fishbane

Is the allegation that in the video you posted where Fauci predicted a pandemic before Trump's first term that wasn't a prediction at all. Fauci knew it was going to happen because he knew that $600k from a $3.6M grant to EcoHealth Alliance awarded in 2014 would be subcontracted out to WIV and used for something that fits a definition of gain-of-function research that would lead to the COVID-19 pandemic 3 years later? So what is the tie in to gas prices here? I had said some things that impact the price of gas are within a president's control and others are not. I wasn't really assigning fault of the COVID-19 pandemic to any US president. Not Obama, not Trump, and not Biden. Even if that complicated theory applies dubious blame for the pandemic at Fauci's feet, it would take further conspiracy to assign to blame to a US president as a direct cause of the pandemic which raised gas prices. People can argue about how well Biden and Trump managed the pandemic but neither of them caused it. The same thing can be said of the Ukraine-Russia war. Neither ordered the Russian special military operation in 2022 that turned into an invasion. Contrast this with the Iran War that is currently driving up gas prices. Clearly Trump authorized the airstrikes that started the conflict.

Any proof that NIH funded gain-of-function research?

This was a talk he gave at Georgetown on January 10th 2017. This was 10 days before Trump's inauguration. Not 1 day. Setting that aside, what exactly would he be charged with? He was giving a talk on pandemic preparedness. After that statement he went on to give historical examples and how predecessors who have predicted no pandemics or that infectious diseases were solved were proven incorrect. He quotes Nobel prize winner Sir Macfarlane Burnet "To write about infectious diseases is almost to write of something that has passed into history. The most likely forecast about the future of infectious diseases is that it will be very dull." He remarks that the mistake Burnet made is one many have made and then points out something he said was brought up in an early panel discussion at the event that we must look beyond our borders. Because he didn't make the same mistakes of past immunologists/virologists you think he should be prosecuted? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNXGAxGJgQI&t

You said “I think it was mentioned somewhere in there, that the asinine idea of defunding the police and sending social workers out to do police work is a mistake.” That wasn’t mentioned and couldn’t be a takeaway from the story you posted about the firefighter shot in Wisconsin. That took place in 2019 almost a year before George Floyd was killed and the defund the police movement took off. Police were not defunded. Social workers were not involved. “most policemen are trained and adept at recognizing concealed weapons and dealing with unruly people.” The police in the story you posted took 10+ minutes to recognize the concealed weapon and the man only became unruly when they attempted to deal with it.

That’s from November 2021. Gas prices are currently +$1.00/gal from the November 2021 price. Some things that impact gas prices are within the president’s control and some things are not. The big factors that drove gas prices up during Biden’s presidency were the Covid 19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. The president neither started the pandemic nor the War in Ukraine. The thing that’s driving up gas prices right now is a supply restriction due to the War with Iran. That war started with the US and Israel launching airstrikes on Iran.

It's like we are having two different conversations here. The story was a guy passed out on a bus. He was not unruly. He was passed out. He was very easy to control when he was passed out, but they were trying to save his life. A firefighter revived him. It was some 11+ minutes after he was revived that police recognized he had a concealed weapon. Police were talking to him the entire time - 11+ minutes. There were at least three of them on scene. How are you tying this into Democrats defunding police and replacing them with social workers? It was in a town, county, congressional district, state, country run by Republicans. It was a call for a medial help with three police officers on scene and 0 social workers. Stop being manipulated by fake news on twitter.

To me the tweet was about the mainstream media coverage, but if you search google for Ruben Houston Appleton WI you will find stories from 2019 from local Fox, NBC, and ABC affiliates. Not every murder is going to make national headlines. Harris bringing it up the way he did 7 years later is probably more manipulative than the original mainstream coverage. If you like the way he manipulates you then continue to follow him. I don't really see how that particular story ties in with defund the police or how social workers should be used in law enforcement. Did Fond Du Lac County send social workers to arrest Houston? Was it the social workers that missed the spelling change to his surname? Huston -> Houston. Or are you saying that Appleton sending firefighters/EMTs to administer NARCAN to a passed out man on the bus was asinine? Police should arrest passed out bus riders before any medical aid is rendered.

I see that. It's still really odd. These kinds of mistakes can happen in places run by either Democrats or Republicans. If the the premise of the thread is true and they happen much more frequently in blue areas of the country then there should be no reason Newsmax host to dig up a seven year old story from a red town. Isn't this guy's stated goal to "wake up as many people to the lies of the Democrat party and nonstop manipulation of the mainstream media"? Do you feel these kinds of tweets are doing that? Or is he just attempting to manipulate you in a different direction?

