Could that be Hunter, the DC DA and the Georgia DA that all are now ‘sposta file charges…because reports are all 3 have begun that process.

She sent the same revenge porn in a non age gated newsletter to her constituents in Georgia, sending porn directly to children and posting revenge porn…two crimes in one.
That’s industrial level child sex grooming from the cuckholding manly tranny Greene. 😂

Georgia law- Revenge porn is an aggravated misdemeanor if the offender posts the photograph or video on any other electronic means. This offense carries a prison sentence of up to 12 months and a $5,000 fine. Repeat offenders face harsher penalties as second and subsequent revenge porn charges become felonies. In that case, repeat revenge porn is punishable by one to five years in jail and/or a fine of up to $100,000.

The second offense in one day, so it’s already into the “subsequent charges” phase. She sent it over 100000 times, she could get the longest sentence in history, 100000-500000 years just for Georgia! Holy shit!

Also Georgia law- (e) (1) A person commits the offense of obscene Internet contact with a child if he or she has contact with someone he or she knows to be a child or with someone he or she believes to be a child via a computer on-line service or Internet service, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chat room, e-mail, or on-line messaging service, and the contact involves any matter containing explicit verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexually explicit nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse that is intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of either the child or the person, provided that no conviction shall be had for a violation of this subsection on the unsupported testimony of a child.

(2) Any person who violates paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years or by a fine of not more than $10,000.00; provided, however, that, if at the time of the offense the victim was 14 or 15 years of age and the defendant was no more than three years older than the victim, then the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.
Another 1-10 years for every minor that got her newsletter!

DC law- If the sexual image is shared with 6 or more persons through “publication,” either directly or by uploading to the Internet, then the offense is First-Degree Unlawful Publication of a Sexual Image. This is a felony offense punishable by up to 3 years in prison and/or a fine of $12,500.

Because this is a crime, not legislative activity, and transmitted both in the form of an electronic newsletter (uploaded to the internet) and statement to the press, she has no immunity….specifically listed in the speech and debate clause as exemptions to immunity.

Hunter also has civil cases in both DC and Georgia worth tens of millions each. Bye MTG. 😂

Not to mention the federal laws she broke by publishing the documents she swore under oath to not share or publish before she could see them.

Sweet Zombie Jesus….the secret service emails were recovered and published yesterday, and they prove the secret service was well aware of credible death threats to Pelosi and Pence at the capitol on January 6 by Jan 4 at the latest (posted Dec 31)…and did not share that information with capitol police, Pelosi, or Pence until 5 hours into the coup….after trying to force Pence into Trump’s limo with only Trump’s SS security.

Yes, it’s now undeniable that the SS was absolutely part of the coup, hid their knowledge of the upcoming attack, hid their involvement by erasing all communications, and absolutely didn’t do their job….in fact it seems a hit squad of SS tried to kidnap Pence (and hand him to the crowd for lynching) but he knew Trump’s SS wasn’t going to protect him and he fled from them.

Every bit of information we get makes things so much worse. Now, the entire SS needs to be fired, for cause with no benefits no pension and a ban from working as law enforcement, and an entire new force Hired. Talk about deep state.

Remember, republicans have started to claim the “deep state is going to assassinate Trump”….and every accusation is a confession. The “red deep state”, which is undeniably real unlike the blue “deep state”, just might try another coup, starting with assassinations at the top.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/secret-service-pelosi-threat-rcna43712

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Secret-Service-waited-to-tell-Capitol-Police-of-17380259.php

There is no such thing as internet privacy. It’s a total myth. You are tracked anywhere you surf, and there’s no publicly available encryption the government can’t crack, usually they have back doors so they don’t even have to.

Of course, all social media sites are funded by selling your information. What, you thought they’re free?!

Do people not remember Carnivore? It collected and read EVERY email and text sent in the US in secret in the 90’s. Are people so dumb they think this stopped post 9/11?

I have no cell phone, no social media, and I always click “do not share my personal information “, required on any commercial site operating in California….and I still have no illusions that my data is private. Want to stay private, don’t give out your information to anyone.

I do not share your opinion. Provided Bob isn't in-fact a Russian troll, he's still an American.

Pop quiz, which is the best political party?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Trick question, the best party in America is America.

