2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: macsak on May 15, 2025, 03:39:34 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-B0fr9XtK4
-
Yeah, I don't think it's plausible that the former Director of the FBI has no clue what the term "86" means.
He deleted the post and apologized, but the fact that he posted it at all is a problem for him.
He's been a partisan hack his whole career. Nobody should be surprised at this.
-
He now claims that he "found" the numbers on the beach and didn't know what they meant.
TBH, 86 means to kick out. Had it said 187, then that's a diff story.
So he's doing nothing different by him wanting Trump removed from office than he was doing with the Russia Hoax.
-
This doesn't meet muster for a criminal charge, not even close. I doubt this will go anywhere
-
This doesn't meet muster for a criminal charge, not even close. I doubt this will go anywhere
Neither did anything they charged Trump with, so in the spirit of fairness and objectivity…
-
This doesn't meet muster for a criminal charge, not even close. I doubt this will go anywhere
Comey should stay off social media if he's stupidly posting things he doesn't know the meaning of. That's giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's not the one who arranged the shells -- a more plausible explanation than finding it on a walk.
Investigating Comey shows that our new DHS is serious about even the slightest threat against President Trump, as they should be. Given the close calls he's had, all potential POTUS threats should be investigated no matter the chances of it "going anywhere."
It only takes one whacko to try again. Posts like this encourages them.
-
Neither did anything they charged Trump with, so in the spirit of fairness and objectivity…
Except the 2 arrests and 34 convictions so...... (No I am not saying those were good cases)
-
Except the 2 arrests and 34 convictions so...... (No I am not saying those were good cases)
2 arrests? He was arrested 4 times. He was charged with 88 felony counts, including the 34 you mentioned.
Do you even know how a web search works?
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-investigations-other-charges-b8b064a00caad4306fb54d2f6a320468
https://people.com/donald-trump-every-criminal-charge-explained-7567024
-
Comey should stay off social media if he's stupidly posting things he doesn't know the meaning of. That's giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's not the one who arranged the shells -- a more plausible explanation than finding it on a walk.
Investigating Comey shows that our new DHS is serious about even the slightest threat against President Trump, as they should be. Given the close calls he's had, all potential POTUS threats should be investigated no matter the chances of it "going anywhere."
It only takes one whacko to try again. Posts like this encourages them.
Trump should stay off social media instead of stupidly posting things as well but here we are.
Even if law enforcement could prove he arranged the shells it would still fall well within protected speech.
Not saying it was healthy speech or even very clever speech but it is protected speech. Is it enough to justify an investigation? Not by itself but could be part of justification if there was something else.
-
Trump should stay off social media instead of stupidly posting things as well but here we are.
Even if law enforcement could prove he arranged the shells it would still fall well within protected speech.
Not saying it was healthy speech or even very clever speech but it is protected speech. Is it enough to justify an investigation? Not by itself but could be part of justification if there was something else.
In other words, you're blaming Trump's mean words for assassins trying to kill him?
That's awfully objective of you.
Protected speech has exceptions, such as inciting violence. Comey knows what he did.
-
If they can throw grannies in solitary for taking photos at the capitol, then Comey can face charges as well
-
Trump should stay off social media instead of stupidly posting things as well but here we are.
Even if law enforcement could prove he arranged the shells it would still fall well within protected speech.
Not saying it was healthy speech or even very clever speech but it is protected speech. Is it enough to justify an investigation? Not by itself but could be part of justification if there was something else.
So Trump should limit his speech and Comey is free to express himself. Too much TDS in your eye
-
The left showed that someone (Trump) can be charged, arrested, focused on for any little thing. So what happens to Comey is no different. They set the precedent.
-
So Trump should limit his speech and Comey is free to express himself. Too much TDS in your eye
He's quick to call out whataboutisms against everyone else here, but he believes his use of them constitutes an objective opinion.
-
Now that they are investigating him, imagine all the other stuff they could find in the process.
I thought intelligence officials were supposed to be intelligent. Apparently some of them are just political hacks.
https://www.kunstler.com/p/cool
-
lul
comey knew that "86" meant to kill someone...
https://youtu.be/QypMMSobtTg?si=anPaBX3tpi6MqB3k&t=120
-
2 arrests? He was arrested 4 times. He was charged with 88 felony counts, including the 34 you mentioned.
Do you even know how a web search works?
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-investigations-other-charges-b8b064a00caad4306fb54d2f6a320468
https://people.com/donald-trump-every-criminal-charge-explained-7567024
Touche
-
In other words, you're blaming Trump's mean words for assassins trying to kill him?
That's awfully objective of you.
Protected speech has exceptions, such as inciting violence. Comey knows what he did.
I have no idea how even you could have derived that conclusion from my statement as it is completely devoid of any such comment.
