|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States41989 Posts
On January 13 2021 01:03 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2021 00:59 farvacola wrote:
It's not weird territory, you've simply listed a host of reasons why internet infrastructure must be regarded as a public utility. a process conservatives railed against long before the internet became a thing. This is a quintessential "have your cake and eat it too" problem and the fact that right wingers are only seizing on this "weird territory" now is the worst kind of hypocritical opportunism. I mean, if the 'normal non-rightwing' people believe that internet infrastructure must be regarded as a public utility and the only reason it isn't is because the right-wingers railed against it, isn't it just as hypocritical for the normal non-rightwing people to now be happy that this sort of thing is happening? Like, if a black cop shot a white guy for no good reason, I can't imagine any half-decent black person saying 'see, that's what u get for not defunding the police!' instead of simply condemning it for a tragedy that it would be.
Even a public utility must have standards. I can use a town hall for debate but not for organizing violence. They should be getting kicked off of a public service. But you’re not wrong in theory, the point that it’s not viable to simply opt out of tech is fair. Conservatives may have punched themselves in the face here but we should still disapprove of face punching, even when it’s wholly self inflicted.
|
I think the strongest case for expelling anyone from congress is Boebert. She live tweeted Pelosi's movements during the coup attempt, has said she'll carry a gun into the chamber (it's illegal, she didn't, and she faked a video that she did), and she's a qanon lunatic. Even the house GOP has been attacking her in conference calls.
Per Politico writeup of the House GOP conference call.
With emotions still running high in the conference, there was at least one tense moment during Monday’s call. It started when freshman Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) suggested the Capitol Police may have been involved in the riot.
Then, Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) — another GOP member who is weighing impeachment — confronted Boebert for live tweeting the speaker’s whereabouts during the Capitol siege, saying she put all their lives at risk.
Another freshman, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), also chimed in, saying she is "disappointed" that the "QAnon conspiracy theorists" are not only leading the party, but also led the election objection effort after members had to walk by a crime scene to get to the House floor.
But Boebert defended herself on the call, saying that was not her intent and asking her colleagues not to accuse her of anything.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/11/mccarthy-trump-capitol-riot-457882
(Also, 15 capitol officers are under investigation and 2 have been suspended - 1 for taking selfies and another for giving directions)
|
On January 13 2021 01:03 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2021 00:59 farvacola wrote:
It's not weird territory, you've simply listed a host of reasons why internet infrastructure must be regarded as a public utility. a process conservatives railed against long before the internet became a thing. This is a quintessential "have your cake and eat it too" problem and the fact that right wingers are only seizing on this "weird territory" now is the worst kind of hypocritical opportunism. I mean, if the 'normal non-rightwing' people believe that internet infrastructure must be regarded as a public utility and the only reason it isn't is because the right-wingers railed against it, isn't it just as hypocritical for the normal non-rightwing people to now be happy that this sort of thing is happening? Like, if a black cop shot a white guy for no good reason, I can't imagine any half-decent black person saying 'see, that's what u get for not defunding the police!' instead of simply condemning it for a tragedy that it would be.
I don't know what "normal non-rightwing" people are, and no, I'm not suggesting there was some hidden consensus among that strangely labeled group of people regarding the propriety of turning certain infrastructures into public utility. The turn away from public utilities as a popular thing started long, long ago, so much so that people don't really pay any attention to the fact that basic necessities like water and electricity are basically controlled by private cartels empowered by state governments.