This happened 7 years ago. How is it applicable to the topic of the thread? "Ds on crime" This happened in Appleton, WI. This is town with a Republican Mayor located in a congressional district with a Republican House Rep in a state with a Republican Governor. The country even had a Republican president at this time. If this is in reference to the bail reduction that allowed him to be released in Fond du Lac County, that county has voted red for decades. The county leadership is entirely Republican. The district Attorney is a Republican and has been in office since 2012. Not every failure of the criminal justice system or re-offense can be blamed on the other party. How do you guys find these odd ball stories on twitter where events that happened 5+ years ago are presented as news?

Iowa has never been the best at recruiting out of HS under Brands. PSU, OSU, and Ohio State have routinely out recruited them. If anything Iowa is recruiting at an all time high right now and in the recent past. The only exception to that is the class of 2026 where they had Bassett flip late after putting a lot of resources into getting him. Iowa has won in the past by getting less out of high school, but doing more with it. That is harder to do today because the top high school wrestlers wrestle each other more and have greater access to high level coaching. It all makes ranking and recruiting more efficient. Still Brands and Iowa have a great track record in getting the most out of their recruits. It's been over 10 years since a top 20-25 guy went to Iowa out of high school and failed to make the podium at NCAAs. A recruit not living up to expectations at Iowa is someone like Keuter on pace to be a 4x AA but not being a title contender, Patrick Kennedy only AAing 2x (3rd and 4th), or Alex Marinelli placing at NCAAs 3x but never winning it. Compare that with all the guys that were top 10 out of high school and washed out completely at other top programs.

If you don't bother to read 50% of the tweets you post here that might help explain the low accuracy.

I am sure you still follow the same accounts. The video here is more believable, but the chart below it seems off.

No one would spray pepper spray that close to their face. They would react to it too. And there is some weird stuff going on in the background with the flag one one persons face. Other video there is also suspect. Dildos probably happened. You should probably reevaluate who you follow on twitter if you are having difficulty distinguishing fake nonsense from reality.

The video with the barking and the pepper spray looks fake like a significant amount of stuff you find on twitter...

Yikes. I you are at it again! I never said “if you commit a crime, you are not a criminal.” That is the straw man. A straw man fallacy is when someone instead of addressing the thing that you said makes up something entirely different or at least an exaggerated version to attack in its place. In the fallacy the made up or exaggerated position is the straw man. I said “The criminal justice system isn’t the answer for all bad behavior.” you then made up the straw man “If you commit a crime, you are not a criminal.” which I never said. Some lady in some video you found said that. The statement I made is very difficult to argue with and most people would agree it’s true. If you can come up with even 1 example of bad behavior that you feel should not be a crime subject to arrest and prosecution then logically it is a true statement. The statement you have exaggerated my position to be is clearly false. I am sure you can think of one example that makes my statement true. I understand there are religions that believe all men sin. If you believe in one of those religions and believe that committing a sin is a form of bad behavior you probably agree with my statement. Making all bad behavior a crime would make all men subject to arrest. I suspect you agree with my statement but will refuse to admit it for reasons you will not say, but will continue to argue how terrible other unrelated takes are.

Morally indignant? Aren’t you the one who started that thread about how everyone doesn’t hate the media enough? Where is all that hate and indignation for these people posted inaccurate misleading and slanted nonsense on twitter? Are you sure you hate them enough? It will be too much work to look though all the DC crimes prosecuted under Biden’s US Attorneys see why charges weren’t pursued. I am sure some would have been dropped for reasons other than being weak on crime either there wasn’t enough evidence to get a conviction, or they had been overcharged, or some subset of them were dropped to secure guilty pleas to other charges. The more important thing to look at might be how the number compares to the % not prosecuted from 2017-2020. Pirro perhaps has been tougher on crime, but maybe has gone too far the other direction. She had received an unprecedented number of no true-bills (decline to indict) by grand juries in DC since taking office. It is possible both her and her predecessor have missed the mark and the sweet spot is somewhere between the two approaches. Did Biden decline the national guard in 2021? What I could find said Biwser requested the national guard around New Year’s Eve 2020 and January 5-7th 2021 for the inauguration/protests/riots. The request was denied, but wasn’t Trump the president at that time? I think Dac resident were less pleased with the 2025 deployment because they had not requested it obviously.

