TechyDad

joined 1 year ago
[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's because half of the Republicans don't want democracy anymore. Democracy means that the other side might have power if the right's views aren't popular enough. That's unacceptable to Republicans. They want a system where they are always in charge and nothing so minor as "our policies are highly unpopular" can stop them. They want a dictatorship with them in charge.

At best, maybe they're willing to have a "democracy" where you have the choice of which Republican you want leading you. (It would sort of be as if the Republican primaries were really determining who would be President - not who would be the Republicans' candidate for President.)

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Only if the House didn't impeach him and the Senate didn't convict.

So Biden would also have to kill as many Congressional Republicans as possible to prevent any impeachment vote from succeeding. This "legal theory" is essentially saying "one murder might be criminally liable, but mass murder of political opponents is just fine!"

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

And it gets better. In the Georgia case, they are arguing that Trump can't be tried because he was impeached for that crime and a criminal trial would be double jeopardy.

Ignore for a second that his impeachment wasn't over the Georgia crimes. Trump's lawyers are arguing that you need to impeach/convict before you can criminally charge, but if you impeach then you can't criminally charge.

Their legal theories are the equivalent of "I object! It's devastating to my case!"

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Or just go one step further and have all Congressional members of the opposing party killed.

Biden would never do this and I don't want him to, but let's suppose that Trump's "legal theory" is correct and Biden wakes up tomorrow thinking that he's sick of dealing with the Republicans' malarkey. He orders some military groups known to be loyal to him to round up every Republican member of Congress along with certain Supreme Court justices. They are all executed. Then Trump is brought in and executed as well.

Now what would happen? Would Biden be charged with mass murder? No, he's immune to prosecution. You need to impeach and convict him first. But nobody remains who would impeach him. So he's totally immune as he appoints left leaning Supreme Court justices and expands his "early Republican retirement program" to right leaning Federal judges.

Again, I wouldn't want him doing this, but according to Trump this would be totally legal.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago (2 children)

"Sleepy Joe Biden is lowering gas prices in a partisan attempt to win reelection. The second the election is over, he'll raise gas prices to $5 a gallon and require all new cars to be electric! I know this is true because I saw a post on Facebook about it!!!"

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago (15 children)

Punching down is never funny. Picking on people who have been marginalized or attacked for being who they are winds up being cruel, not humorous. Maybe a skilled comedian could punch down in such a way that it's funny, but it would be an extremely rare event.

If you want to punch and be funny, you have two options. The first is to punch up. Hit the people in power. Hit the people who have luxury. For example, a joke making fun of poor people isn't likely to be funny. A joke making fun of wealthy people, though? That has a much better chance of being funny.

The other punch style is the self punch. This is where you make fun of yourself or your own "group." For example, I'm Jewish. If a non-Jew makes a "Jews run the world" joke, it'll likely come across as highly anti-semitic. If I were to make that joke, I'd stand a decent chance of getting a laugh. (Well, assuming that I had basic comedy skills.)

When the right complains that the left has ruined comedy, what they really mean is that they can't make fun of people who are suffering without being called cruel.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

The whole situation in the Middle East is a Gordian Knot of epic proportions. There's a ton of generational trauma among both people. Both sides have valid claims against the other. Normally, I hate "both sides-ism," but the overall Middle East situation definitely calls for it.

It's also, sadly, why peace is so hard to achieve. If it was as simple as "give this side A and that side B," it would have been over long ago. There are elements on both sides that refuse to stop until the other side is completely killed off. Meanwhile, most people would just want peace but are caught in the middle and are scared. And those of us in America know what kind of politicians thrive on fear and hatred. If you need a hint, watch Newsmax or OAN for as long as your brain will tolerate it.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Weren't some hostages also drugged so they'd be "happy and smiling" for the cameras when released? I heard that, but don't know the authenticity.

Edit: I found many news sources that said they were. I know some folks don't trust anything Israel says so take reports like this with a grain of salt. Still, it's been confirmed that many of the hostages were drugged while in captivity. Especially the kids - to keep them quiet. (Anyone with little kids knows they can be loud while scared and this must have been extremely scary. As a father, the reaction of "drug the little kids" makes me angry.)

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Don't forget that the Hamas leaders are living in luxury as billionaires in Qatar. If the Israeli response kills a few thousand Palestinians, then Hamas' leaders will shrug their shoulders and say "sounds like good PR" while lounging in a hot tub.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

This is what some people who cheer on Hamas don't seem to understand. Hamas was elected into power, yes, but they claimed to be moderates. Even so, they won a plurality, not a majority. Then, they cancelled all future elections and revealed themselves to be extremists.