The point is that these justifications for public utilities have existed for a very long time, popular or not, and for folks who would otherwise continue to argue against them to seize on the decisions of private actors seeing their bottom lines hurt by providing platforms to white supremacist insurrectionists to now turn around and say, wait a minute, those progressives from the 1910s and 20s were onto something, is absolutely a singular kind of hypocrisy that cannot be equivocated.
|
It's also at least partially GW Bush's fault for dropping the antitrust against Microsoft. It indicated that there was no point in not having a tech monopoly, as the second a republican came to power they would drop all trustbusting acts (and these things can take longer than 8 years to fully litigate). It's not that we think it's bad to have them be utilities, it's that we find the blatant hypocrisy laughable.
|
Definitely and I think this is all a long-winding path towards progress. From what I've gathered, there is now more interest in bringing back the vibrant anti-trust approaches of days long past, and make no mistake, that's an awesome thing and I hope it comes to pass. Anti-competitive behavior, overburdened consumption decisions, and the panoply of reasons why particular goods and services should not be handled by private markets need to come to the forefront of the public consciousness.
|
On January 12 2021 17:54 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2021 14:42 Belisarius wrote:I think there's a lot of different simultaneous issues here. On the Trump ban alone, I have to agree with Merkel. https://www.dw.com/en/angela-merkel-calls-trump-twitter-ban-problematic/a-56197684German Chancellor Angela Merkel is concerned about Twitter permanently suspending President Donald Trump's account, her spokesman said on Monday.
Steffen Seibert told reporters in Berlin the chancellor considered the ban "problematic."
"The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance," Merkel's spokesman said.
"Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president's accounts have been permanently suspended.
The chancellor agreed with the practice of flagging Trump's inaccurate posts, Seibert said. However, any curbs on free expression should be decided by the law and not by private companies.
I am extremely uncomfortable with a private company taking it upon themselves to censor the head of a major democracy. I've been jumping up and down about Trump's authoritarianism on here for years. I'm the last person to defend him. I also understand that this is happening in an environment where the proper mechanisms to hold him accountable have completely failed. Still, even I think this precedent is just too dangerous. I would be more open to it if there were a serious risk of him staging a successful coup. At that point all bets are off and if the tech giants want to deploy their unspeakable power as the last line of defense against a fascist takeover, fine. The time for that was after the election, while these goons were gathering in the safe spaces Facebook had prepared for them and the would-be-dictator openly stoked the flames. Where were the giants then? That they found their spines now, after the storm, is nothing but weathervane signalling and I have no patience for it. All it does is shift attention away from the failure of the real safeguards the US should have been able to depend on, and opens a giant can of worms in the process. How many people are talking about this now, versus about the terrifying reality that 147 US lawmakers voted to undermine democracy in favour of the man who literally just attempted a coup against the chamber they were standing in? The Republicans must be thanking twitter on bended knee right now for providing another deep state bogeymen just when they needed one most. Why is it bad to ban the leader of a country? Is there any circumstance where it is warranted to you? One of the hallmarks of a fascist authoritarian is their attempt to exploit the structures of democracy in order to destroy democracy. I think we should be very careful in attacking those structures ourselves in order to oppose them. Really, this is one of the rare situations where both the idealist and the pragmatist in me reach the same conclusion. The idealist thinks that blowing up the ship is only warranted is when it's about to be overrun, and since that's no longer the case, can't now support an attempt by some of the most powerful companies in history to censor the leader of a major democracy when that leader is about to be voted out anyway. Further, the pragmatist thinks that twitter is the rope trump is using to hang himself, and the best thing in the long run for the structures of US democracy would be to let him twitch a little longer. The storming of the capitol was the republican party coming face to face with the monster they've created. I think it's possible that the only way forward is for them to be pushed up against that monster over and over until they break in half.
I would argue the most important thing for a fascist is the ability to reach the people they are attempting to radicalize and bring under their wing. Without the ability to manipulate, the fascist movement falls apart. Fascists need to destroy structures of democracy to prevent retaliation/accountability. When Trump was in power, he made various attempts to squelch media and openly tried to find ways to prevent accountability. That is a very different situation than taking away his podium. They are similar events but the mechanism is important.
