If Hillary Clinton committed provable crimes, she should face legal consequences for it.
If Joe Biden committed provable crimes, he should face legal consequences for it.
If Barack Obama committed provable crimes, he should face legal consequences for it.
Go ahead and insert any other whataboutism politicians/celebrities/whoever you want here, my answer is the same.
NOW! Since we've cleared up all your deflection, can we get back to the question at hand? Please tell us unequivocally, if Donald Trump committed provable crimes, do you think he should face the legal consequences for it?
(Lol, go ahead and throw out any number of weaselly excuses, pull out your extended dictionary and thesaurus, do everything you can to change the subject. I truly can't wait to see how you avoid considering "what if orange man IS bad?")
Okay, I know at this point I'm not going to change your mind, but since I can't rule out that you truly don't understand how my basketball analogy relates to the Twitter action, here's my best attempt at an explanation
In Twitter's actions:
Ownership: Twitter owns the platform and has control over usernames, similar to how the person with the basketball owns the ball in the game.
Unfair action: Twitter took over a specific username without any prior warning or valid reason. This can be seen as an unfair move, as it disregards the user who previously claimed the username.
Moral implication: Just because twitter has the technical power and legal authority to control usernames doesn't necessarily mean it is morally acceptable to take away a username from someone else arbitrarily. It's a dick move because it shows a lack of consideration for the user who may have had an attachment to that username.
In the basketball analogy:
Ownership: The person who brought the basketball to the game owns the ball, just like Twitter owns the platform.
Unfair action: If the person who owns the ball suddenly decides to cancel the game and leave when their team is losing, it would be seen as an unfair and unsportsmanlike action.
Moral implication: Although the person has the right to take their ball and leave since they own it, doing so without warning and when their team is losing disregards the other players' interests and ruins the fun for everyone else. It shows a lack of consideration for the fairness and enjoyment of the participants.
In both cases, the common thread is the concept of fairness and respect for others. Just because someone owns something (be a basketball or Twitter) doesn't give them a free pass to act in an insensitive or inconsiderate manner. In a moral context, it's important to consider the impact of one's actions on others and to treat them with fairness and empathy, even if you have the right to do otherwise. Both situations address the significance of ethical behavior and being mindful of how our actions affect others, even when we have certain ownership rights.
This is nuts, but I guess it's par for the course when you switch to "reality be damned, me-first party-second" politics. I'd take great pleasure in this development if not for the fact that there are plenty of deep pockets in the GOP who I doubt will give up the 2024 elections just because the swing states didn't get enough donations. I'm sure they'd LIKE for middle class Americans to fund the GOP, but if that doesn't happen I think it still will be the most profitable for them to step in.
Let me know if I'm wrong (certainly possible) but I feel like if we found ONE fish with 180 times the legal limit of radiation, it would warrant a closer look. 44 fish found in an area that had a nuclear disaster sounds like more than enough samples to raise concerns.
(And I don't really know about France, but sure if there might be a problem there too, I vote we check that out too.)
If you're playing a game of pick-up basketball, and your team is in the lead, and some guy on the other team says "Nevermind, I don't want to lose. Give me my ball, I going home." I'm curious how you would react. He owned the ball, and you signed no contract at the start of the game, so, what's your take on his action?
I finally got PoE'd out a few leagues ago, after playing for 8 years or so. But after watching this trailer I think I miiiight have to get back into it again 😄. Looks awesome!
That sounds nice but there's no guarantee they'll implement it, or if they do, that they won't just remove it someday down the road. This could just be a way for them to avoid criticism for now, and when criticism has died down a bit, they can just remove it.
Hi, I was straight before I read this comic, but obviously it turned me gay. Can someone direct me to a straightening comic strip please? I need to undo this before my wife gets home in a couple hours.
Yeah, that level of combining science and religion is nuts to me. Like, at what point does the indescribable, intangible soul attach to the cell. Is it when the sperm penetrates the egg? Or is it when the first phase of mitosis occurs? Or what? And are there a million souls swimming along, each one following a sperm, waiting for their chance to latch on to a fertilized egg? Or maybe one soul per egg? Or maybe God knows when an egg will be fertilized, and he only dispatches one soul when it happens, but in that case he should know when a fertilized egg isn't going to be born, and not put a soul in that fetus, right? When they try to get really specific about the rules of their make believe club, it starts sounding very silly. But then you get hit with the "we aren't supposed to know his plan/the Lord works in mysterious ways" and that means you're not allowed to think about it with the brain God gave you any more.
If Hillary Clinton committed provable crimes, she should face legal consequences for it.
If Joe Biden committed provable crimes, he should face legal consequences for it.
If Barack Obama committed provable crimes, he should face legal consequences for it.
Go ahead and insert any other whataboutism politicians/celebrities/whoever you want here, my answer is the same.
NOW! Since we've cleared up all your deflection, can we get back to the question at hand? Please tell us unequivocally, if Donald Trump committed provable crimes, do you think he should face the legal consequences for it?
(Lol, go ahead and throw out any number of weaselly excuses, pull out your extended dictionary and thesaurus, do everything you can to change the subject. I truly can't wait to see how you avoid considering "what if orange man IS bad?")