Matt33
Member
Search for "punisher", a character from Marvel comics.
2020 US Election - Current Events
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Mendel
Senior Member.
Article: The co-creator of the Punisher, Marvel’s murderously violent vigilante crimefighter, is calling on comic-book artists to create artworks reclaiming the character’s famous skull logo in the name of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Writer Gerry Conway opposes the appropriation of the symbol by police officers, some of whom have been seen wearing it at demonstrations protesting the killing of George Floyd
Article: When this article was first published on November 16, 2017, ahead of the release of Netflix’s show The Punisher, relations between many Americans and the police were unquestionably tense. Now, in June 2020, that dynamic has combusted into national protests against state-sanctioned violence. One media figure unambiguously on the side of the state is Fox News’ Sean Hannity, who went on air recently wearing a skull-shaped lapel pin. It is the logo of the Punisher, a violent vigilante from Marvel Comics who has become something of a totem for cops and soldiers. We’re republishing this article to offer background on the role the Punisher plays in the self-conception of many members of the police and military professions.
It’s a relationship that became explicitly incongruous last year when the Punisher himself canonically addressed it. In July 2019, writer Matthew Rosenberg inserted a scene into an issue of Punisher in which a group of officers run into the outlaw, whose name is Frank Castle, and fawn over him. “We believe in you,” one of them says while pointing to a Punisher-skull sticker on his car. Frank rips the sticker off and says, “We’re not the same. You took an oath to uphold the law. You help people. I gave all that up a long time ago. You don’t do what I do. Nobody does.” A cop replies, “Like it or not, you started something. You showed us how it’s done.” Frank is unmoved. “If I find out you are trying to do what I do,” he murmurs, “I’ll come for you next.” Here are panels from that issue, with our original story below it.
The punisher is a symbol for abandoning the democratic cornerstone of due process, and stripping human rights from those whom you perceive as criminals.
It's unethical in any philosophy that respects the human individual.
Tip: Put a search in quotes to get more focussed results
Without seeing the image (please post screen captures if possible), I'd guess a Punisher flag (vigilante justice), but it's also a common biker motif symbolizing piracy (independence) and patriotism.
Often the symbolism plays second fiddle to coolness, so don't read too much into any individual example.
Article: “It’s not me being disrespectful,” said Veziel, 51, who is originally from Montreal but became an American citizen in 2002. “To me, it’s just an American flag with a cool thing on it. I think it’s awesome.”
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Thanks. It's definitely closest to a stylised Punisher (rounder, but essentially the same - long "teeth" bits, no crossbones). The guy in question is the one Mendel posted an image upthread on page 7: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2020-us-election-current-events.11439/post-244088
So it's just a "cartoons are cool" guy, that's fine, rather than a particular movement. I like Asterix. (Yes, that's levity involving litotes.)
Mendel
Senior Member.
More like "vigilantes are cool".
JMartJr
Senior Member.
and
Of possible interest...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...her-skull-make-it-a-black-lives-matter-symbol
obiwanbenobi
Active Member
thank you. it has been a rather wild ride hasn't it?
let us hope that things improve. so far i'm happy to see mostly competent people being selected for leadership positions.
p.s. i was going to send this response by PM but i can't so i'll post it here.
Leifer
Senior Member.
Kinda old news, but I received a complementary/promotional "sample edition" of "The Epoch Times" hard print copy, in my real mail box.
It seems to be a mass mailing..... to "local postal customer" (me)
However the bi-weekly publication is dated Dec 30, 2020 - Jan 9 2021....... right in the thick of it.
Most recognize this publication as a very right-wing tabloid. But.... it's interesting that you need to "sign-up" to read the content on their website.....aka submit your email address, etc....