The ship is absolutely still at risk of being overrun. Here is an example from history we can look at:
The Beer Hall Putsch, also known as the Munich Putsch,[1][note 1] was a failed coup d'état by Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) leader Adolf Hitler, Generalquartiermeister Erich Ludendorff and other Kampfbund leaders in Munich, Bavaria, on 8–9 November 1923, during the Weimar Republic. Approximately two thousand Nazis marched on the Feldherrnhalle, in the city centre, but were confronted by a police cordon, which resulted in the deaths of 16 Nazi Party members and four police officers.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch
Hitler tried a coup, failed, then did it again later. It is important to keep in mind that a failed attempt is not the end of a movement. Trump is not neutered by no longer being president. He is a present threat to democracy with or without his office.
Trump has still not hung himself because he is still able to run for president again. He has a path to power. He did, however, use Twitter to rile up his base to the point where they eventually stormed the capital. The media is how Trump fans the flames of his movement. Without his podium, his movement will fade. I think its incredibly important he is squelched to the highest degree and never allowed any power ever again.
|
|
|
United States41989 Posts
Probably a boon for Republicans, given he used his money to fund the radical fringe trying to usurp the party. He may have given money to people running with an R after their name but he didn't give much to anyone decent Republicans would want to associate with.
|
On January 13 2021 01:52 Nouar wrote:In a blow for Trump and republicans in general, as he was a large donor, Sheldon Adelson died today. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/12/sheldon-adelson-casino-magnate-trump-donor-dies-aged-87As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him.
He donated millions of dollars for Holocaust museums and a Jewish schools. He was quite the philanthropist. It’s a blow to the millions he helped, his wife, and his children. He selflessly paid employees during COVID shutdowns. And all people can think about is political disagreement.
Yeah, I hope everybody speaking ill of the recently dead is called out for the absolute ghouls that they are.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 13 2021 01:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2021 01:03 Salazarz wrote:On January 13 2021 00:59 farvacola wrote:
It's not weird territory, you've simply listed a host of reasons why internet infrastructure must be regarded as a public utility. a process conservatives railed against long before the internet became a thing. This is a quintessential "have your cake and eat it too" problem and the fact that right wingers are only seizing on this "weird territory" now is the worst kind of hypocritical opportunism. I mean, if the 'normal non-rightwing' people believe that internet infrastructure must be regarded as a public utility and the only reason it isn't is because the right-wingers railed against it, isn't it just as hypocritical for the normal non-rightwing people to now be happy that this sort of thing is happening? Like, if a black cop shot a white guy for no good reason, I can't imagine any half-decent black person saying 'see, that's what u get for not defunding the police!' instead of simply condemning it for a tragedy that it would be. I don't know what "normal non-rightwing" people are, and no, I'm not suggesting there was some hidden consensus among that strangely labeled group of people regarding the propriety of turning certain infrastructures into public utility. The turn away from public utilities as a popular thing started long, long ago, so much so that people don't really pay any attention to the fact that basic necessities like water and electricity are basically controlled by private cartels empowered by state governments. The point is that these justifications for public utilities have existed for a very long time, popular or not, and for folks who would otherwise continue to argue against them to seize on the decisions of private actors seeing their bottom lines hurt by providing platforms to white supremacist insurrectionists to now turn around and say, wait a minute, those progressives from the 1910s and 20s were onto something, is absolutely a singular kind of hypocrisy that cannot be equivocated.
Perhaps the problem is that, even though it could be rightfully seen as "their fault" for not treating the internet (and, IMO telecom in general) as a public utility and allowing big tech to have this kind of power, it still doesn't make it good policy that these kinds of companies have that power. Yes, there might be some tinge of poetic justice in "you reap what you sow" but it doesn't make for good policy in the long term.
This time around, shitty things were done to a company that most of the left-of-Republicans crowd doesn't sympathize with. But there's nothing fundamentally stopping the tech companies from doing the same shitty things to literally anyone else. And that's not really a hypothetical; I know of many instances of deplatforming to settle a grudge that simply aren't in the public eye.