“We’re so glad to see so many of you lovely people here tonight. And we would especially like to welcome all the representatives of Illinois’s law enforcement community that have chosen to join us here in the Palace Hotel Ballroom at this time. We certainly hope you all enjoy the show. And remember, people, that no matter who you are and what you do to live, thrive and survive, there’re still some things that makes us all the same. You. Me. Them. Everybody. Everybody.”






That said,

They'll get their own misery when they feel the policy they helped create begin to affect them. Trust me, it doesn't need help. My dad is scrambling trying to save for his retirement at 65 and scoffs at the idea of the stimulus checks he got, refuses to cash the "biden bucks"

Let me tell you. Jeff Bezos? Mark Zuckerburg? They don't give a shit about moral quandaries when offered free money, they take it, happily.
If you're pulling down millions every year and cook the books a bit, that's "smart." Walk in to a social security office with a baby on your arm a day early, that's "criminal," (almost like stealing).

Do that enough + a bunch of VERY-MUCH-NOT billionaires voting for it and u have the republican party.


-----------------

I also don't care for the malformed logic they practice. Another republican acquaintance of mine called me a "segregationist" because I said trans-athletes should be able to play on the team of their self identified sex.

Whether you agree with me on that or not, me saying that they SHOULD play on an integrated team does NOT make me a segregationist, unless you completely redefine the word.

------------------




Finally, I do agree there is some room for some anger. I don't like it when the GOP or their sycophants go on a "Let's take rights away from someone today, AS A TEAM!"

When the message is the OPPOSITE of "There are still some things that make us all the same," it's infuriating. Because if it can happen to them, it can happen to you.

Take what's happening with their complaints of "cancel culture"
Coca Cola, Disney, etc etc private companies and bakeries

The new and improved supreme court helped establish that private businesses can discriminate against you based on a genuine philosophical or religious belief. Bakery vs the gay couple "TAKE THAT, GAYS!!!"

They didn't realize that that meant ALL businesses could now do that. But again, if it happens to them, it can happen to you.

Bob here is like one of the fans throwing garbage on the field when Jackie Robinson gets up to bat. "WHY DON'T YOU JUST GET YOUR OWN NEGRO -ERR TRANS LEAGUE?"


He truly doesn't know he's being manipulated.



p.s. https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/605003519/supreme-court-decides-in-favor-of-baker-over-same-sex-couple-in-cake-shop-case

Now, it's easy to point out "LOOK!!! no no no it's not!!! see! it says right here, they CANT just do it if you're not this specific baker." That's not stopping this guy from 6 days ago

https://w ww.whas11.co (link too long) m/article/news/investigations/focus/radcliff-kentucky-tax-preparer-refusing-business-to-lgbtq-couples/417-c2575ded-feed-45d8-b6f7-49016ec9eba3

made a tiny^ https://tinyurl.com/myd5ubrc

Fair point, and I would agree with you that if one of your core beliefs are pro-life/pro-choice, of course you want the law to reflect that because you care about the people affected by the law.

That said, it's hard to simultaneously urge the liberals need to stop tip-toeing AND fret that a right-leaning majority on the Supreme Court might overturn Roe vs. Wade. Not because you can't want to uphold Roe vs Wade, but because Roe vs. Wade has stood a long time under a left-leaning majority which tends to argue that the liberals haven't exactly been tip-toeing.

I just wish people would place live and let live much higher up in their value systems. I've got plenty of really strong beliefs that I don't believe should be enshrined into law. The reason being that merely not sharing those beliefs doesn't need to affect anybody else, so to each their own. I believe society is better if I try to convince others of most beliefs voluntarily and not through force of law.

@newtboy

"saying humans are born with either a penis or vagina isn't a hateful statement against people."
It absolutely is hateful to hermaphrodites, clearly saying they aren't human. Use the qualifier "usually" or "almost always".

Alright, if used to deliberately dehumanise someone, almost anything can be hateful. Omitting "almost always" is just convenient, like stating the sky is blue. Sure, the sky isn't always blue, but it's correct often enough to be treated as an accurate general statement. As I gave in my example, saying humans have five fingers and five toes isn't hateful or dehumanising to people with a different number, it's just a generally true statement.

I argue it's in the brain, which today can't be changed. Gender is different from sexuality, clearly, no?

Let me try to be more succinct.

Physical sex is a birth attribute, not as my opinion, but as a provable objective fact.

Gender is in the brain, is an opinion. I do not share that opinion. This is a point on which we should have the liberty to agree to disagree.
Edit:My opinion is that if not defined as biological sex, gender has no real meaning aside from societal norms.

