IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags antifa conspiracies , assault incidents , donald trump , Martin Gugino , police incidents , police misconduct charges

Reply
Old 9th June 2020, 05:31 PM   #41
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,378
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Today Trump tweeted:
Quote:
I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?
I find it despicable. What about you? Can you justify it?
I wouldn't describe myself as a Trump supporter, but I don't think everything he does is despicable just because he's a Republican. I look at the evidence. What did Trump really say? Is it despicable if it's true?

I watched the video. Did the guy fall harder than was pushed? It's hard to tell, but perhaps. If I am not sure then how can we blame Trump for thinking it looked like he did? But liberals will disagree of course, so I analyzed the video frame by frame and compared the time to that of a natural fall. According to my calculations he hit the ground ~0.001 seconds earlier than expected from just a shove. So Trump may be right about this. But even if he was mistaken, this alone doesn't rise to the level of 'despicable' IMO.

Was he aiming a scanner? Again, it's hard to tell from the video. He was definitely aiming something. Maybe it was a scanner, or perhaps something less sinister, but he was certainly pointing it in a suggestive manner. Until the device is properly analyzed I don't think we can rule out the possibility of it being a scanner. And once again Trump may have been genuinely mistaken - should we vilify him for that?

Liberals have made a lot of mileage out of the supposed size and technology required to 'black out' police communications. But any Ham radio operator can tell you it doesn't take much if the signal is carefully crafted to 'black out' certain frequencies. The few watts produced by a handheld CB radio would be quite sufficient.

But could this old man have had such equipment? He is described as a 'longtime protester' who may have been playing this game for many years. So I did some digging. Turns out a person with almost the same name was active on the HAM band a few years ago. Is it this guy? We don't know, but if it is then he probably has the skills to make a handheld jamming device.

So what if Trump is right? We shouldn't jump to conclusions until we have all the facts (which I hope is may be never). If Trump is right about the fall and the scanner, it's not despicable to point out these facts.

Could it be a setup? Perhaps. But Trump didn't say it was a setup, he was asking if it was - big difference. How can you call Just Asking Questions despicable? OTOH, if this guy (who has a long history of 'peaceful' protesting) was trying to 'black out' police communications, and did deliberately fall harder so he could hit his head to make it look like police brutality, then it's looking a lot like a setup.

I abhor unanswered questions though, so I analyzed the video with a spectrometer. After correcting for gamma and color balance I found something surprising. The 'blood' was closer to the shade of ketchup than real blood! What does this mean? Maybe nothing, but it makes you wonder...

In conclusion, nothing that Trump said in this tweet can be unequivocally described as 'despicable'. On the contrary, Trump used his awesome powers of observation and deduction to highlight some important facts and possible anomalies in this case. And I say that as someone who is definitely not a Trump supporter (well OK, I did vote for him, but what choice did I have?).
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 9th June 2020 at 05:42 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 05:50 PM   #42
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 31,321
I'm thinking Poe there, Roger. You may correct me if I'm wrong.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 05:53 PM   #43
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,583
As much as I hate the open Trump defenders, at least they have certain amount of courage, unlike the GOP Senators who just dodge the issue.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 05:54 PM   #44
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,378
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I'm thinking Poe there, Roger. You may correct me if I'm wrong.
It's definitely not a Poe. Also Roger Ramjets is my real name.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 06:38 PM   #45
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 28,270
How do you fall harder than you were pushed? Hidden jets?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 06:39 PM   #46
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,228
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
How do you fall harder than you were pushed? Hidden jets?
He's claiming that the guy took a dive.

See soccer for plenty of examples of guys who fall harder than they were pushed.

Granted, soccer players who take a dive usually don't bleed out of their head. Then again, this guy is accused of faking the blood, too.

That he's still in the hospital just shows that the doctors are in on the conspiracy.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

Last edited by pgwenthold; 9th June 2020 at 06:40 PM.
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 06:58 PM   #47
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 43,088
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
A serious question. Is it possible to scan police communication equipment in order to disable it?

You could scan police communications at any reasonable distance. They are radio waves, they travel a long way.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 07:00 PM   #48
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,232
Originally Posted by zorro99 View Post
Most republicans claim they never saw Trump’s tweet and have nothing to say.
Yeah. And most claim he's not a bigot and a racist.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 07:24 PM   #49
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
I wouldn't describe myself as a Trump supporter, but I don't think everything he does is despicable just because he's a Republican. I look at the evidence. What did Trump really say? Is it despicable if it's true?