Saying "Remove Trump" in code or in plain English would not be enough to establish incitement to violence given the common meaning of "86" to be removing someone from an establishment.
-
Touche
you misspelled "i was wrong"...
-
lul
comey knew that "86" meant to kill someone...
https://youtu.be/QypMMSobtTg?si=anPaBX3tpi6MqB3k&t=120
Ha. I knew Tulsi was on to something.
My natural instinct was to treat it like free speech
But then I remembered this is war, and what they will do to us if they are ever able to take power again
-
FOCUS
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=56714.msg502301#msg502301
I have no idea how even you could have derived that conclusion from my statement as it is completely devoid of any such comment.
Saying "Remove Trump" in code or in plain English would not be enough to establish incitement to violence given the common meaning of "86" to be removing someone from an establishment.
-
Touche
I don't think you know what that means.
-
So Trump should limit his speech and Comey is free to express himself. Too much TDS in your eye
I never said Trump can't or shouldn't say anything akin to what Comey said.
You also conflate "should" and "legal" . Lots of things shouldn't be said but are legal to say.
-
you misspelled "i was wrong"...
U beat me to it.
-
I never said Trump can't or shouldn't say anything akin to what Comey said.
You also conflate "should" and "legal" . Lots of things shouldn't be said but are legal to say.
Maybe Comey was talking about Trump invading Panama as an act of war.
-
FOCUS
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=56714.msg502301#msg502301
FOCUS
Are you claiming that "86" does not mean to remove someone from an establishment?
-
please show me where i said that...
FOCUS
Are you claiming that "86" does not mean to remove someone from an establishment?
-
Maybe Comey was talking about Trump invading Panama as an act of war.
Show me where I said that. (You can't) :stopjack:
-
Show me where I said that. (You can't) :stopjack:
I think you’re permanently stuck on step one, which annoys the rest of us who have moved on long ago
(https://memeguy.com/photos/images/the-grieving-process-315795.jpg)
-
please show me where i said that...
I didn't say you said that. I said what "86" commonly means and you post a video saying Comey knew that 86 meant violence as if it were a rebuttal. Maybe what you don't realize is that threats have to be clear and specific. What that means is that if a term or phrase has multiple different meanings then it becomes difficult/impossible to prove the person meant the violent meaning instead of the non-violent meaning. Because of the term having multiple meanings, a prosecution of Comey for this would have to prove that Comey meant the violent meaning as opposed to the non-violent meaning, not merely that Comey knew or should have known the word could be interpreted as a threat.
The most simplest example would be if you scratched my car and I said "You will be sorry!" in an angry voice that could be interpreted as a threat of assault but I could have said it meaning I would sue you. To be a threat the statement cannot be ambiguous.
-
FOCUS
Are you claiming that "86" does not mean to remove someone from an establishment?
If there are several common meanings for a phrase, it's up to the reader/listener to interpret it, and it's up to the writer/speaker to know their audience and how they might take the words in or out of context.
That's why it's important for highly visible public figures to choose their words and images carefully. it doesn't matter what comey says he intended or didn't intend. It's about how someone else will interpret his post.
Remember the uproar the Democrats raised when Sarah Palin used a crosshair image saying they needed to target certain candidates? The Left went crazy saying she was inciting violence. Her ads were also blamed by many for inciting the public assassination attempt of Rep. Gabby Giffords.
We do not yet know what prompted 22-year-old accused gunman
Jared Loughner to allegedly shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.)
and others, including a child and federal judge who died from their
wounds.
But critics of Sarah Palin have already drawn a link between the
shooting and the fact that the former Alaska governor put Giffords
on a "target list"of lawmakers Palin wanted to see unseated in the
midterm elections.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-palin-criticized-over-gabrielle-giffords-presence-on-target-list/
Same exact thing -- intentional or not. After the Palin ad situation, Comey knew better. He chose to post it anyway.
-
I think you’re permanently stuck on step one, which annoys the rest of us who have moved on long ago
(https://memeguy.com/photos/images/the-grieving-process-315795.jpg)
Wrong, but funny meme.
-
Wrong
That’s what someone in denial would say
-
Doesn't matter if he found it, set it up,or it fell out of the sky. HE POSTED IT!!! It could be a trigger for some nutcase to try to harm the president. He knew what he was doing and now he is backing down...."I didn't know" He can back off now and hope he gets the results he wants.....another try on Trump!! ???
-
If there are several common meanings for a phrase, it's up to the reader/listener to interpret it, and it's up to the writer/speaker to know their audience and how they might take the words in or out of context.
That's why it's important for highly visible public figures to choose their words and images carefully. it doesn't matter what comey says he intended or didn't intend. It's about how someone else will interpret his post.
