Yup, not just his best role he's ever played, but really good by any standard. 10 bucks is a pretty good price for the whole thing in UHD, perhaps that's indicative of how popular it is lol. I went ahead and purchased it. Currently working in a covid hotspot: Atlantic City, NJ for a holiday weekend. So I'm staying inside my hotel room anytime I'm not at the jobsite, figured I'd watch it again.
I also had an interesting encounter that belongs in the other thread, but whatever. I got in town last night. This project needed me but it's tough to find housing on July 3rd. Usually I'm in a condo or apartment, but I was asked my preference since opportunities were slim, and there was an oceanfront motel on the boardwalk in Ocean City(we have several projects in South Jersey right now) and it was next to the jobsite I'm going to assist the most. Very expensive, but I went with it. In the lobby: a dude got the last room after I got the 2nd to last (company booked it for me). He said $330? That's fucked up, how much did you pay? I replied I don't know man, I didn't pay for it. Boy was that a mistake. Not only did I get a cheaper room than he, but I didn't even have to pay for it because I was white. The room was 120 degrees(AC blew warm air), and my tundra couldn't fit under their overhang to their parking. He had me park my nice-ish truck ON the boardwalk, with crap tons of people walking beside it all night. The same dude pissed off at me for being white saw me put my truck there too. So ya, I stayed there for a total of 10 minutes and made my company eat the money. At a holiday inn and it's fantastic, although a 30 minute drive to site.
Yes, UK citizens knew it all, and you even see many like this:
"I'm from Macedonia and even my English is crappy but I knew almost all the answers ! This is ridiculous what is happening in US"
Anyone ever watch the HBO series John Adams? Came out 13 years ago. I've watched it 4 times maybe, it's 7 or 8 1 to 1.75 hour episodes. Historically accurate, and produced well like a typical good HBO series. I used to have a habit of watching it every other July 4th. Last time was a couple years ago when I got my wife to watch it. At a glance... You can watch it on Hulu, Vudu, and prime now. Prime it's 9.99 for the whole series in UHD. I recommend it.
Imagine going back in time and showing that video to John Adams and Benjamin Franklin.
I say those two because they were the two primary brains behind everything. Franklin had to convince Adams to endorse the cause of independence, and also hand-picked Jefferson to write the document's rough draft. Adams did most of the political "leg work" to get us here.
You know why. It's because I'm a stubborn ignorant Republican. It's obvious, you got me.
Why is it so difficult to say you don't know what they are (the safeguards to minimize VBM fraud)? And if you don't, don't you think knowing the safeguards a system has in place is important before you go insisting that the system will fail because of exploits that must exist, "I just know it".
I already pointed out that I know them. Listing them in bullet points, for the sake of a meaningless e-argument with someone who takes ZERO notice to any point I make is at the very bottom of my priority list.
Everyone here understands what I said except you. It took 5 pages for you to admit that trump didn't say coronavirus was a hoax. Why would anyone waste their time on an endeavour like that?
Explain why anyone would want to go through this process?:
First video is pretty tastyspleen-forums-esque in proving a point(the real life version of "owning" someone in an e-argument). But, the "fake news" is clearly an issue. So much that you have people defending trump that don't even like him.
First video is pretty tastyspleen-forums-esque in proving a point(the real life version of "owning" someone in an e-argument).
I'm not really sure what point the video was trying to make. People have commended Tump's actions regarding Covid-19, and some of them have done it on camera? They don't even list the name of the last guy in the video - who is he? why is what he says relevant? The quote from NY's Cuomo wasn't given a date - when did he say that? Same with California's governor.
You really can't figure out the point behind the video? That seems incredibly hard to believe.
When I described that as I did, I meant that it was humorous that he laid everything out power point style. People have commended him yes, but the press has been relentlessly and unfairly attacking him for it. There are so many examples that I HOPE we don't have to discuss them...... Right?
It looks like the left blew it big time with this pandemic(politically, both democrats and media). They've been wrong about everything or taken the wrong side/stance-- hydroxychloroquine bias, not pointing out the blatant lies of WHO/China, ignoring the fact that the models have been drastically off for covid-19's impact on the US, etc. They're the ones that tried to use it to their advantage the most, too. The right will come out as the "winners" but not credited to any victory, instead to the left losing superbly.
It relates to what I pointed out above. Very often trump would look worse if the left just kept their mouths shut and/or just reported the news in the media's case. Instead they insist on painting the picture far worse than what it really is and it consistently backfires on them.
--
Reading your newest post now. Fauci dismissed the claims of trump not acting swiftly to his advice today in the video I posted. He actually stated trump has done the complete opposite and has acted very fast to recommendations of mitigation from him and birx.