I watched the video. Did the guy fall harder than was pushed? It's hard to tell, but perhaps. If I am not sure then how can we blame Trump for thinking it looked like he did? But liberals will disagree of course, so I analyzed the video frame by frame and compared the time to that of a natural fall. According to my calculations he hit the ground ~0.001 seconds earlier than expected from just a shove. So Trump may be right about this. But even if he was mistaken, this alone doesn't rise to the level of 'despicable' IMO.

Was he aiming a scanner? Again, it's hard to tell from the video. He was definitely aiming something. Maybe it was a scanner, or perhaps something less sinister, but he was certainly pointing it in a suggestive manner. Until the device is properly analyzed I don't think we can rule out the possibility of it being a scanner. And once again Trump may have been genuinely mistaken - should we vilify him for that?

Liberals have made a lot of mileage out of the supposed size and technology required to 'black out' police communications. But any Ham radio operator can tell you it doesn't take much if the signal is carefully crafted to 'black out' certain frequencies. The few watts produced by a handheld CB radio would be quite sufficient.

But could this old man have had such equipment? He is described as a 'longtime protester' who may have been playing this game for many years. So I did some digging. Turns out a person with almost the same name was active on the HAM band a few years ago. Is it this guy? We don't know, but if it is then he probably has the skills to make a handheld jamming device.

So what if Trump is right? We shouldn't jump to conclusions until we have all the facts (which I hope is may be never). If Trump is right about the fall and the scanner, it's not despicable to point out these facts.

Could it be a setup? Perhaps. But Trump didn't say it was a setup, he was asking if it was - big difference. How can you call Just Asking Questions despicable? OTOH, if this guy (who has a long history of 'peaceful' protesting) was trying to 'black out' police communications, and did deliberately fall harder so he could hit his head to make it look like police brutality, then it's looking a lot like a setup.

I abhor unanswered questions though, so I analyzed the video with a spectrometer. After correcting for gamma and color balance I found something surprising. The 'blood' was closer to the shade of ketchup than real blood! What does this mean? Maybe nothing, but it makes you wonder...

In conclusion, nothing that Trump said in this tweet can be unequivocally described as 'despicable'. On the contrary, Trump used his awesome powers of observation and deduction to highlight some important facts and possible anomalies in this case. And I say that as someone who is definitely not a Trump supporter (well OK, I did vote for him, but what choice did I have?).
Whoa! I took you seriously for a full minute! And of course not a
Poe!
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 07:28 PM   #50
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,232
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Whoa! I took you seriously for a full minute! And of course not a
Poe!
There's so much of this in this forum that sometimes you have to wonder what is a Poe/kidding/sarcasm/caining and what's not.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 08:03 PM   #51
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 28,593
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There's so much of this in this forum that sometimes you have to wonder what is a Poe/kidding/sarcasm/caining and what's not.
It could of been a Cain.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 08:24 PM   #52
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,667
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It could of been a Cain.
It could have been a Cain.

It could've been a Cain.

This homonym trips up so many peeps. We don't write, "I of been your thorn in the side."
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 08:31 PM   #53
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,971
Could just be oldtimer's disease.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 08:59 PM   #54
portlandatheist
Illuminator
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,636
That was an absolutely brilliant Cain. Bravo
portlandatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 09:05 PM   #55
AnonyMoose
Graduate Poster
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 1,008
I wonder if this man has a case to sue the president of the United States for publicly slandering and accusing him of a criminal act...

I don't speak legalese, so I have no idea if there's some kind of grounds to stand on or not? I'm willing to bet there would be plenty of lawyers who'd happily take this on as a pro bono case for Mr. Gugino.

It's high time for somebody to step up to the plate and call this retard on his bluff(s). Once and for all.
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 09:18 PM   #56
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,583
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
I wonder if this man has a case to sue the president of the United States for publicly slandering and accusing him of a criminal act...

I don't speak legalese, so I have no idea if there's some kind of grounds to stand on or not? I'm willing to bet there would be plenty of lawyers who'd happily take this on as a pro bono case for Mr. Gugino.

It's high time for somebody to step up to the plate and call this retard on his bluff(s). Once and for all.

