There is new evidence to prove the identity of the Sloopy Girl Dancer. It is NOT Liz Agriss Derringer (Rick's ex-wife) nor is it Liz Brewer, the lady from Britain. It also is not Lisa Dalton that is a showgirl dancer who you can google.
It is however, Lisa Leonard Dalton, and sometime soon, Aug 2021, the video evidence and her story will be released. You can go to YouTube sites that show the video and as soon as it is completed, it will be linked there.

Arizona secretary of state, Katie Hobbs sent a letter to the Arizona attorney general yesterday asking him to please investigate Donald Trump. And of course his close allies, Rudy Giuliani, and possibly even Sidney Powell for possible election interference in the state of Arizona.

Here's what happened in case you missed it last week, it was revealed that both the Trump white house and Rudy Giuliani on separate occasions and on multiple occasions made phone calls to officials in the state of Arizona following the November election, trying to get them to stop the counting, begging to be called back. In fact, it got so bad, the Arizona Republic detailed two separate attempts by Trump to reach Republican supervisor Clinton Hickman in the weeks after the election, as the president's allies sought to alter the election results in a state he narrowly lost to Democrat Joe Biden at the time, Hickman was chairman of the board of supervisors, the elected body that oversees elections in the state's most populous county, Maricopa. Hickman received the first call from the white house switchboard on December 31st while he was out celebrating the coming new year with his wife and friends, he let the call go to voicemail.

Second call came on the night of January 3rd after the Washington post published a recording of Trump's hour long phone call with Georgia secretary of state Hickman sought to avoid talking to the president because of ongoing litigation, any let the call go to voicemail and yes, for the record, the Arizona Republic does in fact have those voicemails where you can hear what they were trying to do. Then of course, Rudy Giuliani steps in, he starts emailing or I'm sorry, texting and calling the chairwoman of the Arizona Republican party, trying to get her to somehow interfere, stop the counting of the votes. Honestly, it is pretty much identical to what these idiots were doing over in Georgia, trying to get them to stop the vote, trying to get them to go find the votes as Trump said, and let's not forget... Trump is already under criminal investigation in Georgia. I know we all get distracted with New York, but there have been two grand juries empaneled in the state of Georgia regarding Donald Trump's potential criminal election interference in that state. That's a big deal that everybody seems to have forgotten about.

And now the same thing might happen in Arizona. There's a catch here. Arizona's attorney general, a Man by the name of Brenna Vich Is running for US Senate as a Republican. So he's got a lot, uh, got a lot at stake here. He can't PISS off Republicans by investigating Donald Trump.

Brenna Vich did, in fact, support Arizona's sweeping new voter suppression laws.

Edit: btw, multiple Republicans including but not limited to McConnell have gone public with their plan of hoping they can cause maximum chaos and division for the next 18 months because it will help them successfully block any and all legislation, then they can blame the gridlock on Democrats during the election. Total nationwide chaos with the corresponding rise in crime and damage to the economy....that's the Republican plan for victory. True patriots. 🤦‍♂️

Better donate to the Trump Twitter lawsuit quick before they manage to destroy your investment portfolio with the planned chaos...Trump can't sue social media without your cash donations because he's really a billionaire so he needs your cash...pay no attention to his standard microscopic fine print explaining that he may, at his discretion, use your donation for personal debts. Doesn't matter, DONATE NOW. He needs your money....to fight the invisible fight against those paper tigers and windmills. Please don't remember when he did the exact same thing begging for money to fight for the "election fraud" fraud in court but then pocketed the money and fired his (now disgraced and disbarred) lawyers without filing a legitimate lawsuit.

If true, and she pleads guilty to whatever charges they levied, then maybe, but if she fights them in court that altruistic assumption is out the window and she gets another strike for wasting the court's time (and our money) on a case she knows she's definitely guilty of.

We assume she's being honest and this was just a security test, but more than one mother has murdered their daughter's high school rival. I'm not willing to take a criminals word when they suggest they were only trespassing as a public service, not falsifying their identity to hide from crimes they're planning.

I don't think school shooters have ever disguised themselves as students when they weren't...and she didn't bring a gun sized piece of metal through the metal detectors....so she wasn't testing against how easy it would be for armed intruders, only unarmed imposters.

