 'wilful' retention, nor that he actually did anything different to any former President / VP. That's the beginning and end of it. Hur says so unequivocally in his report. He also handily explains why the aggravating factors present in Trump's documents case aren't present for Biden. The memory point is just a cherry on the top and it's wrong to suggest but for that Biden would have been charged.
I refer you to the last part of my post. I’ll ask 2 straightforward questions relating to posts you have submitted on here. 1. Have you stated more than once your view that the ‘modern left’ is the current home of ‘fascist ideology and action’? 2. Have you categorised certain posters with whose views as expressed on certain topics you do not agree, as ‘middle class lefties’? The link is clear and obvious; you are stating those ‘middle class lefties’ hold views belonging to a group you consider to be the harbourers of fascist ideology.
You are asking me to prove myself wrong. How typical. You are the one who accused me of calling people fascists. Respectfully, you should be the one to present your justfication, as Skyla asked people to do. If you can't find it, don't make the insult. "I'm sure you did it Hooter. Can you find the evidence for me?" No I didn't call anyone a fascist. Your inability to find any evidence should be enough to prove that. But like with Sauvy, you do not have the grace to admit you may have been wrong. Why I expect you to act like a grown up I don't know. But if you are going to refuse to justify you unpleasant accusation, can we just accept that it was a deliberate insult that you chose to throw at me. Unpleasant, yes, but at least we know where you stand. If you could justify it, you would have done. It is not my words about your behaviour that cast you in a poor light, but your reaction to being challenged on your opinion. I'll do you a deal though. You prove I did it, and I'll answer those qiestions. Mods. I know it is a bore, but I am only defending myself from a comment that could very easily be recused by the OP. I make no complaint about him.
Are you being deliberately provocative? I know and you know (as do various others on here) you have posted the opinions that form the text of my questions. Are you now saying you have not posted those opinions?
Then show me them, so they can be seen for what they are by everyone. I would say that you are the one being deliberately provocative by making your unpleasant accusation and not justfying it. And now you are saying that everyone knows it. That is what Skyla has specifically asked us all not to do. You have insulted me, attempted to bully me, told me that everyone knows I did a bad thing (that you cannot prove), and now you are saying I am being provocative? Calm down. Put me on ignore if it helps. So please don't accuse me of something horrid, and then say I am being provocative because you can't prove it.
Utter rubbish, particularly when comparing what Trump did as president. He is more guilty than Trump, because he took the documents, some of them, when he was not even VP. Compare that to Trump. Took them as President, believed he had a right to them, kept them secure, allowed NARA access to them, and was in what he believed to be negotiations to either keep them or hand them back, based on a legal process. NARA didn't even know Biden had his documents, which is totally illegal. Je dodn't keep them securely and there is evidence he shared them with his ghost writer. There is no comparison between him and Trump, yet he is not facing charges. If he wouldn't have been indicted anyway, why did the report make the excuse of him being unfit for trial? As a reason for him not facing indictment. Patent and very obvious rubbish, no matter who reads the report to you. If Trump is successful in his Florida case, it must be assumed that Jack Smith was equally capable of coming to the same conclusion, that Trump did not need to be indicted. Sorry, again, but Democrats are not kidding anyone any more, and much of their battle against Trump seems to be falling apart over things that the establishment (your source?) were describing as written in stone. I don't trust them. So you referring to rubbish that their partisan regime pumps out as propaganda dressed up as law is pretty pointless. I think you know what I mean, because that is the attitude you and others seem to have had towards Trump for years. The US establishment are the biggest bunch of crooks and liars around, and I would not be at all surprised, if they lose the election, if they do exactly what they accused Trump of trying to do with twenty men armed with sticks. Its a mad house and no one is prepared to call it out.
See, this is the problem with attempting reasoned debate. You're trying here to present facts as opinion. Read the report. The report written by the lifelong Republican who did a very good hatchet job on Biden despite having no legal reason to go into 300+ pages of detail to do it. The legal reasons are all there up front. His assessment is that no jury would convict Biden because there's insufficient evidence he wilfully did anything. So when you say, "Biden, it was found, does not have the faculties to face indictment. If he did, he would have been indicted" you're wrong. That wasn't found. That wasn't the conclusion. It's just your opinion of what should have been found. And ironically your question ("If he wouldn't have been indicted anyway, why did the report make the excuse of him being unfit for trial? As a reason for him not facing indictment.") is the same one many prominent Democrats have asked. Why did Hur do that? Who knows? I'm sure he'll do a repeat act when he gives evidence before Congress later this month though. These deep state bad actors sure don't discriminate...
From the report... "We also believe some of the same evidence that supports reasonable doubt for the classified Afghanistan documents also supports reasonable doubt for the notebooks, including Mr. Biden's cooperation with the investigation, his diminished faculties in advancing age, and his sympathetic demeanor. These factors make it difficult for jurors to conclude he had criminal intent." It was a factor. It was included in the decision not to indict.