The aid that goes to the Gaza Strip is either seized by the leaders of Hamas (who are billionaires living in luxury in Qatar) or are used to buy weapons to attack Israel. Very little actually goes to the Palestinian people.

Even if we set anything Israel-related aside, Hamas needs to go for the well being of the Palestinian people. At the very least, there should be free, fair, and regular elections so the government does what the people want instead of just what some billionaires in Qatar (who don't need to deal with the consequences) want.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Sadly, this is the reason too many people overlook. It's not the only reason. A full listing of the reasons and their history would fill a book, but just focusing on the money aspect:

Hamas gets funding and weapons from Iran. Iran wants instability there and encourages the "wipe out Israel, kill all the Jews mentality."

On the other side, evangelical Christians in the US support people like the settlers in the West Bank. In the case of the evangelicals, it's because they need Israel to be controlled by Jews for Jesus to return, but they also need Israel to suffer a big attack. Peace in the Middle East would, in their twisted view, hurt Jesus' chances of returning. As an aside, they think that Jesus will toss all the Jews into hell once he comes back so them "supporting Israel" is definitely not "pro-Jews." It's merely delayed anti-semitism.

Remove these two elements and the fire would still rage there, but these groups see the fire and decide to toss some gasoline on top of it.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

There are pockets of NY, outside of NYC, that are blue. The big areas that are red are mostly rural counties. But land doesn't vote, people do, so it doesn't matter if 1,000 people in a huge area vote red when 100,000 people in a small city vote blue.

You're right that NYC helps keep us blue, but they aren't the only ones. In 2020, NY voted for Biden over Trump 60.8% to 37.7%. If we removed NYC's counties, NY would have still voted for Biden, but at a much closer 52.4% to 45.9%.

 

I've been struggling with something for a while now and ironically a sitcom from the 80's finally helped me pinpoint the problem. My TV was on for background noise and I noticed that it was an episode of Family Ties. In the episode, Elyse Keaton was having a problem. A prominent building that she designed was being torn down and replaced by a cookie cutter mini-mall. She was struggling with her "legacy" - her mark on the world - disappearing. After the building was gone, what evidence would there be that Elyse Keaton was there?

I'm facing a similar issue. I don't like getting into my day job too much online (for various reasons), but suffice it to say that applications that I developed for decades are being sunset/replaced. I've developed quite a lot over the decades, but eventually it would all be replaced. Once it is, what will I have as "proof that TechyDad was here"?

How do you handle the existential crisis of our works being digital and transient versus having an actual, physical product?

 

One of former President Donald Trump's long-time assistants told federal investigators that Trump repeatedly wrote to-do lists for her on documents from the White House that were marked classified, according to sources familiar with her statements.

As described to ABC News, the aide, Molly Michael, told investigators that -- more than once -- she received requests or taskings from Trump that were written on the back of notecards, and she later recognized those notecards as sensitive White House materials -- with visible classification markings -- used to brief Trump while he was still in office about phone calls with foreign leaders or other international-related matters.

The notecards with classification markings were at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate when FBI agents searched the property on Aug. 8, 2022 -- but the materials were not taken by the FBI, according to sources familiar with what Michael told investigators.

When Michael, who was not present for the search, returned to Mar-a-Lago the next day to clean up her office space, she found the documents underneath a drawer organizer and helped transfer them to the FBI that same day, sources told ABC News.

The sources said Michael also told federal investigators that last year she grew increasingly concerned with how Trump handled recurring requests from the National Archives for the return of all government documents being kept in boxes at Mar-a-Lago -- and she felt that Trump's claims about it at the time would be easy to disprove, according to the sources.

Sources said that after Trump heard the FBI wanted to interview Michael last year, Trump allegedly told her, "You don't know anything about the boxes."

It's unclear exactly what he meant by that.

Trump pleaded not guilty in June to 37 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information ranging from U.S. nuclear secrets to the nation's defense capabilities, and took steps to thwart the government's efforts to get the documents back. Trump has denied all charges and denounced the probe as a political witch hunt.

As ABC News previously reported, Michael is believed to be the person identified in special counsel Jack Smith's indictment as "Trump Employee 2," described in the indictment as someone who handled many of Trump's White House-era boxes at Mar-a-Lago and who provided Trump with photos of those boxes that were then included in the indictment.

Michael's statements to investigators, described to ABC News by sources, shed further light on the breadth of evidence that Smith has amassed to support his case against Trump.

A Trump spokesperson said that what ABC News was told -- through what the spokesperson called "illegal leaks" -- lacks "proper context and relevant information," and that "President Trump did nothing wrong, has always insisted on truth and transparency, and acted in a proper manner, according to the law."

A representative for Michael declined to comment to ABC News. The FBI also declined to comment.