Here is their site... https://www.theepochtimes.com/
Here is the paper cover.......![20210202_091722[1].jpg](https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20210202_091722-1-jpg.43052/ "20210202_091722[1].jpg")
I see lower half of the front page, is an article tittled "More votes Recorded Than Cast: PA Lawmakers"
However, on Dec 29th Pennsylvania "Department of State" released a correction, explaining the nature and reason of the false story....
It seems to be a mass mailing..... to "local postal customer" (me)
However the bi-weekly publication is dated Dec 30, 2020 - Jan 9 2021....... right in the thick of it.
Most recognize this publication as a very right-wing tabloid. But.... it's interesting that you need to "sign-up" to read the content on their website.....aka submit your email address, etc....
Here is their site... https://www.theepochtimes.com/
Here is the paper cover.......
I see lower half of the front page, is an article tittled "More votes Recorded Than Cast: PA Lawmakers"
However, on Dec 29th Pennsylvania "Department of State" released a correction, explaining the nature and reason of the false story....
https://www.dos.pa.gov/about-us/Doc...esponse-PA-GOP-Legislators-Misinformation.pdf
This "newspaper" comes in two parts..... the first half is 5 pages, double sided. (interesting, there are no advertisements, except for promotions to subscribe to Epoch Times). The center and seperate fold-out section is labeled... "Opinion & Business", and it is all right-wing opinions, and a tad bit of finance and business tips or comments....... seemingly supplied voluntarily by fans or readers.
Last edited:
Leifer
Senior Member.
I have a good friend (and a really nice honest guy) who happens to be a devout Christian. I grew-up Jewish. (but now I am atheistic).
But we are still good friends. Neither of us uses belief as judgement...... in fact once a year or so, I volunteer at his church. (I find it rewarding)
However he completely subscribes to the ideas in "The Epoch Times".
I don't confront him head-on, but I have mentioned to him, that the paper (and founder) .... seems a bit cult-ish. He has not replied.
But we are still good friends. Neither of us uses belief as judgement...... in fact once a year or so, I volunteer at his church. (I find it rewarding)
However he completely subscribes to the ideas in "The Epoch Times".
I don't confront him head-on, but I have mentioned to him, that the paper (and founder) .... seems a bit cult-ish. He has not replied.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
bad word. i was talking to a christian guy whose brother had started some church. he was telling me his wife left him because of something super minor to do with that church (i think they had like 50 members), so all i said was something like "youre gonna let your marriage break up over something like that?". He flipped out! Screamed at me to get out of his house and started calling me all sorts of names, accusing me of calling his church a cult etc (granted we were all drunk but still). Anyway his roomate interjected and told him i didnt say anything like that, and then explained to me when i was going to leave anyway that people accuse the church of being a cult so the guy is sensitive. The guy did calm down really fast when he realized i didnt even know the church was a cult
but i had to tolerate 2 hours of him showing me books on cults and explaining how his church doesnt fit the bill. (talk about a buzzkill). Long story short, people are sensitive to being accused of being in cults.
Leifer
Senior Member.
I agree with you....., with this caveat...
I don't find all religion cult-ish, but when I find ideas taught or encouraged.. that seem fairly extreme, I will use the word cult(ish). I'm not afraid to do so.
I have a high tolerance for beliefs, but at some point honesty and reality does surface from me.
I guess it depends on one's definition of what a "cult" is, or is not ?
I don't find all religion cult-ish, but when I find ideas taught or encouraged.. that seem fairly extreme, I will use the word cult(ish). I'm not afraid to do so.
I have a high tolerance for beliefs, but at some point honesty and reality does surface from me.
I guess it depends on one's definition of what a "cult" is, or is not ?
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
that's fine. but you could lose a good friend over it (that particular word). was all i meant with my comment.
obiwanbenobi
Active Member
i don't think cult is a poor word choice for what has been obviously to me a cultish phenomenon and i know too many people who believe him no matter what he says or how he behaves.
Mendel
Senior Member.
This is more like 2022 election news, but for those who like to ponder constitutional issues...