The problem I see is that a lot of people claim to oppose this kind of thing in principle, but the moment it's done to someone they don't like, said principles are quickly suspended in a wave of, "yeah, fuck those guys!" That's not a good thing.
|
On January 13 2021 02:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2021 01:11 farvacola wrote:On January 13 2021 01:03 Salazarz wrote:On January 13 2021 00:59 farvacola wrote:
It's not weird territory, you've simply listed a host of reasons why internet infrastructure must be regarded as a public utility. a process conservatives railed against long before the internet became a thing. This is a quintessential "have your cake and eat it too" problem and the fact that right wingers are only seizing on this "weird territory" now is the worst kind of hypocritical opportunism. I mean, if the 'normal non-rightwing' people believe that internet infrastructure must be regarded as a public utility and the only reason it isn't is because the right-wingers railed against it, isn't it just as hypocritical for the normal non-rightwing people to now be happy that this sort of thing is happening? Like, if a black cop shot a white guy for no good reason, I can't imagine any half-decent black person saying 'see, that's what u get for not defunding the police!' instead of simply condemning it for a tragedy that it would be. I don't know what "normal non-rightwing" people are, and no, I'm not suggesting there was some hidden consensus among that strangely labeled group of people regarding the propriety of turning certain infrastructures into public utility. The turn away from public utilities as a popular thing started long, long ago, so much so that people don't really pay any attention to the fact that basic necessities like water and electricity are basically controlled by private cartels empowered by state governments. The point is that these justifications for public utilities have existed for a very long time, popular or not, and for folks who would otherwise continue to argue against them to seize on the decisions of private actors seeing their bottom lines hurt by providing platforms to white supremacist insurrectionists to now turn around and say, wait a minute, those progressives from the 1910s and 20s were onto something, is absolutely a singular kind of hypocrisy that cannot be equivocated. Perhaps the problem is that, even though it could be rightfully seen as "their fault" for not treating the internet (and, IMO telecom in general) as a public utility and allowing big tech to have this kind of power, it still doesn't make it good policy that these kinds of companies have that power. Yes, there might be some tinge of poetic justice in "you reap what you sow" but it doesn't make for good policy in the long term. This time around, shitty things were done to a company that most of the left-of-Republicans crowd doesn't sympathize with. But there's nothing fundamentally stopping the tech companies from doing the same shitty things to literally anyone else. And that's not really a hypothetical; I know of many instances of deplatforming to settle a grudge that simply aren't in the public eye. The problem I see is that a lot of people claim to oppose this kind of thing in principle, but the moment it's done to someone they don't like, said principles are quickly suspended in a wave of, "yeah, fuck those guys!" That's not a good thing.
I'd actually think that this is an amazing chance. It is usually really hard to get republicans on board with regulating industries. When they are at the receiving end, maybe one can use that to get something which is generally good done, like finding a way to handle tech companies power.
|
On January 13 2021 02:42 Danglars wrote:He donated millions of dollars for Holocaust museums and a Jewish schools. He was quite the philanthropist. It’s a blow to the millions he helped, his wife, and his children. He selflessly paid employees during COVID shutdowns. And all people can think about is political disagreement. Yeah, I hope everybody speaking ill of the recently dead is called out for the absolute ghouls that they are.
Jefferson Davis didn't become exclusively a family man once he passed away. People will always be the sum of who they were throughout life, even after death.
|
On January 13 2021 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2021 02:42 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 01:52 Nouar wrote:In a blow for Trump and republicans in general, as he was a large donor, Sheldon Adelson died today. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/12/sheldon-adelson-casino-magnate-trump-donor-dies-aged-87As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. He donated millions of dollars for Holocaust museums and a Jewish schools. He was quite the philanthropist. It’s a blow to the millions he helped, his wife, and his children. He selflessly paid employees during COVID shutdowns. And all people can think about is political disagreement. Yeah, I hope everybody speaking ill of the recently dead is called out for the absolute ghouls that they are. Jefferson Davis didn't become exclusively a family man once he passed away. People will always be the sum of who they were throughout life, even after death.