'Easily' disproven In 2018, Michael became Trump's executive assistant in the White House, and she continued to work for him when Trump left office. But she resigned last year, in the wake of Trump's alleged refusal to comply with the federal requests and the FBI's subsequent search of Mar-a-Lago.

Speaking to federal investigators, Michael recounted how, by late 2021, as many as 90 boxes of materials from Trump's time as president were moved into a basement storage room at Mar-a-Lago, and how -- as pressure from the National Archives mounted -- she and Trump aide Walt Nauta would bring boxes to Trump's residence for him to review.

Trump eventually agreed to turn over 15 boxes of materials, which Michael told investigators she viewed as a positive sign, sources told ABC News.

But then, according to what she told investigators, around the same time that the National Archives found nearly 200 classified documents in the 15 boxes and referred the matter to the FBI, Trump began to seem more reluctant to cooperate with the agency, and he asked Michael to help spread a message that no more boxes existed, sources said she recounted.

That's when Michael became concerned, knowing that scores more boxes were in the storage room, sources said. And as Trump continued to claim that there were no more boxes, Michael even pointed out to him that many people, including maintenance workers, knew otherwise because they had all seen that there were many more than 15 boxes, sources said she told investigators.

Smith's indictment against Trump alleges that Trump asked one of his attorneys at the time, "Wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?"

Speaking later with investigators, Michael said she believed early on that claims of no more boxes from Trump were "easily" disproven, and she believed Trump knew they were false because he knew the contents of those boxes better than anyone else -- and because he had previously seen a photograph of the storage room with all 90 or so boxes in it, ABC News was told.

The Justice Department was apparently just as skeptical.

What the FBI didn't take

In May of last year, convinced that Trump was still holding onto a cache of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the Justice Department issued a grand jury subpoena to Trump demanding he return any and all classified documents.

According to the indictment, when Trump attorney Evan Corcoran then planned to search for any remaining classified documents in the storage room at Mar-a-Lago, Trump directed Nauta and another aide to remove dozens of boxes from the storage room before Corcoran got there "so that many boxes were not searched and many boxes responsive to the ... subpoena could not be found," the indictment said.

Corcoran found only 38 classified documents in the boxes left in the storage room, and he handed them over to the FBI, along with a certification -- allegedly endorsed by Trump -- that the former president had now fully complied with the subpoena.

But the FBI still believed Trump was holding onto even more classified documents, and when FBI agents conducted an unannounced search of Mar-a-Lago three months later, they found 102 more classified documents in Trump's office and elsewhere.

The next day, after the FBI search, Michael returned to work at Mar-a-Lago and found her desk in a bit of a mess, with drawers turned over, sources said. Buried underneath a drawer organizer were the to-do lists Trump had written for her on the backs of briefing notes with classification markings, Michael later recalled to investigators, according to sources.

When Michael discovered that the FBI hadn't taken those documents in their search of Mar-a-Lago, she helped make sure they were given to the FBI that same day, the sources told ABC News.

It's unclear if Michael notified Trump or others at Mar-a-Lago about her discovery, or if any of those notecards from White House briefings are among the 32 different classified documents that Trump is charged with unlawfully retaining.

The indictment also accuses Trump of trying "to obstruct the FBI and grand jury investigations" by, among other things, providing "just some of the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena, while claiming that he was cooperating fully."

In her statements to investigators, as described by sources to ABC News, Michael noted that when the FBI first contacted her for an interview as part of their investigation last year, she notified Trump about the request. In response, he told her, "You don't know anything about the boxes," she told investigators, according to the sources.

'Anything you need from us'

A Trump campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, previously told ABC News that Trump "offered full cooperation with DOJ, and told [a] key DOJ official, in person, 'Anything you need from us, just let us know.'"

According to transcripts of contemporaneous voice notes made by Trump attorney Corcoran and reviewed by ABC News, Trump did make such a statement on June 3 of last year at Mar-a-Lago, when a senior Justice Department official and FBI agents came to retrieve the 38 classified documents that Corcoran found in the basement storage room.

But, according to the indictment, that's the same day Trump "caused a false certification to be submitted to the FBI" claiming there were no more classified documents. And before Trump spoke with the Justice Department official, many of his boxes were loaded onto his plane headed "north for the summer," according to the indictment.

In addition, after the Justice Department weeks later issued a second subpoena for security camera footage from inside Mar-a-Lago, Trump tried to have some of that footage deleted "to conceal information from the FBI and grand jury," the indictment alleged.

Alongside Trump, the indictment also charged Nauta and the other Trump aide, Carlos de Oliveira, for their alleged roles in the conspiracy to hide classified documents from the FBI.

They have each pleaded not guilty.

view more: next ›