January 6, 2021 is well known. There are numerous examples leading up to, on the day, the years after, and even the first weeks of 2.0 - all interconnected - all anti-democratic.
"NoKings" is one identity for the resistance to autocratic tendencies and the backslide of democracy seen globally. We does not need to be so literal, step back to see the full picture.
Go rewatch the rally, there are plentiful anti-democratic statements.
Then watch the riot and explain to us how more than 100 officers were injured and why the people who did that deserved pardons, please, I am curious for the current justifications on the hard right
interesting justifications or absolvement... is this a reframing of the planted FBI conspiracy theory?
Are you saying those people who Trump pardoned, he did not call "his people" or "true patriots"? Are you objecting to the video evidence of the crimes committed by those same people on an individual basis?
Have you looked at any of these cases yourself (done your own research)?
Are you open to considering that anti-democratic statements were made by the people on stage at the rally?
You raised the issue of J6 and implied Trump's culpability for the actions of others. If you have proof he committed a criminal act, bring it. I am simply saying you did not present any in your prior statement.
A lot of illegal things happened that day. The rule of law applies. A lot of people are still in jail related to their activities on J6, patriots and otherwise.
Since I can predict what your next point will be: The intended scope of the J6 pardons was to be those wrongly prosecuted under the Biden DoJ's on-the-fly rewrite of 18 USC 1512 (which SCOTUS agreed was an improper interpretation) or those denied habeas corpus. Some mistakes were made and there's a handful of people that received pardons when they should still be in jail. That is not ok.
> Since I can predict what your next point will be
I didn't have to write this, but awaited your predictable response and you delivered exceptionally well. You are of the group of people caught up in divisive partisan politics. If someone is not on your team you cast them into your projected enemy identities. You forget there are millions and millions of people, more than either side, that can clearly see the abuses and law breaking by both sides.
Can you acknowledge any abuses of the law by Trump? Do you believe all leaders are doing this or do you make exception for your guy? Can you recognize that he started a new forever war for his own legacy and now we are all paying the price at the pump, the grocery store, and in our national reputation?
> You raised the issue of J6 and implied Trump's culpability
I did not imply it, I let you imply it because that is the predictable nature of people who make the arguments you have about January 6, 2021, even down to the J6 abbreviation, which is only used by a select group of people who say all the same things.
The rest of the world sees things clearly. The "J6" deniers cannot due to their biases. To acknowledge reality would be to acknowledge you have been lied to and manipulated by the people you revere. I understand this is emotionally difficult. The rest of us are here to support you when you are ready.
How about the part where he was pushing Pence to certify the "alternate electors" instead of the real ones? There's a reason some of the protesters were chanting "hang Mike Pence", and it's not because they disliked his haircut.
Returning votes to a state to check in with the state and see _IF_ they want to substitute a different slate of electors was a perfectly legal action at the time. They created a new act in 2022 to make that illegal called "Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022".
Are you implying some kind of collective punishment that Trump is somehow responsible for what everyone of a certain political alignment says?
Are you claiming that seven Republican state chairs decided to send "alternate electors" to DC, even though they lost all the relevant recounts and court cases, without at least Trump's approval? I can't prove you're wrong, but I don't buy it.
What I can say with certainty is that, when Trump pressured Pence to certify the alternate electors in spite of losing the recounts and court cases, that's not legal, and that's on Trump.
No. I'm saying until 2022, the legal and legitimate role of The Senate has always been to decide if questions or anomalies exist and re-query any or all of the several states.
I would point out, encouraging someone to perform a perfectly legal act itself is a perfectly legal act. You might not like it, but it's not illegal.
> legal and legitimate role of The Senate has always been to decide if questions or anomalies exist and re-query any or all of the several states
This is the theory of a few crackpot lawyers and is patently false. That is why Mike Pence did not go along with it, he listened to qualified lawyers and his son. This is more of the manipulation you have been under by the people you revere.
Welp, gonna piss everyone off. Child access to the internet is a parent problem, not an ISP problem. And if someone doesn't have documents to prove their identity, it's the result of either not attaining or not affirming their legal status within their locality.
And what, even if they don't have documents through full fault of their own, they shouldn't be able to access information and means of communication?
And assuming everyone you care about is able to get documents, do you think they shouldn't be allowed to access information or means of communication anonymously?
The argument about people who can't prove their identity is a distraction. The argument should be why are we requiring anyone to do that in the first place?
Ah, but you see, free speech is a far right dog whistle. Only fascists have ever cared about free speech, so censorship - run by the British Government - is a good thing, don'tcherknow.
Well, the way Labour have been going recently, maybe it is a far right dog whistle; they're the buggers barking at it...
(Those downvotes...) I was being sarcastic about free speech being a far right dogwhistle. That's what New Labour's bigwigs seem to think, about from Clive Lewis who is a very principled man. And he's like the only one who is not white. Or a Lord. Mayor Khan is a bit of a nuanced quality because he would think that after the Islamophobic abuse he got from that vile Elon. But Tom Watson MP, who used to be a privacy and free speech campaigner, knows better. He's just gone to work with Palantir. The Guardian, the champions of Snowden, have been calling for even more of this surveillance. They got a £50k donation from Meta recently. God, it's embarrassing being British. Polanski's the only party leader to speak out against this. It is quite refreshing.
The fact is, Yoti and these other companies are British big tech, and the argument over free speech vs. censorship is really just US and British big tech trying to compete in the surveillance capitalism space.
Finding the holes in your specs under automation: time spent is returned 10x
Writing code: Human 15 lines per minute. LLM: 600+ lines per minute
Functional Validation: same time per iteration. Fewer bugs with LLM when properly specified => fewer iterations. Increased awareness of LLM escaping specification boundaries feeds back into increasing quality of spec writing => fewer bugs.
reply