Remember the uproar the Democrats raised when Sarah Palin used a crosshair image saying they needed to target certain candidates? The Left went crazy saying she was inciting violence. Her ads were also blamed by many for inciting the public assassination attempt of Rep. Gabby Giffords.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-palin-criticized-over-gabrielle-giffords-presence-on-target-list/
Same exact thing -- intentional or not. After the Palin ad situation, Comey knew better. He chose to post it anyway.
From a public speaking role I agree but the issue here is whether it is criminal and that is measured with a different metric. Giffords' and Palin's statements were closer to the line than Comey's, in my opinion, and note that neither were prosecuted.
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2024/08/True-Threats-Guidance-3.pdf
-
that's not what you said
"Saying "Remove Trump" in code or in plain English would not be enough to establish incitement to violence given the common meaning of "86" to be removing someone from an establishment."
FOCUS
he never said that he was saying "remove trump"...
I didn't say you said that. I said what "86" commonly means and you post a video saying Comey knew that 86 meant violence as if it were a rebuttal. Maybe what you don't realize is that threats have to be clear and specific. What that means is that if a term or phrase has multiple different meanings then it becomes difficult/impossible to prove the person meant the violent meaning instead of the non-violent meaning. Because of the term having multiple meanings, a prosecution of Comey for this would have to prove that Comey meant the violent meaning as opposed to the non-violent meaning, not merely that Comey knew or should have known the word could be interpreted as a threat.
The most simplest example would be if you scratched my car and I said "You will be sorry!" in an angry voice that could be interpreted as a threat of assault but I could have said it meaning I would sue you. To be a threat the statement cannot be ambiguous.
-
That’s what someone in denial would say
(https://i.imgur.com/Kg9vhyb.gif)
-
well said, officer...
you might want to consider that we are not only thinking it was a threat of violence
objectively speaking, of course...
I didn't say you said that. I said what "86" commonly means and you post a video saying Comey knew that 86 meant violence as if it were a rebuttal. Maybe what you don't realize is that threats have to be clear and specific. What that means is that if a term or phrase has multiple different meanings then it becomes difficult/impossible to prove the person meant the violent meaning instead of the non-violent meaning. Because of the term having multiple meanings, a prosecution of Comey for this would have to prove that Comey meant the violent meaning as opposed to the non-violent meaning, not merely that Comey knew or should have known the word could be interpreted as a threat.
The most simplest example would be if you scratched my car and I said "You will be sorry!" in an angry voice that could be interpreted as a threat of assault but I could have said it meaning I would sue you. To be a threat the statement cannot be ambiguous.
-
that's not what you said
"Saying "Remove Trump" in code or in plain English would not be enough to establish incitement to violence given the common meaning of "86" to be removing someone from an establishment."
FOCUS
he never said that he was saying "remove trump"...
I know he didn't say "remove Trump", I didn't claim he did. The point was to illustrate that it matters not whether the message was in code or not, the message remove Trump is protected speech.
-
well said, officer...
you might want to consider that we are not only thinking it was a threat of violence
objectively speaking, of course...
Given the fact you chose the title "Comey belongs in jail, DNI Tulsi Gabbard says" it would seem you clearly meant this in the criminal context.
If you meant it in a moral or ethical context then I suggest indicating such. My comment was clearly about the legal aspect so making some sort of moral or ethical rebuttal isn't really relevant.
-
you really suck at details for someone who is supposed to be solving crimes, 5-0
i didn't choose the title, i cut-and-pasted the title of the youtube video
FOCUS...
Given the fact you chose the title "Comey belongs in jail, DNI Tulsi Gabbard says" it would seem you clearly meant this in the criminal context.
If you meant it in a moral or ethical context then I suggest indicating such. My comment was clearly about the legal aspect so making some sort of moral or ethical rebuttal isn't really relevant.
-
Given the fact you chose the title "Comey belongs in jail, DNI Tulsi Gabbard says" it would seem you clearly meant this in the criminal context.
If you meant it in a moral or ethical context then I suggest indicating such. My comment was clearly about the legal aspect so making some sort of moral or ethical rebuttal isn't really relevant.
He chose that title because it was the title of the OP video.
He was reporting what was on YT. it would seem he clearly had no intention of claiming that is his opinion.
Get a grip.
-
then why didn't you just say that then?
for someone that always claims to be providing clarity, you kinda suck at it...
I know he didn't say "remove Trump", I didn't claim he did. The point was to illustrate that it matters not whether the message was in code or not, the message remove Trump is protected speech.
-
then why didn't you just say that then?
for someone that always claims to be providing clarity, you kinda suck at it...
He didn't say this from the get go because he didn't mean it. He found a way to wiggle out of being wrong again.
I didn't look at this thread for a little bit and it just began page 2. Then when I came back, it's on page 3. I had a feeling why it was on page 3 and i was right. EEF arguing again.
