In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
jal,
How in the world can you be duped by this horseshit? I knew even before I looked that Brandon@LiborNormal was a right wing troll at best and a right wing bot account at worst. And wonder of wonders, I was correct.
https://x.com/LibOrNormal?lang=en
A Left-Wing Account@PushDemsLeft looks pretty dubious as well. I saw numerous examples of the account amplifying exactly this sort of right-wing spam.
First thing that came to mind is who is the victim?
You can’t really have a fraud case without a live person coming in and saying - I was lied to and would not have given my money if they told me what it was actually going to.
Do they actually have someone lined up to say that? And wouldn’t there be a crew of people volunteering to say exactly the opposite?
Wasn't that said in defense of trump in the property fraud case?
It’s not true anyway. Fraud is statutory so the relevant injured party would be called out by the statute. Not sure what statute the SPLC is being prosecuted under but I would doubt that it requires an individual. Even if it did require an individual, that other individuals can attest to not being defrauded is probably not exculpatory, at least not necessarily. Most likely there is a “reasonable person” standard that is being applied.
jal,How in the world can you be duped by this horseshit? I knew even before I looked that Brandon@LiborNormal was a right wing troll at best and a right wing bot account at worst. And wonder of wonders, I was correct.https://x.com/LibOrNormal?lang=enA Left-Wing Account@PushDemsLeft looks pretty dubious as well. I saw numerous examples of the account amplifying exactly this s
Ok, I didn't have time to check out that account but PushDemsLeft seems fine from what I've looked at.
Allies and enemies according to wikihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinahan_Or...But they also have reputed links to Iranian intelligence, and were allegedly behind the murder of an Iranian dissident and suspected bomber, in Holland, which they outsourced to Dutch/Moroccan gangsters, who along with Kinahan and others were part of a reputed "Super Cartel" based in
Iranian ties to criminal networks in Europe are well documented at this point. Iranian intelligence uses those connections to spy on, attack, kidnap and even assassinate dissidents, critics and journalists living abroad.
I’m not 100% sure, but if you’re talking about the Trump NY state case, the prosecution there DID have the lenders come in and say that inflating the property values affected their decisions.
The defense was - you didn’t actually lose any money because the loan got paid back.
Ok, I didn't have time to check out that account but PushDemsLeft seems fine from what I've looked at.
I didn't have to go too far back to find the PushDemsLeft account retweeting more Harris/Buttigieg bullshit from a right wing meme account named Wake Up Patriot, but it is certainly possible that the owner of the PushDemsLeft account is just an idiot rather than a bot.
Other than the fact that running mates don't get announced anywhere close to this early, why wouldn't Harris/Buttiegeg be a serious consideration for a ticket?
Other than the fact that running mates don't get announced anywhere close to this early, why wouldn't Harris/Buttiegeg be a serious consideration for a ticket?
Harris already has proven she can't beat a weak candidate. But that isn't really my point. My point is that no one should be relying on right wing social media trolls and spambots for an understanding of what Democrats prefer or who the Democratic nominees in 2028 might be. And no one who cares about progressive politics (or anything, really) should be amplifying those accounts.
It’s not true anyway. Fraud is statutory so the relevant injured party would be called out by the statute. Not sure what statute the SPLC is being prosecuted under but I would doubt that it requires an individual. Even if it did require an individual, that other individuals can attest to not being defrauded is probably not exculpatory, at least not necessarily. Most likely ther
Not sure what you mean by fraud is statutory. All crimes are statutory in that they are written down.
They’re being charged with wire fraud and bank fraud.
Wire fraud requires that you take the property of another through a “scheme to defraud”. There is no “reasonable person” standard. You have to show that the defendant specifically intended to lie, cheat, or steal from another party to get their property.
The indictment says the other party is SPLC donors and that they were defrauded because the SPLC said they would use their donations to oppose hate groups when in fact they used their funds to pay hate group members.
It does not identify any specific person (Victim 1) who claims to be defrauded and just cites general SPLC literature. While that is not fatal at the charging stage, if this goes to trial and no one who actually gave money comes in and says they feel defrauded there is a very good chance a judge dismisses it before it gets to the jury.