It's already well established that Bob wants people to be treated unfairly, see the other accounts with almost identical timestamp that sock puppet brigade for him and then see our FAQ.

"Can I create or use more than one VideoSift account?
There is a strict rule of no more than one account per person, please. Abusers of this rule will be permanently ban hammered via IP address. Sorry."


I'd invoke it myself if the site weren't already lacking members.


It's really sick you know? They have these ideas, but it's all summed up with some general structure.

"blah blah blah, and THAT is why black lives don't matter" Idk what you see when you see this interviewer, but she looks like one of the people throwing garbage on the field in that Jackie Robinson movie.

You are projecting.

Marriage takes the honesty away from a relationship.
It's no longer me and you.
It's me and you and uncle sam.
I want *consensual* relations where me and my partner set our rules, not some 3rd party, and not when the rules are stacked against me.

Congratulations to your brother. Lucky him.

I never said women don't work.

I said that men make more personal sacrifices for their work - a true statement about men as a group. Exceptions don't alter the rule.

Yes, women under 35 out earn men now. And as legacy earners retire, we will be facing a situation where women out earn men at any age. Preferential admittance and hiring tend to have that effect. It's by design.

And women don't get paid less for the same work - the studies saying that don't account for hours worked and don't provide any breakdown of job title. E.g. Women doctors get paid less - because the type of doctor they choose to be is more likely to be a pediatrician than a heart surgeon or anesthesiologist. But within each category of doctor, per hour worked, and per year experience, their income is essentially identical.

And you don't need to be a home maker to get paid in a divorce. Just make less than your partner.
Historically the divorce rewards scale higher for women given mirror situations.

Why would I want to deal with a 50/50 split when I brought 90% of the assets into the marriage? A 50/50 split would set me back decades. I just want to keep my stuff, I did pay for it after all, which cost me money, which cost me time, which cost me life.

And why should /anyone/ have their life supported by anyone else?
(*context=spouses. Not interested in some bad faith out of context argument bringing up children or retirees supported by taxes, etc)
Are you able bodied? Then get working.
Is it tough? Too bad.
It's harder for both people supporting themselves alone, you aren't special. You were in this situation before you got married, you can go back to it.

In any case, the homemaker job argument is senseless. There are benefits (time with kids), and there are pitfalls (hole in your resume). You make your choice, and you deal with the consequences.
You are paid by the home over your head and the money you're given while you are a home maker. What other job do you get to leave and still be paid. People act as if the working partner was just chilling this whole time. Where are the working partner's continuing post divorce benefits?


I have no mindset about women. More projection.
I couldn't care less if I marry a stripper with 2 kids - so long as in the event of a divorce we go our separate ways with ZERO obligations to one another.

I have a mindset about the dangers of divorce, and the fact that most marriages end in divorce, and most divorces are initiated by the female partner.
I am on average more likely than not to face a divorce.
Hence the risk reduction by being more 'picky'.


I am in a nearly 20 year happy relationship - unmarried.
She's the boss of the relationship. And I'm fine with that because I *consent* to it. I can always walk away if I decide otherwise.

So long as laws and family court are how they are, I won't even consider marriage.

-scheherazade

Why isn’t she charged with spreading child porn? The girls were under 18, she made videos of them naked and spread them around. She should do a few years per picture and be on the sex offender registry for life...also should be banned from using computers or electronic communications.
The spoofing her identity is good evidence she knew it was against the law. I hope they don’t let her use the excuse she didn’t know it was wrong, because clearly she did.
Now the poor Karen is upset she’s being harassed?! Just wait until you get to gen pop and the word gets out it’s for making fake kiddy porn, biatch!
I hope those girls get every dime she owns in their defamation lawsuits and then some.

I've been thinking for a while that we need something like a social media system that's highly informed by / based around trust. Like, we could each indicate 100% trust in the identity of people we personally know (or lower percentages, as warranted), and invisibly rate the degree to which we trust statements / posts / linked content of whoever / whatever entity. The system would build up aggregate "trust levels" for different entities / pieces of information, and be designed to do the best possible job of letting us know how "bullshitty" things are (or are likely to be). We're rapidly approaching a point after which we can't inherently trust any media, as literally everything can be faked. So we'll need some way to properly gauge how dubious it's reasonable to be.