So now EEF claims that 86 can have other meanings. Does this mean that other things can mean "MS-13"? lol. Once again, failure to admit facts causes him to be wrong cause he forgot about it.
-
you really suck at details for someone who is supposed to be solving crimes, 5-0
i didn't choose the title, i cut-and-pasted the title of the youtube video
FOCUS...
Doesn't change the fact the context was clearly regarding the criminality. "but I didn't write it" is a red herring.
-
then why didn't you just say that then?
for someone that always claims to be providing clarity, you kinda suck at it...
You need to reread it again because it was quite clear.
I said:
Saying "Remove Trump" in code or in plain English would not be enough....
-
He didn't say this from the get go because he didn't mean it. He found a way to wiggle out of being wrong again.
I didn't look at this thread for a little bit and it just began page 2. Then when I came back, it's on page 3. I had a feeling why it was on page 3 and i was right. EEF arguing again.
So now EEF claims that 86 can have other meanings. Does this mean that other things can mean "MS-13"? lol. Once again, failure to admit facts causes him to be wrong cause he forgot about it.
You are delusional. I never said 86 couldn't have any other meanings, you are claiming a position change that doesn't exist.
-
You are delusional. I never said 86 couldn't have any other meanings, you are claiming a position change that doesn't exist.
Did you not read what I posted?
"So now EEF claims that 86 can have other meanings."
You're stating what I already stated. It's hard to keep up when you go by feelings.
-
Did you not read what I posted?
"So now EEF claims that 86 can have other meanings."
You're stating what I already stated. It's hard to keep up when you go by feelings.
it's simple. Just because certain words or images can sometimes mean something other than a threat doesn't give you the right to use those threatening words.
It's like pointing an empty gun in my direction. I don't know what your intentions are, and you're not elaborating. That's a threat no matter the details, context or nuance.
-
which is it "clearly" or "it would seem"?
either way, it's an assumption it was about criminality
assuming is not "objective" or "clarity"
Doesn't change the fact the context was clearly regarding the criminality. "but I didn't write it" is a red herring.
-
On that same note about threats to POTUS, Ed Krassenstein posted the same numerical message.
He was warned by a user named Jason that the Secret Service would be visiting him, to which the poster's brother, Brian, replied, "Fun Fact: No they aren't."
Brian's next post was, "The Trump admin just sent the Secret Service to @edkrassen's home ..."
LOL!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
For their next trick, the Krassensteins will tell hijacking and bomb jokes while in the TSA screening area. :geekdanc:
https://youtu.be/V3qBQeFLm1s
-
which is it "clearly" or "it would seem"?
either way, it's an assumption it was about criminality
assuming is not "objective" or "clarity"
It is fine to talk about the ethical issues, I am not claiming otherwise but don't jump on my back because I focused on the criminal question when the context of the title was criminal. On that note, how is "jail" supposed to not be about criminality? Oh oh, maybe Tulsi meant Facebook jail? :crazy:
-
it's simple. Just because certain words or images can sometimes mean something other than a threat doesn't give you the right to use those threatening words.
It's like pointing an empty gun in my direction. I don't know what your intentions are, and you're not elaborating. That's a threat no matter the details, context or nuance.
86 is commonly and widely understood to mean remove from an establishment. 86 as a meaning of kill is a much more obscure and not widely known meaning.
This is not an issue of "can sometimes mean", you are trying to flip the circumstances to make it sound more like a threat.
There are 8647 hats already going up for sale. Maybe in the next few months you can show me a bunch of people getting thrown in jail for reposting or wearing 8647 and prove me wrong.
-
86 is commonly and widely understood to mean remove from an establishment. 86 as a meaning of kill is a much more obscure and not widely known meaning.
This is not an issue of "can sometimes mean", you are trying to flip the circumstances to make it sound more like a threat.
There are 8647 hats already going up for sale. Maybe in the next few months you can show me a bunch of people getting thrown in jail for reposting or wearing 8647 and prove me wrong.
Comey was the top law enforcement officer in the nation. He joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, where he worked from 1987 to 1993. While there, he was Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division and helped prosecute the Gambino crime family. In case you are unaware, that was a mob situation in which people were often murdered -- i.e. 86'ed.
He had a very long career in NY State and Federal justice jobs.
It's completely dishonest to say he had no idea what the "86" referred to. That's made perfectly clear during his recent apology for posting the image. This was not a share of someone else's post. It was his picture he staged, took and posted.
Unknowns can wear hats all they want -- that's free speech. But a prominent and well-known former FBI director who was at the forefront of the Russia Collusion hoax and who tried to get Trump out of office beginning before the inauguration carries much more serious weight.
People who grab headlines have more responsibility in making sure they aren't crossing a line when they choose to make political posts. They reach and influence far more people than you or I ever will.
-
once again
tulsi said it in the title of the video, which i quoted
i said nothing about jail or ethical, YOU did
FOCUS...