GIven how hard it is to win a slander case in the US on general terms, I don't think the guy's chances are good.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 10:29 PM   #57
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 28,270
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
He's claiming that the guy took a dive.

See soccer for plenty of examples of guys who fall harder than they were pushed.

Granted, soccer players who take a dive usually don't bleed out of their head. Then again, this guy is accused of faking the blood, too.

That he's still in the hospital just shows that the doctors are in on the conspiracy.
It's so easy to take a dive backwards when walking forward. Wearing a concealed ketchup helmet, we presume.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 10:56 PM   #58
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,874
Even IF everything they say was true, it still wouldn't excuse the shove.
I understand they are trying to create reasonable doubt, but there is nothing reasonable about it.
__________________
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 11:04 PM   #59
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,219
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
I wonder if this man has a case to sue the president of the United States for publicly slandering and accusing him of a criminal act...

I don't speak legalese, so I have no idea if there's some kind of grounds to stand on or not? I'm willing to bet there would be plenty of lawyers who'd happily take this on as a pro bono case for Mr. Gugino.

It's high time for somebody to step up to the plate and call this retard on his bluff(s). Once and for all.

Trump will just claim....what was it again? Oh yes, that's right.... Absolute Immunity... and that crook Barr will back him up.
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 11:49 PM   #60
llwyd
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 763
And this notion of "defending" is so not modern social media conservatism or St Petersburg style paid trolling - you don't waste time in defence. At most you might say, yeah, whatever, fake news, distortion etc. etc, and then you go like BUT BIDEN RAPED A BABY!!!! WHY ARE YOU SILENT ABOUT THAT, YOU LOVE BABY RAPES??????
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 11:59 PM   #61
llwyd
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 763
And, sad to say, many liberals to this moment in time will start stuttering like "No, never, he never raped a baby, do you have a shred of evidence you moron?" And the conservative: YOU BABY RAPE LOVER YOU!!!!!!!! And so we are in the middle of an endless debate whether Joe Biden raped a baby or not. Like Benghazi, like the bloody stupid emails. I mean, shouldn't we see through these tactics already?

Last edited by llwyd; 10th June 2020 at 12:01 AM.
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 12:05 AM   #62
Tommok
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
I wonder if this man has a case to sue the president of the United States for publicly slandering and accusing him of a criminal act...
No way, he cannot be indicted and therefore he cannot be investigated while, before or after being in office, and this extends to his family and his friends and his donors an whoever else he chooses to define as eligible. This also extends to any misdeed someone unrelated may have done, which, if punished, would make the President look bad, so these also cannot be investigated by anyone.

I am quite sure the Supreme Court will agree to this. [/tangent off]
Tommok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 03:45 AM   #63
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,397
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There's so much of this in this forum that sometimes you have to wonder what is a Poe/kidding/sarcasm/caining and what's not.
The fact that we have gotten to a place where it's now impossible to determine the difference between satire and what some people are willing to believe really is super sad.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 07:33 AM   #64
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,414
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Today Trump tweeted:


I find it despicable. What about you? Can you justify it?

Non-supporters: Please refrain and give the supporters a day or two to answer. I'd very much appreciate it. You can discuss in the general Trump thread.
The Trump supporters in Congress have figured out a way to avoid the Trump double-think/thought crime problem, by pretending not to notice the Trump issue.

In this case, these stupid, lying, disgusting Trump lackeys simply ignore inflammatory Trump tweets, and therefore do not feel the need any need to get involved with them.

To wit:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-twe...122225449.html

That Trump Tweet? Republicans Prefer Not to See It.

WASHINGTON — On the 161st day of the fourth year of the Trump presidency, having grown accustomed to Republican lawmakers’ favorite excuse for refusing to comment on President Donald Trump’s latest incendiary tweet, reporters resorted to a rare tactic.

They printed out copies of Trump’s post — this one containing an unsubstantiated suggestion that an older protester shoved and injured by the police in Buffalo was an antifa provocateur who staged his own assault — for any Republican who might try to fall back on what has become a stock response: “I didn’t see the tweet.”

...

Their reactions were the most vivid illustration to date of an extraordinary dynamic among elected Republicans that has been building almost since the moment Trump took office — behaving as if they have no idea what he is doing or saying. After thousands of tweets carrying falsehoods, racist language and demeaning barbs against their own colleagues — not to mention the news reports, book excerpts or speeches that have roiled this administration — lawmakers in his party have largely settled on blissful ignorance as a way of avoiding defending the indefensible.