Additionally, trump dismissed the rumor of firing fauci as "ridiculous" and untrue.
I think it's wrong to assume any of us would even have a stance on it given the reality of it.
... Fauci did an interview in the past few days (I don't recall which news outlet), and in that interview he commented that lives would have been saved if action had been taken sooner. I presume that there was some sort of implication that Trump didn't act as swiftly as Fauci, or the CDC, or otherwise relevant experts had advised him to, and that directly lead to some increase in the impact Covid-19 has had on the country.
He DIRECTLY and explicitly addressed that in the 2nd video. I'm thinking you must not have watched it. Were you afraid that it wouldn't confirm your position and thus wasn't worth a look?
First woman - she stresses "right now". Also, who is she? why is what she says relevant? If Trump is going to have someone make a video he can present as some sort of argument that the press has been unfair to him (is that what this is partially supposed to do?), why not include such obviously pertinent details (at least who the woman is). How hard would it be to overlay her name? What bout Hannity on Jan 27th? Is the significance of his inclusion there him asking the question "What if it is worse?" Worse where? When? There's zero context here. What was discussed immediately prior to that comment? Should US officials get involved... where? in China? There's no context for what he's asking there. I guess Trump felt obligated to find something to try to make Hannity look good regarding his earlier comments about this thing.
Seriously, watch this video if you haven't already. Fox News is essentially Trump's propaganda outlet/mouthpiece. The video Trump shared at the press conference included Hannity saying something (without context) on January 27th. Fast forward, and take into account all the gained knowledge a month and a half later regarding Covid-19, and watch Hannity echoing Trump's talking points then, and then when Trump's tone changes in the coming days (declaring a national emergency on the 13th) how Hannity then falls in line. It's so ridiculously transparent if you pause for a moment to actually look:
Later, "President Trump orders free telehealth screenings" - This is for medicare recipients only, and how are they going to diagnose, conclusively, Covid-19 via a web chat? You have to be tested.
Later, "He was accused of making a racist move" - They show Pelosi, but quote The Hill. Which was it? Was it The Hill quoting Pelosi? Was it not Pelosi at all and this is an attack against her? On that day Trump expanded travel restrictions to mostly African countries. Pelosi didn't (not that I can find) call the move (to restrict incoming flights from China in an effort to control the spread of Covid-19) racist. This is propaganda and totally dishonest.
"NYT's Haberman hits Trump over 'misleading' audio on her coronavirus reporting"
"Their use of the audio is misleading," Haberman tweeted. "I went on to say I said he treated that travel limitation as a Mission Accomplished moment."
"And then he did basically nothing for over a month. Which was our story yesterday," she added in another tweet.
Again, no date for when Cuomo commended Trump's team (not Trump, yet Trump is taking credit of course). No date for CA governor's comments either.
Ron DeSantis (governor of my state) is a Trump bootlicker, essentially. Nothing remotely significant about him saying nice things about Trump. His comments are super generic too, "The President has been outstanding".
New Jersey governor asks Trump if his state can have access to a portion of the beds on the ship docked off the coast there, and Trump says yes - wow! Trump is so merciful to not deny the citizens of the state of NJ beds on that ship despite the governor being a Democrat!
Then Arizona's governor, who campaigned with/for Trump during Trump's election, has gracious things to say about Trump. Wow, shocker!
Again, who is the last guy?
Haunted, with a minimal amount of effort, it's very easy to see how weak this video is in an attempt to show... I'm still not exactly sure what it's trying to say. Maybe it's just doing such a poor job of conveying some sort of message, and that's why I don't see it.
it's very easy to see how weak this video is in an attempt to show... I'm still not exactly sure what it's trying to say. Maybe it's just doing such a poor job of conveying some sort of message, and that's why I don't see it.
Let's try a thought experiment:
Imagine someone presents you with a contract stipulating they'll pay you $10,000 in exchange for you merely being able to accurately gauge the intent of the video in question.
That is the process one must go through for you to even admit that you halfway UNDERSTAND the INTENT behind a video. NOT agree with it, but just acknowledge their intent.
When you're being like that why would ANYONE waste their time trying to convince you of something? Jesus Christ. You should be thanking everyone for the patience one must possess to even have a discussion with you, so don't be surprised when someone doesn't want to play that game.
I see that you did not provide a source, well if that isn't damning evidence I don't know what is. I'd elaborate more, but I don't want to miss fox and friends.