It is fine to talk about the ethical issues, I am not claiming otherwise but don't jump on my back because I focused on the criminal question when the context of the title was criminal. On that note, how is "jail" supposed to not be about criminality? Oh oh, maybe Tulsi meant Facebook jail? :crazy:
-
Comey was the top law enforcement officer in the nation. He joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, where he worked from 1987 to 1993. While there, he was Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division and helped prosecute the Gambino crime family. In case you are unaware, that was a mob situation in which people were often murdered -- i.e. 86'ed.
He had a very long career in NY State and Federal justice jobs.
It's completely dishonest to say he had no idea what the "86" referred to. That's made perfectly clear during his recent apology for posting the image. This was not a share of someone else's post. It was his picture he staged, took and posted.
Unknowns can wear hats all they want -- that's free speech. But a prominent and well-known former FBI director who was at the forefront of the Russia Collusion hoax and who tried to get Trump out of office beginning before the inauguration carries much more serious weight.
People who grab headlines have more responsibility in making sure they aren't crossing a line when they choose to make political posts. They reach and influence far more people than you or I ever will.
Whether Comey liked or even just forgot, given the background the argument can certainly be made that Comey "should have known" that 86 also meant to kill, I am not disputing that. My point is that the ambiguity of the term 86, along with the fact that 86 is more widely known as to remove someone than to kill someone, it has trouble meeting the levels of a criminal threat. On top of that, the fact he shared the picture is again does not meet the test of a criminal threat, it would need to be proven he created the message. If a journalist took a photo of a call to violence graffiti and put it in the newspaper, that is protected speech. For those two reasons, this would not pass the test for a criminal charge.
If you want to wag your finger at Comey from a moral/ethical standpoint I have no issues with that, it isn't professional behavior. The fact that Trump would complain about a lack of professional behavior is quite rich but that's another topic.
-
once again
tulsi said it in the title of the video, which i quoted
i said nothing about jail or ethical, YOU did
FOCUS...
So why are you making an issue of it that I am talking about the criminal aspect?
The irony here is a bit funny though give that the story is about Comey supposedly just posting an image of what someone else created but you are telling me you just copied the headline someone else wrote so it's not your message. :thumbsup:
-
focus, dumbass
i am not making an issue about you talking about the criminal aspect
i am making an issue about you putting words in my mouth and saying i am talking about the criminal issue
i hope you don't do that to suspects when you are on the job...
\
So why are you making an issue of it that I am talking about the criminal aspect?
The irony here is a bit funny though give that the story is about Comey supposedly just posting an image of what someone else created but you are telling me you just copied the headline someone else wrote so it's not your message. :thumbsup:
-
why do you keep mansplaining that point?
do you think you are the only one that realizes this?
this goes WAY beyond "adding nuance"...
Whether Comey liked or even just forgot, given the background the argument can certainly be made that Comey "should have known" that 86 also meant to kill, I am not disputing that. My point is that the ambiguity of the term 86, along with the fact that 86 is more widely known as to remove someone than to kill someone, it has trouble meeting the levels of a criminal threat. On top of that, the fact he shared the picture is again does not meet the test of a criminal threat, it would need to be proven he created the message. If a journalist took a photo of a call to violence graffiti and put it in the newspaper, that is protected speech. For those two reasons, this would not pass the test for a criminal charge.
If you want to wag your finger at Comey from a moral/ethical standpoint I have no issues with that, it isn't professional behavior. The fact that Trump would complain about a lack of professional behavior is quite rich but that's another topic.
-
but but but but but but TRUMP!
Whether Comey liked or even just forgot, given the background the argument can certainly be made that Comey "should have known" that 86 also meant to kill, I am not disputing that. My point is that the ambiguity of the term 86, along with the fact that 86 is more widely known as to remove someone than to kill someone, it has trouble meeting the levels of a criminal threat. On top of that, the fact he shared the picture is again does not meet the test of a criminal threat, it would need to be proven he created the message. If a journalist took a photo of a call to violence graffiti and put it in the newspaper, that is protected speech. For those two reasons, this would not pass the test for a criminal charge.
If you want to wag your finger at Comey from a moral/ethical standpoint I have no issues with that, it isn't professional behavior. The fact that Trump would complain about a lack of professional behavior is quite rich but that's another topic.
-
So why are you making an issue of it that I am talking about the criminal aspect?
The irony here is a bit funny though give that the story is about Comey supposedly just posting an image of what someone else created but you are telling me you just copied the headline someone else wrote so it's not your message. :thumbsup:
You're an idiot if you think Comey innocently encountered the seashell message on a beach walk and decided to post a picture of it.
The man has shown his disdain for Trump since the 2016 election, and it only got worse throughout the Russia collusion hoax he supervised and until Trump fired him in May 2017.