I think there's some real fucked up scandals due in the near future though.

The false equivalence is pretty far off the mark here. Republicans have clearly, in the plain light of day, been trying to reduce the number of people who could vote. Voter ID laws, limiting polling locations / ballot drop boxes, aggressive purging of voter rolls, etc etc etc. They know their ideas are unpopular, so limiting the number of voters tends to benefit them.

Whereas the Dems have been accused of... something? Creating fake votes or purposely losing others? It's all very vague and literally without proof. Trump supporters gathered outside election offices in one state chanting "Count the votes!" while an effectively identical group elsewhere chants "Stop the count!" makes it pretty clear they're just gunning for advantage. So far all the Dems I've heard on the topic say they just want all votes counted. I can't find fault with that notion.

WARNING- Don't click Bob's links without a vpn, super virus protection, and credit/identity theft insurance. He's linked to fake sites that were actually virus hosts multiple times.


Derp. Now 13 with way more being investigated, perhaps one wasn't so pro Trump as you but he still proudly followed Trump's instructions to stage an armed takeover of federal buildings with the others (something that sent you into a frothing rage when you claimed antifa had done the same, but unarmed), the rest were hard core trumpsters, and that one wasn't voting anarchist, he voted trump.

So sad, little Bobby, you think that having one only half trumpster makes this not a right wing pro Trump terrorist group, but if they had one Muslim it would be a jihadist group, wouldn't it. If they were anarchists, they would be a left wing terrorist group. If they had one black man they would be a blm terrorists group. But one not pure Trumpster and they aren't right wing terrorists. This is why no one here listens to your hyper partisan, factless propaganda, and no one anywhere with an IQ over 75 believes you.

Poor poor wittle Bobby, bad facts make Bobby cwy huwt.

It happened, it was halted, it's happening again. As long as lower education is so disparate between mostly white and mostly black schools, it's proper. Revamp the education system so all high school graduates have the same educational opportunities, I would support removing it again, but we are moving the opposite direction. No link required, I explained....but from the link you provided....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Did you read the link you provided about the one place supporting a day of absence? Evergreen? Their "day of absence" was 100% voluntary, not enforceable and not enforced, contrary to your claim.

The reporter chased out wasn't chased out, he was confronted, and he had left the media area to interrupt the event by "interviewing" people who didn't want to be interviewed in the middle of the event. Trump's campaign has adopted this tactic and added violence, and often physically assaulted reporters even when they comply and stay in the media area. This particular event was akin to a reporter jumping on stage and insisting the speaker let him interview him then and there, disrupting the sanctioned event.

Um....this was a discussion of why people would vote for Trump, not what's happening in Canada. That said, you can't expect a university to give a platform to a person who would use it to degrade and denigrate the university and it's policies. I wouldn't expect a religious school to host atheistic pro-life lectures, and I wouldn't expect publicly funded universities to host anti inclusion lectures.

Duh...your alleged "whiteness" class was not defining whiteness as inherently negative, it was this....
CSRE 136: White Identity Politics (AFRICAAM 136B, ANTHRO 136B)
Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States. Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity. What is the future of whiteness? n*Enrolled students will be contacted regarding the location of the course. And it was cancelled in 2016-17. Don't be dishonest, it will change my responses.

Not sure why you made up this falsely alleged definition of racism that appears nowhere in the definitions or class descriptions you linked, but you did. Calling bullshit....Again.

Critical Race Theory (7016): This course will consider one of the newest intellectual currents within American Legal Theory -- Critical Race Theory. Emerging during the 1980s, critical race scholars made many controversial claims about law and legal education -- among them that race and racial inequality suffused American law and society, that structural racial subordination remained endemic, and that both liberal and critical legal theories marginalized the voices of racial minorities. Course readings will be taken from both classic works of Critical Race Theory and newer interventions in the field, as well as scholarship criticizing or otherwise engaging with Critical Race Theory from outside or at the margins of the field. Meeting dates: The class will meet 7:15PM to 9:15PM on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (January 7, 8, and 9), and the following Monday and Tuesday (January 13 and 14). Elements used in grading: Class Participation, Written Assignments.

