Sean Mooney

This was my original line: "Look- I know you only accept videos from people on YouTube as evidence but just because someone doesn't go after a person vigorously doesn't mean they like that person. "....which was clearly said in jest because of the interactions we had where you were posting videos with a dude and a skeleton breaking down a video recapping an article you clearly didn't read. You took that as- "RLLD only uses YouTube videos and nothing else." That just makes you look like a dope and mentally soft. Of course you are also the guy who said this: " I am reticent to ascribe intent to people.... particularly negative intent." Seems like you were pretty quick to ascribe negative intent here....

I'm glad this is the thing that broke your brain. Please keep posting about it so people can see how mentally soft you are.

Well at least one idiot on a message board does

Bout time

I'm glad I shamed you into actually using them. But at least you are being genuine now.

How is that relevant to today?

He's a 60 year old "male" who posts here like a thousand times a month. Dude is a zero in every way

However they see fit in this scenario. That isn't the point of the question- the question is "so you'd allow someone to try to intimidate you 15 times without questioning intent"

So you'd allow someone to try to intimidate you 15 times without questioning intent?

Would you agree though that regardless of the situation- having something happen 15 times is probably a good place to say "Yeah maybe this person has bad intentions" (or good intentions depending on the scenario)

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"