-
Whether Comey liked or even just forgot, given the background the argument can certainly be made that Comey "should have known" that 86 also meant to kill, I am not disputing that. My point is that the ambiguity of the term 86, along with the fact that 86 is more widely known as to remove someone than to kill someone, it has trouble meeting the levels of a criminal threat. On top of that, the fact he shared the picture is again does not meet the test of a criminal threat, it would need to be proven he created the message. If a journalist took a photo of a call to violence graffiti and put it in the newspaper, that is protected speech. For those two reasons, this would not pass the test for a criminal charge.
If you want to wag your finger at Comey from a moral/ethical standpoint I have no issues with that, it isn't professional behavior. The fact that Trump would complain about a lack of professional behavior is quite rich but that's another topic.
Wow. Someone really doesn't want to admit that they're wrong again. I mean, it's not surprising.
-
https://youtu.be/nWI2_7dzmno
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scLIzXybEpE
-
Wow. Someone really doesn't want to admit that they're wrong again. I mean, it's not surprising.
Prove me wrong and I will admit I am wrong. I'll wait.
-
focus, dumbass
i am not making an issue about you talking about the criminal aspect
i am making an issue about you putting words in my mouth and saying i am talking about the criminal issue
i hope you don't do that to suspects when you are on the job...
\
You chose the title I replied within that context.
You later chided me, saying "you might want to consider that we are not only thinking it was a threat of violence"
We can talk about it criminally and we can talk about it ethically but don't bait and switch me with a criminal context and then ridiculing me from an ethical angle.
-
You chose the title I replied within that context.
You later chided me, saying "you might want to consider that we are not only thinking it was a threat of violence"
We can talk about it criminally and we can talk about it ethically but don't bait and switch me with a criminal context and then ridiculing me from an ethical angle.
Just wants to argue.
-
You're an idiot if you think Comey innocently encountered the seashell message on a beach walk and decided to post a picture of it.
The man has shown his disdain for Trump since the 2016 election, and it only got worse throughout the Russia collusion hoax he supervised and until Trump fired him in May 2017.
Nothing to do with the irony I was pointing out, I didn't say I believed Comey's story, I only posted what Comey's claim was.
-
Nothing to do with the irony I was pointing out, I didn't say I believed Comey's story, I only posted what Comey's claim was.
We can read what Comey claims. Why do you find it necessary to defend his actions before any trial, defense or even plea deal happens?
My point is that the ambiguity of the term 86, along with the fact that 86
is more widely known as to remove someone than to kill someone, it has
trouble meeting the levels of a criminal threat. On top of that, the fact he
shared the picture is again does not meet the test of a criminal threat, it
would need to be proven he created the message.
Arguing with hypothetical claims that nobody has made as of yet.
-
We can read what Comey claims. Why do you find it necessary to defend his actions before any trial, defense or even plea deal happens?
Arguing with hypothetical claims that nobody has made as of yet.
It isn't a defense of Comey, it is an explanation of why what he did wouldn't qualify as a crime as well as what would need to be proven in order to show he did commit a crime.
The fact that the term "86" has ambiguity to it is not a hypothetical, all my posts here are to illustrate how the line is drawn between a threat vs protected speech, the hypotheticals I included are to help you understand better.
-
It isn't a defense of Comey, it is an explanation of why what he did wouldn't qualify as a crime as well as what would need to be proven in order to show he did commit a crime.
The fact that the term "86" has ambiguity to it is not a hypothetical, all my posts here are to illustrate how the line is drawn between a threat vs protected speech, the hypotheticals I included are to help you understand better.
And Comey doesn't have a history of lying to the public whenever it suits him?
You love to ignore the obvious just to argue.
-
And Comey doesn't have a history of lying to the public whenever it suits him?
You love to ignore the obvious just to argue.
Strawman, my point has nothing to do with Comey's alleged dishonesty.
I noticed you have a tendency to present arguments I didn't make, trying to defeat them, and then act as if you bested me.
-
Strawman, my point has nothing to do with Comey's alleged dishonesty.
I noticed you have a tendency to present arguments I didn't make, trying to defeat them, and then act as if you bested me.
Why is it a straw man? Just because you want to deflect doesn't mean my comment isn't directly on point.
Did i say you think Comey is telling the truth? No. I said you are ignoring his dishonesty in the past which is a fact.
Stop labeling everything you don't want to face a straw man.
A straw man is a type of argument where someone misrepresents or exaggerates
another person's position to make it easier to attack or refute.
Show me where i misrepresented or exaggerated your argument. You ignoring his dishonesty in your rebuttals is fact, not misrepresentation.
-
Prove me wrong and I will admit I am wrong. I'll wait.
I already have. Re-read.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Why is it a straw man? Just because you want to deflect doesn't mean my comment isn't directly on point.