Are you sure about that? The gentleman in this video is talking to legislators in a hearing in the state legislature of North Carolina. His daughter was murdered by a man whilst visiting friends in South Carolina. That man had an extensive rap sheet featuring a long list of crimes committed in South Carolina. If politicians or weak Ds had any culpability in dropping charges or giving plea deals that allowed him to be free and commit this murder they are located in South Carolina not North Carolina. I am sure to you this difference amounts to splitting hairs, but it is significant. The father only mentioned one politician by name in that speech, Byron Gipson, the prosecutor for the 5th circuit in South Carolina. He is a Democrat one of only three judicial circuits in the state with a Democrat as Solicitor. The father wants Gipson to pursue the death penalty and Gipson has yet to decide. Even if life in prison is ultimately the sentence pursued it is still possible to be tough on crime and protect the public without a death penalty. The real failure here happened in all the prosecutions of Alexander Dickey before this. The last felony prosecution of Dickey wasn’t by Gipson’s office in the 5th circuit but by 11th Circuit led by solicitor Rick Hubbard. Hubbard like most solicitors in SC is a Republican. In addition to the charges he currently faces in the 5th (Gipson’s) circuit related to the murder he is also facing 23 charges in Lexington county located in the 11th (Hubbard’s) circuit including arson, burglary, larceny and banking crimes. His last felony prosecution was in the 5th circuit (Hubbard’s) was for 2nd degree burglary in 2023. It carried a max penalty of 10 years in prison. Hubbard’s office allowed him to plea to 3rd degree burglary with a max penalty of 5 years. The judge gave him 5 years, but suspended the bulk of it allowing him to be released after about 1.2 years with probation to follow. After the murder Hubbard said that they allowed the 2023 plea deal because two earlier burglaries did not show up in Dickey’s criminal history so they prosecuted it as a first time offense for that charge. He didn’t mention whether or not all the other charges for other offenses were present. I assume at least some of them were. I could understand you saying this case is an example of Rs being weak on crime or Rs being incompetent or law enforcement being incompetent, or the system being broken by not showing his full history, but saying Ds are weak on crime seems like a stretch. Between 2013 and the murder Dickey and only been arrested 1 time in the 5th circuit lead by Gipson. It would be odd to call out Ds for how that one arrest was prosecuted when Rs had 20+ opportunities to be tough on him before this. To me both parties would share responsibility here along with law enforcement.

As you know a few people have a habit of reposting nonsense, misleading, incorrect tweets in this forum.

The tweet Scouts Honor posted credited a “radical district attorney” voters replaced in 2022 with one more serious about crime for the decrease in murders. The official you mentioned is not in an elected office that could be replaced by voters. In 2022 there was an election for the Attorney General of the District of Columbia. This has not always been an elected position and very recently changed. The incumbent Democrat Karl Racine, the first elected AG in DC, did not run for re-election. DC voters that are overwhelmingly Democrat voted for Democrat Brian Schwab to replace him. One problem with Scouts Honors post is that he posted a tweet crediting a Democrat with reducing the murder rate at the same time as blaming liberals. Another problem with it is that the elected official that change in 2022-2023 is not responsible for prosecuting serious crimes. That gets done by the US Attorney for the District of Columbia. That is the position you wrote about and that did not change in 2022-2023.

I wasn't giving credit to anyone. The person crediting the new AG was someone on twitter. Scouts honor had reposted the tweet in this thread for some reason.

And who is that one?

I didn’t credit the AG for causing the reduction in crime. I also was not quoting statistics for any other crimes. Just pointing out that prosecuting serious crimes are not the responsibility of the AG. So crediting them for the reduction in murder numbers is illogical.

I didn’t post any crime statistics. The only ones I described were the homicide numbers going down/up. Homicide is a crime statistic that’s pretty immune from the usual forms of manipulation.

Who are you saying has a short term memory? I didn’t write the tweet that credited the AG that was elected in 202with reduction in crime. I am also not the one that reposted it here, that was scouts honor.

I do not get why you are struggling with this. Maybe it’s an issue with logic like I mentioned earlier maybe you do not understand what the word all means. I wrote “The criminal justice system isn’t the answer for all bad behavior.” yet you seem to interpret it as “The criminal justice system isn’t the answer for any bad behavior.” I am using all to mean the entire set of bad behavior. Supposing the set of bad behavior includes murder and lies of omission to a sexual partner. My statement would be true if the criminal justice system is the correct answer for murder but not the correct answer for lies of omission. For the second statement to be true the criminal justice system would have to be the correct tool to deal with both. Either you don’t understand logic or the meaning of what I wrote or you are choosing to misinterpret it to make a straw man.