Punk. The Washington Post is far left. This is WELL KNOWN. The NY Post is relatively neutral compared to NYT or WaPo, but I'd say slightly left leaning. Daily Mail is slightly right leaning. Reddit News might as well be the communist manifesto (slight exaggeration for humor). You'd actually have to follow these outlets to know.
"fact check" sites are a joke. factcheck.org and politifact are significantly left leaning. I'm very familiar with these sites and that's why I know.
just reinforces my impression - you failed to demonstrate that you have any understanding of what safeguards are currently in place, and what it would take to circumvent them. Why can't you just admit that you don't know?
You know why. It's because I'm a stubborn ignorant Republican. It's obvious, you got me.
"Thousands of speeding tickets are proof that the system works, because those were the only speeders."
"No, those are just the only ones that got caught. "
"SOURCE???"
Add that with constantly assuming I'm some feeble-minded republican establishment lover(to gain the upper hand in a virtually MEANINGLESS e-debate) and you have the haunted-punk rinse and repeat.
A big at comparing the nation with the most lax voter laws to prison fortifications. First, the analogy is off because mail-in voting is not our standard procedure. Second, your initial point is based on the system working and catching people every time which is a main talking point in every recent left-leaning article(I'll remind you, that the left did not have this view until recently. Democrats used to favor in-person voting > all methods).
"What about fortifying the process?"--Are you suggesting to make this election, anticipated to be the most controversial election in history, a trial run/learning process for this opposed to say... something smaller and not the general election for president?
Quote
I'm under the impression you're not well versed on all the ways they can catch people attempting to cheat this process. Can you list in detail many of the safeguards in place to prevent what you say is inevitable from happening?
Sure I'll get right on that. Can you please fuck off first?
Assuming I'm ignorant to our process for catching people cheating the system is weak. That's some snide shit right out of the liberal superiority handbook. I've read ALL the recent left articles just like you. I didn't buy it hook line and sinker line you did, but yes I am well versed in the current liberal narrative. Again I'll remind you that they only recently adopted ALL of these views, much of which is contrary to their previously held views. If they had a big (R) next to their name you'd be salivating at the chance to shame them for flip-flopping. I don't see anyone else here that agrees with you over mail-in voting either, so do you get the "impression" that they're ignorant too or just my ignorant, simple, trump-loving ass?
You are implying that we catch nearly all of the cases of fraud and the system works. Look at my examples. Everyone that was caught was cheated with a STUPID amount of ballots. In several examples from different cases, the person literally bundled hundreds of ballots together in the same mailbox. If we can't catch something like that then we're completely hopeless. Since you're whole counterpoint is that you believe that we catch just about everything, let's use your prison analogy: tell me, is everyone that's ever committed a crime IN prison?, or just the ones that were stupid enough to get caught? I'll go ahead and state the obvious that the VAST majority of crimes go unpunished:
A study by the FBI shows there's a 40% chance you'll get away with murder. Is it harder to get away with voter fraud in the nation with the least strict voting laws, or murder? If you buy into the lefty narrative, then of course the system works and successfully catches most of everyone. But id wager it's around a thousand times easier to get away with voter fraud. They only catch the ones dumb enough to BUNDLE hundreds of ballots together ALL with the same fucking witnesses signed
Left or right, increasing fraud potential just because you think it'll benefit you is NOT right.
I mean you have to think it's a bit odd, right? The narrative and the thoughts on which party absentee ballots favor both pulled a 180. If Republicans changed their stance on it and pushed for a more fraud prone method I'd call them out. Not loyal to them anyway at all.
It's not just comparing it to absentee like I've been doing. It's comparing those fraud examples and seeing that those exact ways would be far easier. I remember you said you'd be ok with it being an option and not everyone has to vote by mail. It's nowhere close to as bad as what's suggested when you word it like that. Absentee you have to fill out an application. The postal vote that's being suggested is sending them to everyone. People who have moved recently, People with more than 1 address, those who don't even vote, and sending to deceased would facilitate the most common types of fraud in the examples posted here. Also, they might say it's an "option" but they'll still send them to everyone. It's the rollout that's particularly troublesome.
I understand more people voting is never a bad thing, but given the circumstances the answer to this question should be clear: does postal voting bring us closer to democracy or further from it?
Democrats knew about her doing this, and warned her several times to stop pre-marking ballots. Kinda funny. I feel like if you know about it why would it escalate any more? Just so you can say "Well, we told her to stop.".
If postal voting is implemented due to covid-19 impacts it's going to be one of the biggest scams of our lifetime.
UNC snagged their 3rd 5 star on defense(#1 CB nationally in his class, #7 overall). I know that's somewhat standard for Florida and Georgia, but things are certainly changing in chapel hill.
Show Posts