Did i say you think Comey is telling the truth? No. I said you are ignoring his dishonesty in the past which is a fact.
Stop labeling everything you don't want to face a straw man.
Show me where i misrepresented or exaggerated your argument. You ignoring his dishonesty in your rebuttals is fact, not misrepresentation.
It is a strawman because you said I was ignoring the obvious, you are attacking a position I never took.
His dishonesty isn't relevant, that is why I am not wasting time addressing it.
-
It is a strawman because you said I was ignoring the obvious, you are attacking a position I never took.
His dishonesty isn't relevant, that is why I am not wasting time addressing it.
So, now you admit you are ignoring his lack of honesty as irrelevant.
That wasn't a position on my part, but an accurate interpretation of your posts. Yet you still call it a straw man.
Unbelievable!
-
So, now you admit you are ignoring his lack of honesty as irrelevant.
That wasn't a position on my part, but an accurate interpretation of your posts. Yet you still call it a straw man.
Unbelievable!
I never gave a position about his because it isn't relevant. So yes, I am ignoring your whataboutism allegations of his dishonesty. Whether he was honest or not isn't relevant to whether it is free speech or not. I explained this to you earlier but you want to go in some round about circle to prove something that doesn't matter here.
-
I never gave a position about his because it isn't relevant. So yes, I am ignoring your whataboutism allegations of his dishonesty. Whether he was honest or not isn't relevant to whether it is free speech or not. I explained this to you earlier but you want to go in some round about circle to prove something that doesn't matter here.
Labeling his lack of honesty as irrelevant shows you don't want to have an honest discussion, and you don't know the meaning of "straw man."
-
Labeling his lack of honesty as irrelevant shows you don't want to have an honest discussion, and you don't know the meaning of "straw man."
No it shows I am not taking your whatboutism bait.
If Comey's tweet counts as a criminal threat then so does Trump's use of the term "blood bath". Why is Trump's ambiguous statement protected but Comey's is not? Have some ideological fortitude for gosh sakes instead of bending your values to support Trump.
Bottom line "8647" does not meet the standards of a charge for criminal threatening.
-
It's about that time now. EEF logs in and replies to many post. But all without substance.
Sometimes he will get noticeably frustrated as name calling tactic will emerge.
-
It's about that time now. EEF logs in and replies to many post. But all without substance.
Sometimes he will get noticeably frustrated as name calling tactic will emerge.
You wish your trolling caused an emotional reaction in my but it doesn't. Name calling emerges logically in tit-for-tat fashion, you call me a name, I respond in kind. Can't take it then don't start it.
-
You wish your trolling caused an emotional reaction in my but it doesn't. Name calling emerges logically in tit-for-tat fashion, you call me a name, I respond in kind. Can't take it then don't start it.
This is the most immature response anyone could ever display.
I believe this constitutes you being butt-hurt.
-
You wish your trolling caused an emotional reaction in my but it doesn't. Name calling emerges logically in tit-for-tat fashion, you call me a name, I respond in kind. Can't take it then don't start it.
You still dont' know what "I respond in kind" means.
I have noticed when you get "emotional". It's actually very obvious. So once again, you think 1 thing, but in reality, we see something else. But if you have a hard time telling your emotions, then I apologize that you aren't able to recognize them. I will let you know if you want me to.
-
You still dont' know what "I respond in kind" means.
I have noticed when you get "emotional". It's actually very obvious. So once again, you think 1 thing, but in reality, we see something else. But if you have a hard time telling your emotions, then I apologize that you aren't able to recognize them. I will let you know if you want me to.
You have a camera spying on me to see my facial expressions? You can read my mind? I reply to you very calmly, the only feelings I get are mild frustrations that someone can be as stupid and obtuse as you. But then I remember you may just be trolling in which case you aren't really that stupid, but you pretend to be so you can fill this need you have.
-
This is the most immature response anyone could ever display.
I believe this constitutes you being butt-hurt.
Your opinion is noted. Does this mean you concede that 8647 doesn't amount to a criminal threat?
-
Your opinion is noted. Does this mean you concede that 8647 doesn't amount to a criminal threat?
It does when it comes from someone who prosecuted mafia members
-
You have a camera spying on me to see my facial expressions? You can read my mind? I reply to you very calmly, the only feelings I get are mild frustrations that someone can be as stupid and obtuse as you. But then I remember you may just be trolling in which case you aren't really that stupid, but you pretend to be so you can fill this need you have.
Once again you're wrong. "You can read my mind?". "facial expressions"?
This is too good. Hahahahha.
-
It does when it comes from someone who prosecuted mafia members
Legally, no it doesn't, not under current law and SCOTUS decisions.
If 8647 counted as a criminal threat coming from Comey then Trump saying there would be a blood bath if he lost would also constitute a criminal threat. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
-
Once again you're wrong. "You can read my mind?". "facial expressions"?