In this case, talking ill of a recently deceased Jewish philanthropist is fine because he was the wrong kind of Jew. He supported Israel and worked tirelessly on the US-Israel relationship. Republicans have long memories, and they’ll remember exactly the kind of grace that Democrats treat their political opponents—how they react to the death of one.
Don’t try any of this unity crap when you can’t even wait a day after death before turning him into a dehumanized totem of political advocacy. It’s everything wrong with politics. And Democrats embrace it and double down. Keep showing your true colors.
|
On January 13 2021 02:49 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2021 02:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2021 01:11 farvacola wrote:On January 13 2021 01:03 Salazarz wrote:On January 13 2021 00:59 farvacola wrote:
It's not weird territory, you've simply listed a host of reasons why internet infrastructure must be regarded as a public utility. a process conservatives railed against long before the internet became a thing. This is a quintessential "have your cake and eat it too" problem and the fact that right wingers are only seizing on this "weird territory" now is the worst kind of hypocritical opportunism. I mean, if the 'normal non-rightwing' people believe that internet infrastructure must be regarded as a public utility and the only reason it isn't is because the right-wingers railed against it, isn't it just as hypocritical for the normal non-rightwing people to now be happy that this sort of thing is happening? Like, if a black cop shot a white guy for no good reason, I can't imagine any half-decent black person saying 'see, that's what u get for not defunding the police!' instead of simply condemning it for a tragedy that it would be. I don't know what "normal non-rightwing" people are, and no, I'm not suggesting there was some hidden consensus among that strangely labeled group of people regarding the propriety of turning certain infrastructures into public utility. The turn away from public utilities as a popular thing started long, long ago, so much so that people don't really pay any attention to the fact that basic necessities like water and electricity are basically controlled by private cartels empowered by state governments. The point is that these justifications for public utilities have existed for a very long time, popular or not, and for folks who would otherwise continue to argue against them to seize on the decisions of private actors seeing their bottom lines hurt by providing platforms to white supremacist insurrectionists to now turn around and say, wait a minute, those progressives from the 1910s and 20s were onto something, is absolutely a singular kind of hypocrisy that cannot be equivocated. Perhaps the problem is that, even though it could be rightfully seen as "their fault" for not treating the internet (and, IMO telecom in general) as a public utility and allowing big tech to have this kind of power, it still doesn't make it good policy that these kinds of companies have that power. Yes, there might be some tinge of poetic justice in "you reap what you sow" but it doesn't make for good policy in the long term. This time around, shitty things were done to a company that most of the left-of-Republicans crowd doesn't sympathize with. But there's nothing fundamentally stopping the tech companies from doing the same shitty things to literally anyone else. And that's not really a hypothetical; I know of many instances of deplatforming to settle a grudge that simply aren't in the public eye. The problem I see is that a lot of people claim to oppose this kind of thing in principle, but the moment it's done to someone they don't like, said principles are quickly suspended in a wave of, "yeah, fuck those guys!" That's not a good thing. I'd actually think that this is an amazing chance. It is usually really hard to get republicans on board with regulating industries. When they are at the receiving end, maybe one can use that to get something which is generally good done, like finding a way to handle tech companies power.
I agree with this notion wholeheartedly. Instability provides opportunity and this is a great example.
|
On January 13 2021 03:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2021 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On January 13 2021 02:42 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 01:52 Nouar wrote:In a blow for Trump and republicans in general, as he was a large donor, Sheldon Adelson died today. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/12/sheldon-adelson-casino-magnate-trump-donor-dies-aged-87As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. He donated millions of dollars for Holocaust museums and a Jewish schools. He was quite the philanthropist. It’s a blow to the millions he helped, his wife, and his children. He selflessly paid employees during COVID shutdowns. And all people can think about is political disagreement. Yeah, I hope everybody speaking ill of the recently dead is called out for the absolute ghouls that they are. Jefferson Davis didn't become exclusively a family man once he passed away. People will always be the sum of who they were throughout life, even after death. In this case, talking ill of a recently deceased Jewish philanthropist is fine because he was the wrong kind of Jew. He supported Israel and worked tirelessly on the US-Israel relationship. Republicans have long memories, and they’ll remember exactly the kind of grace that Democrats treat their political opponents—how they react to the death of one. Don’t try any of this unity crap when you can’t even wait a day after death before turning him into a dehumanized totem of political advocacy. It’s everything wrong with politics. And Democrats embrace it and double down. Keep showing your true colors.