...

And Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, pointedly rejected the stock response that so many of his colleagues had resorted to in avoiding weighing in.

“I saw the tweet,” he said.

“It was a shocking thing to say,” he added, “and I won’t dignify it with any further comment.”
__________________
I can barely believe that I made it through the Trump presidency.

On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 08:53 AM   #65
Safe-Keeper
Penultimate Amazing
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,396
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
How do you fall harder than you were pushed? Hidden jets?
Nano-thermite thrusters.
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 09:21 AM   #66
Safe-Keeper
Penultimate Amazing
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,396
Originally Posted by zorro99 View Post
Most republicans claim they never saw Trump’s tweet and have nothing to say.
That's new. Usually it's aggressive whataboutism spamming, insults, and attempts to derail the conversation. Could they have been reprogrammed?
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 09:27 AM   #67
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,563
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
That's new. Usually it's aggressive whataboutism spamming, insults, and attempts to derail the conversation. Could they have been reprogrammed?

No it's always been like that. Eventually they get argued into a corner that
they go into full on reality denial and just literally stop talking about.

It's why the go quiet in the Trump thread for a day or two every few weeks. It's when he's said something so stupid or so vile they can't defend it, "Look at the squirrel" or pearl clutch it away and they just have to wait for it to die down.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 10:22 AM   #68
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
A serious question. Is it possible to scan police communication equipment in order to disable it?
Possible? Probably not, most police started using encrypted communication devices a while ago. But just scanning wouldn't do anything any more than hitting the scan button on a car radio would disrupt a radio station.

But it also isn't necessary.

There are 2 ways to disrupt communications. Wide band and narrow. Basically you broadcast noise either at a specific frequency or all of them. You just need to be "louder" than the signal they want to get it lost in the noise.

I don't think it makes a difference between analog and digital signals, since it's all EM waves at the core.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 10:24 AM   #69
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,863
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
This thread was a dumb idea.
You asked for a day or so and got 8 or 9 minutes. So, the thread was illustrative in one sense.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 10:26 AM   #70
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 31,321
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
You asked for a day or so and got 8 or 9 minutes. So, the thread was illustrative in one sense.
Yup.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 12:45 PM   #71
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Trump will just claim....what was it again? Oh yes, that's right.... Absolute Immunity... and that crook Barr will back him up.
Elizabeth Warren got a defamation suit dismissed (Covington case) due to federal immunity, not too long ago, didn't even need Barr to back her up. It's not something that is party specific.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 12:58 PM   #72
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 28,593
Originally Posted by llwyd View Post
And this notion of "defending" is so not modern social media conservatism or St Petersburg style paid trolling - you don't waste time in defence. At most you might say, yeah, whatever, fake news, distortion etc. etc, and then you go like BUT BIDEN RAPED A BABY!!!! WHY ARE YOU SILENT ABOUT THAT, YOU LOVE BABY RAPES??????
This is full of crap. This is now the Republicans answer to everything. Make up heinous lies trying to get others to defend it....which flips the conversation to a negative about their opponent.

Trump has been accused of sexually assaulting more than twenty women. He paid off hookers and porn stars. He cheated bell-boys, waiters and contractors at his hotel.

The difference is my stories are true.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 01:01 PM   #73
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
I wonder if this man has a case to sue the president of the United States for publicly slandering and accusing him of a criminal act...

I don't speak legalese, so I have no idea if there's some kind of grounds to stand on or not? I'm willing to bet there would be plenty of lawyers who'd happily take this on as a pro bono case for Mr. Gugino.

It's high time for somebody to step up to the plate and call this retard on his bluff(s). Once and for all.
To win you would have to separate Trump from the Presidency in the act. And since the courts already ruled that his tweets are official communications ergo he can't block people, I doubt they will be able to separate the man from the office. And since the damage of the statement would factor in his role as President, I don't think any lawyer will be able to split that hair.