, I said it was more controversial.

I dare say even agreeing that we don't solely choose our sexual interests, when it comes to our actions I insist we treat those as the result of free will, aka choice.

When I'm not typing from a 4in screen I can pull up the references, but the peer reviewed studies on genetics hardly illustrate that sexual orientation and identity are dominated by it. Twins studies do show that identical twins more often share orientation than non-identical, which gives a correlation to genetics. However, I'll pull up the studies but last I reviewed them, more than half the identical twins in the studies did NOT share the same orientation. That is an arguably compelling indicator that genetics does not solely determine orientation.

Other twin studies comparing other behaviours like religion show a similar pattern. Studies with twins on violent and aggressive behaviour show an even stronger "genetic" component than the orientation studies, and nobody has any qualms about being politically incorrect declaring that violence is a choice and not a birth attribute...

@jwray

*facepalm*

You realize the link you just posted is titled "IQ dominates socioeconomic background data for white men" (my emphasis).

Sure, there is a correlation between IQ and crime and it is hotly contested to what that actually means.

To some, that means only dumb criminals actually get caught (meaning we don't know the true average IQ of criminals because the smart ones get away with it).

To others, it reflects the socioeconomic status of the people most likely to commit crimes (i.e. likely grew up poor in a neighborhood without strong educational opportunities and therefore does not share the cultural values that IQ tests inherently load into the questions and furthermore the test-taker may be openly hostile to standardized test-taking).

To still others it reflects the RESULTS of crime (i.e. leading a criminal lifestyle makes it more likely that you are going to suffer traumatic physical injuries to the head that literally make you dumber).

The 7-8 point difference you quoted is not nearly enough to make a difference on the crime rates. 100 IQ is the normally distributed mean and Japanese people on average, score around 106. For reference, a standard deviation on the IQ test is 15 points, meaning that for all intents and purposes Japanese people are still roughly in the same ballpark as Americans with their 98-point average.

And literally the first Google search result when I looked up Japanese IQ scores was this one, explaining how national average IQ scores correlate with the per capita income and national rates of economic development.

In other words, economic factors correlate with IQ, which correlates with negatively with crime, which seems to further reinforce the idea that socioeconomic forces are a key factor in criminal behavior.

Look, we're getting really far afield of what the video is about. I think it is a no-brainer that few gun crimes are committed in Japan because guns are so heavily regulated. We do have stabbings, in fact we have mass stabbings (which is something you don't see so often in the U.S.). The thing we both agree on is that it is impossible for the U.S. to replicate these crime statistic results, whether that be for cultural reasons or whatever other cause you want to throw out there.

A clearly sensationalist title that I think shows this guy is just trying to make a name for himself rather than add to the conversation of "empathy is good, we need more of it, here is how we could do that." Provocateur, etc.

Seriously, "the problem with too much empathy", it's like, what's the opposite of a phrase like this? "The solution for reducing empathising so that its effect is not negative to me"? Empathising is an act of self-expressive courage man! You do it because feelings are a fundamental part of the human experience and how we RELATE to EACH OTHER. And you can do that TOO MUCH?!?!

I believe empathy is a sense, not a rule dude. Just because other people are starving doesn't mean that because of "the rule of empathy" then I should act. I think empathy is rather a sense where when something happens with someone, I experience, I observe, then I feel, and it is that feeling which is part of both my capacity for empathy, and my actual empathy.

PS - I don't look at or try to look the world objectively, DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH! Everything is subjective! The only truth is what we share together. I do not share this dude's opinions about what the word "empathy" means.

GOSHDARNIT this guy describes how people interpret the world through their personalities and then immediately goes on to clarify nothing about what he said, he says people need to talk about what they each believe because people have different perspectives, BUT then he immediately says "I'm not saying that facts don't exist or that they're not relativistic or anything like that" THEN WELL WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?!?!?! DO YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING?!?!? DO PEOPLE HAVE TO TALK OR NOT TO MAKE SENSE OF THINGS!?!??! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want to believe he's trying to be helpful to humanity somehow but I don't see it.

OMG - Share the WIFI already - It's not sharing something personal - It's like letting someone hear your music or watch your TV while they are over. This is so messed up .
If it bothers you that much, change your password once in a while.

One last thing. That is why Youtube sucks more and more and people don't do anything about it because Google will just simply buy your company out and just screw it around.