Given your response I thought someone had said something particularly wrong or vile. I genuinely have no idea who you think you're talking to. I don't see anyone being an asshole about him.
|
On January 13 2021 03:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2021 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On January 13 2021 02:42 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 01:52 Nouar wrote:In a blow for Trump and republicans in general, as he was a large donor, Sheldon Adelson died today. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/12/sheldon-adelson-casino-magnate-trump-donor-dies-aged-87As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. He donated millions of dollars for Holocaust museums and a Jewish schools. He was quite the philanthropist. It’s a blow to the millions he helped, his wife, and his children. He selflessly paid employees during COVID shutdowns. And all people can think about is political disagreement. Yeah, I hope everybody speaking ill of the recently dead is called out for the absolute ghouls that they are. Jefferson Davis didn't become exclusively a family man once he passed away. People will always be the sum of who they were throughout life, even after death. In this case, talking ill of a recently deceased Jewish philanthropist is fine because he was the wrong kind of Jew. He supported Israel and worked tirelessly on the US-Israel relationship. Republicans have long memories, and they’ll remember exactly the kind of grace that Democrats treat their political opponents—how they react to the death of one. Don’t try any of this unity crap when you can’t even wait a day after death before turning him into a dehumanized totem of political advocacy. It’s everything wrong with politics. And Democrats embrace it and double down. Keep showing your true colors.
The hypocrisy and self-righteousness here is astounding.
Republicans don't have a long memory. They have an extremely selective memory.
They do literally all of the exact things that you criticize Democrats for. The only difference is that you are an shamelessly biased political hack that will never criticize his side.
The closest you've ever come to admitting the failure of your political ideology and allies on this board is quietly disappearing when the GOP that you support does horrendous things, only to reappear later to say, "Yea that was bad, but...".
|
How big of a deal is this from the legal people here? I've never even heard of it happening before. Lin Wood was just booted from representing Carter Page by the judge due to his behavior outside of the court and his incitement of the coup attempt. (represented as a “toxic stew of mendacity, prevarication and surprising incompetence" )
“What has been shown in court decisions of our sister States satisfies me that it would be inappropriate and inadvisable to continue Mr. Wood’s permission to practice before this Court,” Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz wrote in a passionate 8-page order. “I acknowledge that I preside over a small part of the legal world in a small state. However, we take pride in our bar.”
In late December, Judge Karsnitz ordered Wood to explain why his post-election antics did not violate Delaware professional rules, such as filing a suit without a plaintiff’s authorization, submitting a false affidavit, and making a series of gaffes that called his competence into question.
For Karsnitz, that problem has only gotten worse.
“A number of events have occurred since the filing of the rule to show cause,” the judge noted. “I have seen reports of ‘tweets’ attributable to Mr. Wood. At least one tweet called for the arrest and execution of our Vice President. Another alleged claims against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States which are too disgusting and outrageous to repeat. Following on top of these are the events of January 6, 2021 in our nation’s Capitol. No doubt these tweets, and many other things, incited these riots.”
“I am not here to litigate if Mr. Wood was ultimately the source of the incitement,” he wrote. “I make no finding with regard to this conduct, and it does not form any part of the basis for my ruling. I reaffirm my limited role. I am revoking my order granting Lin Wood, Esquire the privilege of representing [Page] in this case.”