This is too good. Hahahahha.
I am wrong how? You claim to know I have emotions I don't have, I ask you how you know I have these emotions and all you can do is say I am wrong. You expect me to prove a negative?
You are the one who can't admit you are wrong.
-
I am wrong how? You claim to know I have emotions I don't have, I ask you how you know I have these emotions and all you can do is say I am wrong. You expect me to prove a negative?
You are the one who can't admit you are wrong.
Re-read what I posted. It's very simple, but you once again refuse to admit you are wrong.
-
Re-read what I posted. It's very simple, but you once again refuse to admit you are wrong.
My refusal to recognize your delusional claim of being right is not evidence of me refusing to admit I was wrong. I can't admit to something that never happened.
You are a troll and as a troll you need to believe you are eliciting an emotional response in me otherwise your effort produces no benefit for you.
:stopjack:
-
My refusal to recognize your delusional claim of being right is not evidence of me refusing to admit I was wrong. I can't admit to something that never happened.
You are a troll and as a troll you need to believe you are eliciting an emotional response in me otherwise your effort produces no benefit for you.
:stopjack:
Hahahhahahaha. Wow, so much "delusion" in this post.
-
Legally, no it doesn't, not under current law and SCOTUS decisions.
If 8647 counted as a criminal threat coming from Comey then Trump saying there would be a blood bath if he lost would also constitute a criminal threat. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
False analogy. Trump qualified his statement saying he was referring to the economy.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the "fine people on both sides" hoax as well.
:crazy:
The context of the remark suggests Trump was predicting an
"economic bloodbath" for the country, not a literal one, if he
loses the 2024 presidential election.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-bloodbath-for-country/
I guess you only care about context when trying to gaslight us into believing you weren't wrong.
-
Legally, no it doesn't, not under current law and SCOTUS decisions.
If 8647 counted as a criminal threat coming from Comey then Trump saying there would be a blood bath if he lost would also constitute a criminal threat. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
It’s a specific threat, not a statement taken out of context
-
It’s a specific threat, not a statement taken out of context
It isn't the context at issue, the ambiguity is what means this wouldn't meet the level needed to show a criminal threat.
If a statement could be interpreted as a threat but could also be interpreted as something entirely legal then it doesn't pass the test for a threat. A perfect example would be one person saying "you are going to regret that", could be a threat of assault or could be saying they will take a legal recourse. Since "86" is very widely known to mean remove a person from an establishment it would be very hard to argue that Comey both meant it in the sense to kill and that Trump could reasonably take it to mean a threat to his life.
This whole story is the Streisand Effect in action, now "8647" is on shirts and signs, Trump and his followers should have just ignored it.
-
False analogy. Trump qualified his statement saying he was referring to the economy.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the "fine people on both sides" hoax as well.
:crazy:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-bloodbath-for-country/
I guess you only care about context when trying to gaslight us into believing you weren't wrong.
Wrong. I wasn't saying Trump should have been investigate/prosecuted for his blood bath comment. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of people saying Comey should be arrested when they defended Trump's comment
Neither comment met the test for a criminal threat.
-
nobody was "defending Trump's comment"
we didn't have to, all we had to do is point out that he clearly wasn't talking about a literal bloodbath...
Wrong. I wasn't saying Trump should have been investigate/prosecuted for his blood bath comment. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of people saying Comey should be arrested when they defended Trump's comment
Neither comment met the test for a criminal threat.
-
nobody was "defending Trump's comment"
we didn't have to, all we had to do is point out that he clearly wasn't talking about a literal bloodbath...
I saw many MAGA people defend Trump's blood bath comment.
-
I saw many MAGA people defend Trump's blood bath comment.
I saw many MAGA people know what he meant.
-
It isn't the context at issue, the ambiguity is what means this wouldn't meet the level needed to show a criminal threat.
If a statement could be interpreted as a threat but could also be interpreted as something entirely legal then it doesn't pass the test for a threat. A perfect example would be one person saying "you are going to regret that", could be a threat of assault or could be saying they will take a legal recourse. Since "86" is very widely known to mean remove a person from an establishment it would be very hard to argue that Comey both meant it in the sense to kill and that Trump could reasonably take it to mean a threat to his life.
This whole story is the Streisand Effect in action, now "8647" is on shirts and signs, Trump and his followers should have just ignored it.
That's your opinion. Got any actual legal experts backing you up?
-
Wrong. I wasn't saying Trump should have been investigate/prosecuted for his blood bath comment. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of people saying Comey should be arrested when they defended Trump's comment
Neither comment met the test for a criminal threat.
iI's not hypocrisy when the fact patterns are 100% different.
i don't think Trump ever implied there would be violence. Comey's message was exactly that: 86 President Trump.