Sean Mooney

That is not at all what toxic masculinity means.

Again you are choosing to be obtuse. I'm not saying for me. Please stop trying to apply intent to what I'm saying. I'm asking you- because you are the person who says "I am reticent to ascribe intent to people.... particularly negative intent."----how far does that go? If a person tries to get you to do something 15 different ways how long do you let that go gleefully saying "I don't want to ascribe intent here"? How many times would you let it happen before you start to think "Hmmm, maybe this person isn't on the up and up." It's not about ascribing intent.

This isn't hard and please stop being obtuse. You want to excuse someone from something and say "I don't want to apply intent..." but if someone does something 15 different times their intentions should be clear correct?

So if someone makes 15 claims trying to get someone to do something you would question that then and wonder if their intentions were honorable at least

82% of Americans plan to travel this summer and 42% plan to take multiple trips. Read into that what you will

You're avoiding the question. I'm not asking or prescribing intent to anything. I'm simply asking you: "how long do you have to be told something by someone before you question them"?

That was a lot of words that didn't really address the question I asked or the article I linked. At some point- when someone takes 15 different stands to try and get a person to relook at an election (note I'm not using the word "overturn" here) you have to question the motives. If someone keeps on the same path forever it's probably for a reason. And you'll notice I'm not "applying intent"- I'm asking a question of "how long do you have to be told something by someone before you question them"?

I don't have a dog in the fight but this is a huge cop out. Additionally- you regularly prescribe intent to what people say here but you don't want to do it now. In the case of Trump and the election of 2020- how many things would need to happen before you at least entertain "Well maybe his intentions were bad here"? For example- here is a look at the call with Brad Raffensperger of Georgia in January of 2021 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fact-check-trumps-georgia-call-raffensperger According to this- Trump made 15 claims in trying to say they should relook at the voting- is 15 enough to say "Hey maybe this guy isn't on the up and up on this"?

As I mentioned in my post to Raiders and RLLD that is nonsense that there was no call to hold Obama accountable. There absolutely was at the time.

You have to click into it but the last sentence is clear as day as to what he is saying.

Scahill (writer of the second book I mentioned) is a really good writer and reporter for Democracy Now! which is pretty fair but can lean a little too progressive at times. But the program operates as a bit of a watchdog of sorts for American foreign policy. The cool thing about it to me is it doesn't accept advertisers or government funding. The first book I wrote about is excellent. To the longer post I wrote- it's fair to say the past two Presidents had very questionable drone strikes and attacks.

It was a different thread but HT absolutely said he wished it had been gutter's kids that had been raped so he would know what it felt like for another parent. I don't care how much people disagree- no rationale person would say that to another person. I dislike you heavily but I'd never wish rape on your kids- if they actually existed. I'd like to think you wouldn't do something like that either. So are you the same level as HT or are you at least a step above him on the humanity hierarchy?

They tried multiple ways to go after the 2020 election. All the things either got outright turned away or they got told- there is no evidence here. So either there is nothing there, or the lawyers were stunningly unprepared, or a little of both. But you want to settle on "the system didn't allow it."?

FWIW- and I'm sure @RaiderHaters Revenge and @RLLD know this as well: There was a lot of stuff written about it at the time and there was discussion of it. There was also a book written by H Jefferson Powell (a Duke Law Professor, served in the DOJ under Clinton) and Phillip Bobbit (Columbia Law Professor and senior lecturer at University of Texas Law) that looked at drone wars and this incident specifically in a chapter of said book. They analyzed the constitutionality of the drone strike and found that the killing was lawful but the reasoning for it was spotty. To paraphrase quoting them- from the abstract of the book- A few weeks after that there was another drone strike that killed the man's 16 year old son. The Yemen bombings were a black mark (no pun intended) on the administration and it was criticized and mocked by even like late night shows for how cavalier the Obama admin was about it all. There was then a raid that the Obama administration was back and forth on but ultimately did not carry out in 2017 leaving it up to the incoming Trump administration. Trump chose to carry out the raid with Navy Seal Team 6 and they killed the 8 year old daughter and sister of the citizens. Thye passed it off in the same way as the Obama administration- "collateral damage". It is also important to remember Trump in 2016 said he was going to target terroist's families as well as the terrorists. There is a really good book and movie about some of this stuff called Dirty Wars written by Jeremy Scahill that looks at the concept of dirty wars and spends significant time on the killing of the father in the initial drone strike, and the killing of the son.

Still didn't get an answer as to what made Wish "woke"

Trump at the debate said he offered Pelosi 10,000 National Guard troops on January 6th and she turned them down. That's been proven false. Trump also said it was a relatively small group that went to the Capitol and many were ushered in by police.- I mean essentially 2600+ people isn't small in one area. Also, the ushered in by police has been refuted. "Biden wants to raise your taxes four times what they are." That isn't true. “On January 6th we had the lowest taxes ever. We had the lowest regulations ever on January 6th.”- neither of those claims are remotely true. “The problem they have is they’re radical because they will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth, after birth.” That isn't true. And killing a kid after birth is not an abortion- it is infanticide which is illegal in every state. Additionally in 2020- les than 1% of abortions happened after 21 weeks. TRUMP on Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who was detained in Russia: “He should have had him out a long time ago, but Putin’s probably asking for billions and billions of dollars because this guy pays it every time.” No truth to the latter part. Biden doesn't pay for all releases- they are prisoner swaps mostly, and using a person as political gain like that in a debate is scummy (it'd be scummy the other way too) “What he’s done to the Black population is horrible, including the fact that for 10 years he called them ‘super predators.’ … We can’t forget that - super predators … And they’ve taken great offense at it.”- not true. At the very least not in the context here which is similar to messing up context of things Trump said which Biden did. "We had the greatest economy in history." Not even close to being true. Ignore the pandemic and Trump averaged 2.67% growth in his first three years. Clinton averaged 4% during his terms. Growth has been stronger under Biden as well. There are 8

No one takes AOC seriously.

Just to go to an extreme here- if Joe Biden came out on July 4th and said "In order to protect democracy and the American way of life- I'm ordering that Donald Trump be eliminated permanently"- would that count as an official act? (Yes there are issues of contracting a hit and it would be the dumbest thing to do in every single way- but as a hypothetical)

That isn't an answer to either question. So I reiterate: Where did you argue a compelling story is most important to making money? Also- Disney's biggest bomb last year was Wish. What was woke about that movie?

No- it's an issue because the Supreme Court has granted it now. I don't give a who the President is when it goes into effect- it's not good. And I bet you and your ilk would be crying like crazy if this judgement came from a liberal court following Biden's term.

I mean- gutterboy isn't a former President running to be President again. Are we really that far gone that wanting, and calling for, honesty from a Presidential candidate is unwarranted. Or that we have to try and compare the President as a liar to a person lying on a fantasy football message board.

This is my thinking on it too. This is a ruling that will cut both ways and now that the gate is opened it won't be an easy one to close. They basically chose to place the President above the law in some circumstances....that isn't the way to go about this.

Where did you argue a compelling story is most important to making money? Also- Disney's biggest bomb last year was Wish. What was woke about that movie?

They did. Thanks for playing.