Similar issue with the bank fraud. Indictment says they defrauded the bank by making false statements on account opening docs for straw accounts they used to pay people out of. Thanks to the recently fraud friendly SCOTUS, these statements have to be both material (affected the banks decision) and actually false (not merely “misleading”). As a practical matter you cannot prove that without having a bank rep come in and say those things. Probably a lot easier than the wire fraud victim, but still needed.
As has been pointed out, these cases are like the “mortgage fraud” charge ones in that they are being brought to harass and punish rather than actually obtain convictions.
That said, I’d say it’s somewhat of a big deal if they charged this without actually talking to any specific donors.
It’s not true anyway. Fraud is statutory so the relevant injured party would be called out by the statute. Not sure what statute the SPLC is being prosecuted under but I would doubt that it requires an individual.
Reliance typically is an element of criminal fraud.
Well, when the reasons shes a bad choice are "offputting laugh, had sex in the 80s or 90s or whatever, black, and woman" then yeah
That describes 98% of the negative discourse about her
Its fine if those are the reasons she can never be president, you just have to acknowledge its because of racism and misogyny.
I didn't have to go too far back to find the PushDemsLeft account retweeting more Harris/Buttigieg bullshit from a right wing meme account named Wake Up Patriot, but it is certainly possible that the owner of the PushDemsLeft account is just an idiot rather than a bot.
Shrug
Maybe PDL saw the Harris/Buttiegieg combo and recoiled in horror, as anyone should imo. If you do want to push the Dems left it’s a perfectly reasonable reaction.
Well, when the reasons shes a bad choice are "offputting laugh, had sex in the 80s or 90s or whatever, black, and woman" then yeah
That describes 98% of the negative discourse about her
Its fine if those are the reasons she can never be president, you just have to acknowledge its because of racism and misogyny.
Is that really true? The reaction of American Muslims and others horrified by her support for the Gaza genocide and to her anti immigration rhetoric in the campaign only amount to 2% of the negative discourse about her?
Shrug
Maybe PDL saw the Harris/Buttiegieg combo and recoiled in horror, as anyone should imo. If you do want to push the Dems left it’s a perfectly reasonable reaction.
Once again, I am not asking anyone to endorse that combo. I am suggesting that people should not rely on right wing social media trolls and bots for their understanding of what is happening in the world. And I am suggesting that people should not amplify trash social media.
Well, when the reasons shes a bad choice are "offputting laugh, had sex in the 80s or 90s or whatever, black, and woman" then yeah
That describes 98% of the negative discourse about her
Its fine if those are the reasons she can never be president, you just have to acknowledge its because of racism and misogyny.
The bolded was 98% of the right wing derposphere discourse, not 98% of the discourse overall.
For election purposes, the right wing derposphere of course is a lost cause. Kamala never really established a core identity or base within the Democratic party. There is a reason why she flamed out so quickly as a presidential candidate in 2020. And in 2024, a lot of her support amounted to "oh well I guess we are doing this, which is obviously better than Trump." Even among Democrats, there wasn't a lot of passion for her, just relief that Biden was out of the way and certainty that she would be a million times better as president than Trump part deux.
All that said, I would agree that there seems to be a 1-2 percentage point electoral penalty for being a female presidential candidate, which is gross.
All that said, I would agree that there seems to be a 1-2 percentage point electoral penalty for being a female presidential candidate, which is gross.
this theory holds no water as it's never been tested
we've never put up a good female candidate for president
this theory holds no water as it's never been tested
we've never put up a good female candidate for president
The proposition is impossible to prove definitively, but for obvious reaons, the proof doesn't depend on putting up a good female candidate for president.
The proposition is impossible to prove definitively, but for obvious reaons, the proof doesn't depend on putting up a good female candidate for president.
this is like eating sbarro at times square and declaring that ny pizza sucks
this theory holds no water as it's never been tested
we've never put up a good female candidate for president
That’s true. You’ve never put up a good male candidate either but it doesn't seem to deter people from voting for them.
Is that really true? The reaction of American Muslims and others horrified by her support for the Gaza genocide and to her anti immigration rhetoric in the campaign only amount to 2% of the negative discourse about her?
Getting your American political slant from Hasan is a choice
And Hasan is a borderline evil hypocritical piece of ****