Not anti white/pro minority/white=evil....but an examination of how laws as written and enforced may (or may not) be an example of racial injustice codified in law, whether by accident or intent. Again, you misrepresent the facts to pretend a class that examines the roll of race in law is a racist class teaching whites are bad and blacks are good.

If everyone BUT Asains do poorly because they aren't offered the same opportunities to excell, then yes, we need to step in to UPGRADE the opportunities of everyone else, that doesn't translate into downgrading the opportunities Asains are offered. Derp. This bullshit is the same racist trope the anti equality side has used for years, it's just bullshit. Asians aren't penalized for being competent at math nor for being Asian....neither were whites, which was V 1.0 of that same argument.

Identity politics are on both sides, played hard by the right too, to the detriment of society.

Affirmative action got national pushback from the racist right the day it was described as a plan, and constantly since.

It seems you may be confused by morons who would tell you racism is dead, reverse racism is out of control. When white women start being lynched by black mobs and blacks get a free pass for breaking the law, come back and try again. Until then, you sound like a bully whining about getting a time out for punching a smaller kid because they're a different race and proclaiming the whole system is unfair to white kids because you had a minor consequence forced on you.

@newtboy
-Including race as a determining factor in your admission score
as a 'liberal' ideal
This IS happening broadly, link to how and arguments for why it is 'good'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/10/03/harvard-beat-an-effort-end-its-use-race-factor-admissions-what-will-supreme-court-do/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/10/01/471085/5-reasons-support-affirmative-action-college-admissions/

-Enforcement of a race based "day of absence" where based on your race you were to be 'kicked off' campus for the day
Specifically the day of absence was at evergreen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests
Similarly reverse racist attitudes though are common enough, like chasing out a student journalist here for simply covering an event:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kVGtqp7usw

-"deplatforming" people for having dissenting opinions
Jordan Peterson is the biggest example, but my local uni has also banned pro-life student clubs too, so maybe I'm a little Canada biased on this?

-The entire circle-jerk of intersectionalism:
---"whiteness" needs to be defined as something inherently negative
Here's the Standford course on it if you or your parents wanna enrol:
https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&page=0&catalog=&q=CSRE+32SI%3A+Whiteness&collapse=

---"Racism" needs to redefined as not simply racial prejudice, but racial prejudice PLUS power(you know, so only white people can be racist under the new definition)
Likewise offered at Stanford, unless this is the lone critical race theory course that doesn't champion the above prejudice+power definition.
https://law.stanford.edu/courses/critical-race-theory/

---"systemic racism" getting defined as anything with unequal outcomes, so if asian students do too well in math it must mean the system is favouring them and we need to step in


And I'm out of time,

but seriously I'm a little baffled this was remotely controversial? Identity politics is a game the left has been playing at HARD for at minimum the decades since Affirmative Action was launched. The notion that the idea would eventually get national level push back should have been easy to see coming.

Fair enough.

The one point I'd contest is that if someone is to dig their heels in upon receiving (arguably smug) contradictory remarks, I don't think that necessary indicates that they'd vote for Trump no matter what.

When you attack someone's belief that they've had for years and probably decades (i.e., their identity), it is painful and difficult to change one's belief.

A question I like to ask people who say things like what you said is, "When's the last time you admitted being incorrect to a long-held belief?" We've all been confronted with this, but how many times were you able to change your identity?

For instance, "Are you an animal-lover?" and then, the obvious vegan query, "Then why do you eat animals?" There's a pretty strong moral case for not eating animals and I would argue that it's a case that time will show to be both true and moral. I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace.

You could say that I, looking upon meat eaters, feel the same way you feel about Bob, at least in some ways.

The question is, "How does it feel? How easily are you able to change your long-held beliefs when (from my perspective) you're on the wrong side of history?" Do you find yourself recoiling? If someone came at you with not only the question, but says it in a self-congratulatory, condescending way, would you respond to that well? I wouldn't. I'd tell you to fuck off.

Give someone the facts clearly and without prejudice, and you can at least plant an earworm for them to digest later.

If you are vegan, I gotta come up with another example.

Hahahah. This is still a thing? FFS Bob.

That dose may be lower than some but it is identical to other studies that showed no benefit. It's not as if they stumbled onto something nobody else has tried before.

So
"The key seems to be that they used a much lower dose than the other stidues" is complete nonsense and shows he didn't look at many, if any other studies.