Google has no incentive to change because they have the most profits and awareness in the media and all the other search engines are now *enhanced by Google* though Start Page does not share your private search data it still has the same garbage google has.

Bing now uses Google as I have notice the same results comparing search engines and unless you make your site smart phone ONLY Google's rules say they won't rank you.

This is why we are it the predicament we are in today.

If people keep voting for someone who does not share their values just to stop someone who is a bit worse from getting elected this cycle will continue forever. "Spoilers" and "lesser of two evils" are tactics that keep people voting against their best interests.

If you vote for Hillary or Trump just because you think the other is worse, you are voting for a local maximum, and will be stuck with the rigged two party system forever.

Voting your conscience and losing to Trump is far better!!! Eventually a third party can form and whittle away at the two sided party. They can change their positions to stay in power or die off. Either way it gives us the ability to choose what topics being addressed, unlike the current system where year after year we are pitted against each other on the same topics which those in control have little interest in. Wallmart, Comcast et all have little interest in abortion gun control, or gay rights.

BREAK the fucking system. Do not vote for her to prevent Trump. It insures the continuation of the current system. Your voice will forever be inconsequential.

"Voting for the lesser of two evils only paves the way for the greater."

Um......but one person's 'mistake' is wrongly verbally attacking a student over something she's absolutely wrong about and is none of her business anyway, and taking her ignorant outrage to the level of assault and battery repeatedly against multiple parties.
The other person's 'mistake' is wearing a hairstyle you don't like.
And it's the SECOND person you wanted to lambast and deride, while completely ignoring the former?

Can you not see how ridiculous that looks to those not sharing your minority, prejudiced view on white guys with dreads (that view apparently born from you attending too many Phish concerts)?

I think the only outrage came from you. No one is calling for her head, or saying she needs to be taught a lesson, or is even all that upset about it, they're simply stating the likely outcome(s) of being caught on video acting that way....in fact the person you snidely replied to actually said he felt sorry for her because of the likely terrible outcome for her, not that she needs to be taught a lesson.
It was you that started the 'white dudes with dreads are the lamest of lame' and 'hope there's a nice view on your high horse' kind of insulting outraged smugness. If someone disagreeing with you and saying so is picking up 'pitchforks', boy howdy are you in the wrong place. ;-)

I'd offer you the common courtesy of letting you have your beliefs which I do not share, but you're an arrogant and rude ass, so I'll conclude that if religion is the panacea for the ignorant, you're their poster child... ; )

From my investigation, that's incorrect.
The places in China where hand pollination is used still have bees. The reason they do hand pollination is they switched to a very few varieties of apples and pears...and apple and pear trees need a DIFFERENT apple or pear tree to pollinate, so if you only have one apple variety (the norm there) it won't self pollinate, no matter how many bees there are. Also, climate change is putting the bee cycles and the tree cycles out of synch, making natural pollination even more difficult or impossible. By hand pollinating, they are able to have less than 10% 'pollination' trees to 90% 'fruiting' trees, and pollinate on the tree's cycle. THAT'S why production was better with hand pollination, not because people could do it better, but humans could target which pollen to use on which flower/tree. Also, commercial beekeepers won't 'lend' (rent) their hives out, or require high payments for them pricing most farmers out, because farmers there still use pesticides that kill bees through the pollination seasons.

Other areas that used to do hand pollination have stopped thanks to education. Now they plant more variety (so the bees/insects/birds CAN pollinate for them) and use less pesticides (that they actually didn't realize would kill bees) and are getting better yields for less money than the Chinese.

EDIT: These 'studies' always seem to ignore the incalculable cost of removing all the natural food pollinated by bees, and the collapse of many food webs caused by the loss of that food base. If people are spending cash to do the pollination work, you can be certain they'll go to great lengths to NOT share that produce with any wildlife.

Also, human hand pollination doesn't work for crops like certain grains and smaller vegetables and nuts, main human food sources. It only works for foods where a single pollinated flower will produce something worth the cost of pollination...grains simply don't, and neither do most vegetables, fruits, or nuts. Only large fruits or vegetables could use this economically. So while you're correct, it CAN be done, doing it across the board would probably quadruple the cost of average foods, if not worse.

WIKI-" If humans were to replace bees as pollinators in the United States, the annual cost would be estimated to be $90,000,000,000.[4]"

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/will-we-still-have-fruit-if-bees-die-off/