Source: https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1357378533803360259
Source: https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1357381036674609152
I've talked in this forum about how the House GOP reps' filing in the Texas case on the 2020 election was all about throwing out votes on "red tape" type arguments. This is them creating more red tape that is set up to make voting as expensive as possible, to put obstacles in place to keep people from exercising their constitutional right to vote, on the pretense that it prevents fraud.
Source: https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1357378533803360259
Source: https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1357381036674609152
I've talked in this forum about how the House GOP reps' filing in the Texas case on the 2020 election was all about throwing out votes on "red tape" type arguments. This is them creating more red tape that is set up to make voting as expensive as possible, to put obstacles in place to keep people from exercising their constitutional right to vote, on the pretense that it prevents fraud.
deirdre
Senior Member.
Based on the loaded language of your twitter posts, i would be wary of using twitter as a source.
And your German opinion statements presented as fact, don't help anyone. Americans need to have trust in the election process or we end up with what we had this year. Personally, i dont care to live through that again.
Georgia:
Georgia has i believe 16 days of early voting, so you dont need extra absentee ballots really. (and it's not so hard to say you will be out of state.. i do it all the time)
And while i personally find automatic registration convenient, there have been issues in many states of illegal aliens being registered to vote when they get their driver's licenses (which they are now allowed to do. Also, i imagine with automatic registration we are wasting money on polling materials and personnel because we have no idea how many voters actually plan on voting.
That said, i do think government ID should be free for low income people and programs set up to make the program accessible, even if that means sending crews to disability homes with a camera etc.
It is possible to come together rationally on all these issues that erode citizens faith in elections.
it's not really a partisan issue: (news today as Repub win another House seat..yay!)
And your German opinion statements presented as fact, don't help anyone. Americans need to have trust in the election process or we end up with what we had this year. Personally, i dont care to live through that again.
Georgia:
Article: Another would ban drop boxes, requiring absentee ballots to be returned through the mail or at county election offices.
......
About three-quarters of voters backed requiring either photo ID or documentation to be able to cast an absentee ballot, according to the poll.
Senators also filed several other election bills Monday, including a measure to require a copy of a voter’s ID, a driver’s license number or a state ID number when requesting an absentee ballot. That bill is less restrictive than a proposal introduced last week that would have required voters to submit a copy of their photo ID twice, both when they apply for absentee ballots and when they return them.
Georgia has i believe 16 days of early voting, so you dont need extra absentee ballots really. (and it's not so hard to say you will be out of state.. i do it all the time)
And while i personally find automatic registration convenient, there have been issues in many states of illegal aliens being registered to vote when they get their driver's licenses (which they are now allowed to do. Also, i imagine with automatic registration we are wasting money on polling materials and personnel because we have no idea how many voters actually plan on voting.
That said, i do think government ID should be free for low income people and programs set up to make the program accessible, even if that means sending crews to disability homes with a camera etc.
It is possible to come together rationally on all these issues that erode citizens faith in elections.
it's not really a partisan issue: (news today as Repub win another House seat..yay!)
Article: Mr. Brindisi could also seek recourse in the House of Representatives, which has the power to order a new election or recount in the race, and potentially unseat Ms. Tenney.
“I am shocked and surprised by this decision because of the countless errors and discrepancies that have occurred throughout this initial count,” Mr. Brindisi said in a statement. “I believe a full audit and hand recount is the only way to resolve this race. With the margin so thin, the ever-changing tally, and the countless errors that have occurred arriving at today’s final number we can’t afford to wonder here. We have to get it right.”
Mendel
Senior Member.
Please debunk the argument, then. Cite a few laws from these packages that make it easier to vote.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Voter turnout in Germany (for federal elections) has always been above 70% (of potential voters). ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahlbeteiligung )
Voter turnout in the US (for presidential elections) has rarely topped 60% in the past 100 years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections ).