Via lawandcrime (they have a document of the full order up)
https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/lin-woods-toxic-stew-of-mendacity-denounced-in-ruling-ousting-him-from-representing-carter-page/
|
On January 13 2021 02:42 Danglars wrote:He donated millions of dollars for Holocaust museums and a Jewish schools. He was quite the philanthropist. It’s a blow to the millions he helped, his wife, and his children. He selflessly paid employees during COVID shutdowns. And all people can think about is political disagreement. Yeah, I hope everybody speaking ill of the recently dead is called out for the absolute ghouls that they are.
So, in your view then, if, let's say Jeff Bezos, dies today, he's gonna be a hero in your mind ? After all the bullshit he's done, the working conditions at Amazon etc ? His foundation did some good things, but...
Let's see...
Amazing, he did pay his employees during the shutdowns ! Good ! (I wouldn't call it "selfless" though, just "humane". It's a drop in a lake for him, as if you gave 20 bucks to a homeless guy) He was also one of the worst offenders for decades in denying employees to unionize, which usually allows them to fight better for their rights instead of being at the mercy of their boss' mood. He directly spent a whole lot more than what he spent during the shutdowns, to have states outlaw collective bargaining, to deny his employees rights. Such a wonderful, selfless boss, always thinking about his workforce, right ? Yeah.
Great (depending on your views), he fought against cannabis legalization because his son died of it and he considered it a gateway to harder drugs. Oops, should we forget he made his fortune with casinos/gambling, a business that is rigged against players and exploits addiction to squeeze the money out of people ? Spending millions to know the better ways to make people waste money again, by studying cognitive patterns and addictive behaviour. Splendid !
Wonderful, he donated to create hospitals (oops, in illegal settlements where Israel didn't have the right to build).
Cool, jewish schools and holocaust museums. I don't have anything against that, it's cool. He did good things to send jewish youngsters in Israel for visits, that's also good. The issue is that looking at his extreme views, I'm not sure if all those things are not proselytism, which I'm less fond of.
Against a state for palestinians, against international agreements, he weaponized the israeli-american council to serve his views.
THEN you have the political actions in the USA or Israel, where republicans going to primaries had nearly no choice but to cosy to him to have a chance, and then he held them. I hate that shit, it's called corruption and influence trafficking, even if Citizen United more or less legalized it (it's like, 99% legal as long as you don't "coordinate". Fuck PACs).
For example to get states to forbid collective bargaining by unions.
Largest backer of Trump (we kinda know about that guy) and Netanyahu (an extreme right-wing bastard), etc etc. I could care less about the Republican and Trump funding, but I definitely weigh how he got his wealth, and what are his aims in weaponizing it. In my view, it definitely skews a LOT more towards bad than good.
So yeah, good, he spent a few hundred millions to somewhat good causes (let's round to 500M$, 3% of his wealth, which is less % of my net worth than I donated in the last 5 years alone, praise me when I'm dead). Ok let's be honest, it's probably more as I didn't do a full-on research on his returns of course, just the more visible stuff. I'm not sure he followed up on a 200M annual pledge since 2008 to israeli causes for example.
And the rest.... Bah. Outside of the 500M+ in the last 10 years to gain influence in politics, it's stuff like Freedom's Watch, advocating to continue the war in Irak, etc etc.
To compare, Bill & Melinda Gates are at 45B in donations, with the rest of their fortunes to be donated when they die.
You will most definitely NOT find Sheldon Adelson in the "Giving Pledge" list.
I am not desecrating him, I just hate wonderful eulogies for people who did a little good and a lot of bad. It doesn't cancel out. I just said that I (me, myself), am not going to miss him, and it's a blow to the funding of the republican party.
Call me a ghoul if that makes you feel better.
Do note that he donated mostly to causes that served jews. Only a little was spent on stuff like medical research through a smaller foundation, that serve everyone. You will call me a great globalist, but I'm not fond of communautarism.
It would also be good of you to remember that I am not a democrat nor an american, and that Adelson was not tied to a party until 12/15years ago. I could care less about a party. I care about what people say and do, and fight for.
It would also be good of you to even read my fucking post, I mean, it was three lines, hardly a wall of text, unlike this one. I'll quote to you :
As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him.