Of course it was a factor. As I said, it was a cherry on top. But you misrepresented it as the only factor, which was not true. Even if Biden 'had the faculties' he still wouldn't have been prosecuted for many other valid reasons.
Yeah. Well the DOJ know why he did it, and if they hadn’t defended it, they may have invited calls for all sorts of investigations from congress. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics...ial-counsel-report-release/story?id=107278194 You are perfectly entitled to take the Biden White House view, but don’t expect to be taken seriously. So where are we now? His diminished faculties were a part of the decision not to indict. Thank you for confirming that, in the face of the evidence. And no, I never said it was the only reason. That is YOUR misrepresentation. You can apologise if you like. And the DOJ has explained to the world that the report was following legal obligations, and was not a gratuitous hit job on the President. You are right. People arguing their opinion over the facts is frustrating. I wish you would stop doing it. Poor old Hooter. Accused of bias, then vindicated when the facts came out. Not the last time that happens I’ll bet, and certainly not the first.
Trump 9 - 0 Establishment More anti-democratic establishment BS exposed, yet the US left cry out that they have been betrayed by ‘their’ Supreme Court Judges. Disgusting extremist behaviour from the self styled defenders of democracy. I am looking forward to them imploding and going full authoritarian, maybe even staging a coup or an insurrection if things go wrong at the election. Does anyone believe they will willingly hand over power to Trump? Given their current behaviour. The orange man was nothing on this.
I’ll happily apologise when you provide evidence of this: “Biden, it was found, does not have the faculties to face indictment. If he did, he would have been indicted.” Your words here, not mine, not the report’s, not a summary or anything else. Just your words. If Biden had the faculties he would have been indicted. Not true. Happy to move on though as it’s clear you understandably don’t stand by what you said. You could have just said that in your first reply though.
No. That’s great. My language was rather forthright, but I am aware it is not the only factor, so sorry for that. But it certainly was, as I said elsewhere, a reason for not indicting him and potentially the deciding reason after all others are considered. Which shows that the factors involved were not purely based on the criminality. I thank you. And, by the way, Trump’s argument for keeping the documents is very similar to the argument that Biden’s behaviour was similar to that of other VPs. Perhaps the report will be referred to in the Florida case? But, before you move on, how about a comment on the DOJ’s letter to the White House saying that the comments on Biden’s faculties was necessary and obligatory? That seems to be very much contrary to your own opinion on the matter, and another indication that it was not merely a cherry on the top. Or just a silly MAGA talking point. So, to reiterate, we are back at: 1 Biden’s failing faculties did affect the decision not to indict, and; 2 The comments regarding his faculties were appropriate due to the nature of the report. That is a Hooter tick, tick. For all that you said to the contrary.
I think it's really good to see rock solid evidence the DOJ is acting independent of the President in all matters. Bodes well for other investigations wouldn't you say? And, being precise, unless there's another part of the letter you've seen which isn't in the ABC article they didn't say Hur's comments were "necessary and obligatory". Once again, you're interpreting and then presenting something in a way which is far more forthright than the original author(s).
I think, whilst democrats are arguing that the DOJ has not been weaponised (as we approach an election they appear intent on fighting as 'save our democracy') it is the very, very least they could do to maintain any sense of plausibility. The fact that their main political rival has been indicted four times, with White House fingers stuck in even the civil indictments, seems to make your switch to semantics as your primary defence most appropriate. Because you have little to nothing else. The DOJ rejected the White House complaint, that it was unnecessary, which translates very easily, if not directly, to necessary and obligatory. You can borrow my stegasaurus if you like. But sorry for paraphrasing. I should have realised it would cause confusion. I promise that if you use complete and exact wording in future, I will do the same. Though I think that will probanly work out to be more of an advantage to me. So, looking beyond the semantecs, have I said anything that is not ostensibly correct regarding Biden and that report?
Yes. And Biden is going to be touring with Robert Downey Jr in black face to appeal to both white and black liberals at the same time. That article is utter rubbish. Why would anyone need to AI pictures of Trump with American minorities? There are plenty out there. This is an establishment BS story to undermine his growing support from minorities in the US. See polls for clarification. Trump supporters would not need AI. And if there weren't enough, Trump would go out and take more. The BBC would have you think that black people don't really support Trump. Patronising and racist all in one go. If I were you, I would be angry for being taken in. There is no link to Trump or his supporters. They are far, far more likely to have been produced by Democrats as a dirty trick, to generate this type of narrative. The only people being kidded by this, want to be kidded by this. How do I know? Because it is the most absurdly stupid story you could imagine.
Wow, the levels of cope here. It’s clearly AI and the story makes it clear it’s not Trump’s official campaign, but is a prominent supporter with a platform. Perfectly reasonable to report it.
No problem reporting it. Just pretty obvious what is going on. There are tons of photos of Trump out there with black voters, or supportive messages from rappers and people in the streets. His supporters would have no need of AI to produce them. But Democrats trying to carve out a fake narrative? That is a different matter. At worst, for Trump, its an unhinged loon who thinks he's being clever. But it certainly isn't some insidious conspiracy to get people to vote for him. People should weigh up the two in their own mind, rather than take the Beeb's propaganda wing at its word. The story is silly. But people are entitled to believe what they like.