The courts have already ruled that the tweets from a Senator and a Congresswoman are products of their office, and thus protected by sovereign immunity, this case would be dead on arrival. Sure, some lawyer might take it pro-bono, to get their name out there in public, draw in some donations and publicity, but it's an instant loser.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 01:43 PM   #74
Deadie
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Brainerd, MN
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
The courts have already ruled that the tweets from a Senator and a Congresswoman are products of their office, and thus protected by sovereign immunity, this case would be dead on arrival. Sure, some lawyer might take it pro-bono, to get their name out there in public, draw in some donations and publicity, but it's an instant loser.
Curious, does the ruling simply deal with communications to the public in general, or potentially libelous slander?
Deadie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 03:44 PM   #75
AnonyMoose
Graduate Poster
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 1,008
Okay, so slander/libel may not have any legal standing against HRH Donald "Above-The-Law" Trump.

Then how about the fact that the leader of a country just speculated, out loud, to the entire planet, about whether or not a citizen of his country is a terrorist? Any legal ground on that matter maybe? Or is that also something a US president is "perfectly within his/her right to do"?

I'm just wondering out loud where that line in the sand finally gets drawn on what a US president can or cannot do, what a US president can or cannot get away with, and/or when a US president can or cannot be breaking a law.

Inquiring minds around the world want to know....





.... or do we (read: the rest of the world) need to seriously start worrying about this nutbag becoming Leader-For-Life?
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2020, 06:41 AM   #76
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Deadie View Post
Curious, does the ruling simply deal with communications to the public in general, or potentially libelous slander?
Any communications, not privileged, done as a function of their office. Since it was done on her official Congress twitter account, it was part of her office. So Warren and one other House democrat, were immune from Slander lawsuits.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2020, 06:52 AM   #77
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 31,618
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
Okay, so slander/libel may not have any legal standing against HRH Donald "Above-The-Law" Trump.

Then how about the fact that the leader of a country just speculated, out loud, to the entire planet, about whether or not a citizen of his country is a terrorist? Any legal ground on that matter maybe? Or is that also something a US president is "perfectly within his/her right to do"?

I'm just wondering out loud where that line in the sand finally gets drawn on what a US president can or cannot do, what a US president can or cannot get away with, and/or when a US president can or cannot be breaking a law.

Inquiring minds around the world want to know....





.... or do we (read: the rest of the world) need to seriously start worrying about this nutbag becoming Leader-For-Life?
A GOP President with a GOP Senate and a GOP SCOTUS likely is immune from pretty much anything. He cannot be convicted in an impeachment and any verdict from the courts can eventually be quashed by the Supreme Court.

An attempt to postpone and/or cancel the elections in November would likely be unsuccessful but then again, if it was couched in public health terms, he may get away with it.

If a blue wave looked likely, he'd get a lot of support from GOP congress members.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2020, 06:56 AM   #78
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
Okay, so slander/libel may not have any legal standing against HRH Donald "Above-The-Law" Trump.

Then how about the fact that the leader of a country just speculated, out loud, to the entire planet, about whether or not a citizen of his country is a terrorist? Any legal ground on that matter maybe? Or is that also something a US president is "perfectly within his/her right to do"?

I'm just wondering out loud where that line in the sand finally gets drawn on what a US president can or cannot do, what a US president can or cannot get away with, and/or when a US president can or cannot be breaking a law.

Inquiring minds around the world want to know....

.... or do we (read: the rest of the world) need to seriously start worrying about this nutbag becoming Leader-For-Life?
If you can put down your Orange Man Bad Bias for just a second, you would have seen that I referenced a case involving a Senator and a Congresswoman. It's not limited to Trump.

Federally Elected officials are protected from civil suits. Hell, I'm protected from civil suits when acting in my job function.

As far as criminal actions, the only remedy for that is an impeachment.

To the leader for life thing, you would have to assume that every military and civil authority would just accept his leadership without question, and I don't see that happening. From the Secret Service, to the Marines guarding him, I just don't see the entire Federal Machinery just chugging along and ignoring an election.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2020, 07:05 AM   #79
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,874
The reason why even Trump's own lawyers say that his Tweets can't be slanderous is simply this:

no one in his right mind would take a Tweet by Trump seriously.
__________________
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2020, 07:22 AM   #80
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The reason why even Trump's own lawyers say that his Tweets can't be slanderous is simply this:

no one in his right mind would take a Tweet by Trump seriously.
Who knows, could be legit. Lenny Dystrka just lost a defamation suit. The judge ruled that “reputation for unsportsmanlike conduct and bigotry is already so tarnished that it cannot be further injured.”
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:21 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.