Did that mention anything political in why I didn't like him ? No. The closest would be the illegal settlements, and that's more human rights and international law than politics.
|
On January 13 2021 03:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2021 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On January 13 2021 02:42 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 01:52 Nouar wrote:In a blow for Trump and republicans in general, as he was a large donor, Sheldon Adelson died today. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/12/sheldon-adelson-casino-magnate-trump-donor-dies-aged-87As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. He donated millions of dollars for Holocaust museums and a Jewish schools. He was quite the philanthropist. It’s a blow to the millions he helped, his wife, and his children. He selflessly paid employees during COVID shutdowns. And all people can think about is political disagreement. Yeah, I hope everybody speaking ill of the recently dead is called out for the absolute ghouls that they are. Jefferson Davis didn't become exclusively a family man once he passed away. People will always be the sum of who they were throughout life, even after death. In this case, talking ill of a recently deceased Jewish philanthropist is fine because he was the wrong kind of Jew. He supported Israel and worked tirelessly on the US-Israel relationship. Republicans have long memories, and they’ll remember exactly the kind of grace that Democrats treat their political opponents—how they react to the death of one. Don’t try any of this unity crap when you can’t even wait a day after death before turning him into a dehumanized totem of political advocacy. It’s everything wrong with politics. And Democrats embrace it and double down. Keep showing your true colors.
lol He was a horrible man that did considerably more bad than good. His philanthropy is a drop in the ocean compared to the damage he did.
"Working tirelessly in favour of Israel-US relationship". Yeah, by making sure the US kept supporting Netanyahu and his criminal invasion and annexion of Palestinian territories (but hey, Palestinians are an "invented people" so fuck them I guess - yup he was a hardcore racist too, surprisingly). Cool stuff indeed.
I don't think you'll shed a tear when George Soros will die, so stop taking the moral highground and stop your rant about republicans being better people. You voted twice for - and supported for years - a man that has the lowest morality standard in american political history; I would wait a bit before the holier than though posturing. You haven't earned it really.
|
On January 13 2021 03:32 Nevuk wrote:How big of a deal is this from the legal people here? I've never even heard of it happening before. Lin Wood was just booted from representing Carter Page by the judge due to his behavior outside of the court and his incitement of the coup attempt. (represented as a “toxic stew of mendacity, prevarication and surprising incompetence" ) Show nested quote +
“What has been shown in court decisions of our sister States satisfies me that it would be inappropriate and inadvisable to continue Mr. Wood’s permission to practice before this Court,” Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz wrote in a passionate 8-page order. “I acknowledge that I preside over a small part of the legal world in a small state. However, we take pride in our bar.”
In late December, Judge Karsnitz ordered Wood to explain why his post-election antics did not violate Delaware professional rules, such as filing a suit without a plaintiff’s authorization, submitting a false affidavit, and making a series of gaffes that called his competence into question.
For Karsnitz, that problem has only gotten worse.
“A number of events have occurred since the filing of the rule to show cause,” the judge noted. “I have seen reports of ‘tweets’ attributable to Mr. Wood. At least one tweet called for the arrest and execution of our Vice President. Another alleged claims against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States which are too disgusting and outrageous to repeat. Following on top of these are the events of January 6, 2021 in our nation’s Capitol. No doubt these tweets, and many other things, incited these riots.”
“I am not here to litigate if Mr. Wood was ultimately the source of the incitement,” he wrote. “I make no finding with regard to this conduct, and it does not form any part of the basis for my ruling. I reaffirm my limited role. I am revoking my order granting Lin Wood, Esquire the privilege of representing [Page] in this case.”
Via lawandcrime (they have a document of the full order up) https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/lin-woods-toxic-stew-of-mendacity-denounced-in-ruling-ousting-him-from-representing-carter-page/
It's a big deal in the sense that judges very rarely do or say anything remotely like this, yet a small deal given that it's only one judge in one state court (albeit a highly influential one). The thing to look for is whether other judges follow suit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