Mark Kaye, with his own Republican radio show with 1m followers who created the image is a secret democrat plant. Hilarious stuff as ever.
Great. So he is of the prize loon variety. If he wanted pictures of Trump with black voters, he didn't need to fake them. So. He is respinsible for one of them. What about the rest of them? Is AI-gate going to be the subject of Trump's third impeachment? It is a ridiculous nothing of a story.
I actually agree with this. Struck me as taking a potentially very serious issue, which is bad actors using AI or other advanced tools in a way to damage a candidate, and conflating it with an amateur playing around with generative AI and producing an obviously fake image for a limited audience.
It occurs to me that if a person had asked Google Gemini to show Donald Trump with a group of typical American voters, you would have ended up with something pretty similar. That, Gemini, was an insidious use of AI to literally gaslight the world. Undoubtedly it was well intended, but the reality of its execution was misleading, highly racist (imagine it portraying Nelson Mandela, or black freedom fighters as white) and a deliberate use of technology that portrayed fantasy as reality. AI, at the moment, is not what it is cracked up to be, and, generally, the images produced are eerily, but unconvincingly, reminiscent of real life, that can generally be spotted quite easily. Adobe started using AI imaging in PhotoShop recently, and the the result was insipid artwork that looked like a first year art student cutting and pasting. The absurdity of AI in this case is that photos are out there anyway. Someone creating them and sharing them is only going to generate a clear negative backlash, and I don’t believe that anyone except an idiot would consider it a good idea. The entire story is contemptuous. From the guy who did the featured photo, to a story attempting to link it to Trump, in the same way idiots with sticks get linked to him. IMHO.
The AI in the BBC article is amateurish and was, as stated by the article and my post, done by Trump supporters and not by Trump's campaign. I assume the only person I have blocked jumped all over it because he saw it as an attack on Trump supporters. But, again, as I said in the original post, the point is that AI has the potential to influence this years elections, on ALL sides, and that is not a good thing. It doesn't matter how amateurish it is or who produces it, it has the real potential to influence voters. The only reason I linked to the BBC article was because it was literally on their online homepage that day. I would have done the same if it were a AI generated picture of Biden smiling with a bunch of MAGA supporters. It's a shame that some people can't look past their own politics and see the bigger picture.
The military and intelligence agencies have tech that is 20 years ahead of what the public has. AI has been around a lot longer than the majority of people realise. The internet has never been a safe place.
You have never accused any posters on here of being fascists? '4 Hours at Capitol' thread: #967: "Are you a fascist? Because that would be justification for your opinions." # 973: "All you lefties have done it. I am just asking why it is you say you are anti-fascists but enjoy using their methods. Are you a bunch of fascists? And if not, why do you act in a way that suggests so strongly that you are? People will stop saying you are acting like fascists when you stop doing it." 'There is power in a union' thread: #76: "and when I say someone is acting like a fascist." As for equating 'lefties' with far-right/fascist views. 'i-i-i-i-fwah-fwah-it's-the-tories' thread: #1624: "modern left wing racists" 'Well funded other right' thread: #5: "Hatred and hate crimes have escalated since the LGB community were raped and subjugated by left wing religious extremists (communists). The only difference between murderous nazis and communists are the badges." #9: "Gay rights have been co-opted by fascist extremists to promote nazi ideologies under cover." 'There is power in a union' thread: #89: "much of what was extreme right is now firmly on the left." 'Conspiraloonacy' thread: #84: "I have pointed out the contradictory right wing tendencies of some lefties on here." '4 Hours at Capitol' thread: #1743: "I am against fascism. I see much more on the left than the right." You have your own, often quite idiosyncratic, interpretation of 'terms' which you then insist on applying to the words & expressed views of other posters, accusing them of 'acting like' fascists or racists or supremacists, or whatever. However, the interpretations upon which you justify those attributions are so far away from other peoples' interpretations as to make the attributions meaningless. You will trumpet you are 'right' so the others must be 'wrong', on topics that are totally dependendent upon subjective interpretation. Then you have the audacity to accuse others who make no such claims that they are exhibiting an 'absolutist' approach to discussion. Perhaps you've decided to change the definition of that term to suit your use of it. A final quote: 'There is power in a union' thread: #89: "Only narcissists consider their opinions as facts."
This is a key point. We're talking about a country where a sizable group of people believe that the NFL fixed the outcome of the Super Bowl so that Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce could publicly endorse Joe Biden in the immediate aftermath (which, of course, didn't happen). Amateur or not, there are a LOT of people out there who will wholeheartedly believe them....which is why the creators make them.
On Bill Maher's thing it was strongly suggested that La Swift is under considerable pressure to use he platform to urge her army of fans to vote. Not endorse a candidate or party but to vote and she (or her 'people') are extremely hesitant to get involved.