It's already hard for me to understand why you don't have your elections on a day where fewer people work (e.g. a Sunday or a bank holiday). Now imagine a person who has a weekday job that they can't miss, in a state where you can't have a "no questions asked" absentee ballot: no matter when they vote in person they'll miss work; more of it if the state cut the number of polling places, and they don't have a car to cross the distance. And then have a polling place that's understaffed or under-machined, so you have an unpredictable wait time, and voting may cost you a day's earnings (and potentially your job). Should voting be that expensive?
Or wouldn't you want to make voting more convenient so every voter can actually embrace their constitutional right to vote?
If you put up obstacles to voting, you're already "cheating" by depriving citizens of casting their vote. And this is an actual effect with evidence to back it up, not an imagined "stealing" of someone's vote by "fraudulent" Dominion systems.
Just because you don't need an absentee ballot to conveniently cast your vote doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way.
Voter turnout in the US (for presidential elections) has rarely topped 60% in the past 100 years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections ).
I don't trust an election that systematically excludes poor people.
You seem to not be able to empathize with the obstacles poor people face.
It's already hard for me to understand why you don't have your elections on a day where fewer people work (e.g. a Sunday or a bank holiday). Now imagine a person who has a weekday job that they can't miss, in a state where you can't have a "no questions asked" absentee ballot: no matter when they vote in person they'll miss work; more of it if the state cut the number of polling places, and they don't have a car to cross the distance. And then have a polling place that's understaffed or under-machined, so you have an unpredictable wait time, and voting may cost you a day's earnings (and potentially your job). Should voting be that expensive?
Or wouldn't you want to make voting more convenient so every voter can actually embrace their constitutional right to vote?
If you put up obstacles to voting, you're already "cheating" by depriving citizens of casting their vote. And this is an actual effect with evidence to back it up, not an imagined "stealing" of someone's vote by "fraudulent" Dominion systems.
Just because you don't need an absentee ballot to conveniently cast your vote doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Likely IDs that would be required for voting would have to be free for anybody who wanted one, otherwise they would be vulnerable to to being ruled a de facto poll tax when challenged in court.
https://www.ncsl.org/documents/legismgt/elect/Voter_ID_Courts_May2014.pdf
The source notes further that the first argument has fared better in courts than the second.
(Sorry for the fractured quotation there, there are obviously tricks to formatting this stuff that still elude me...)
deirdre
Senior Member.
you speculatively assigning motivation for new laws (and upon conspiracy theorists) is the issue. I'm not interested in your logical fallacy argument.
getting rid of voter registration would make it easier to vote too. or how about we just let everyone with an American phone number text yea or nay to #####? Just because a new idea makes it easier to vote does not mean it is a good idea.
deirdre
Senior Member.
you have the right to vote. you dont have the right of an ultra-convenient right to vote. you can vote before work or after work or on your lunch hour.
I wouldnt mind a weekend vote, but many times weekend and holiday pay pay more then weekdays.. so you are really punishing poor people if you take their holiday pay.
As far as understaffed locations or lack of locations, that can be addressed. I don't know what communities would do if they don't have the money for excessive polling machines. Poor communities can have some of ours... i'd be ok with that.
i guarantee you i do a hell of a lot more for poor people then has even crossed your mind to do. And i'm not talking just writing a check, I give time and sweat. so...bite me.
AmberRobot
Senior Member
If your county isn’t providing the facilities that prevent there being eight hour lines for voting then no you can’t vote on your lunch hour or after work.
deirdre
Senior Member.
yea i don't know why California and New York don't fix that problem.
AmberRobot
Senior Member
Many places have that problem.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I checked New York. NY had Early voting for the first time this year and apparently misjudged demand. But there are signs they tried to address the problem:
Article: The Board of Elections decided to allow one extra polling site at Marymount Manhattan. It is an alternate poll site for the people who've faced longlines at the overwhelmed Wagner School.
I was looking for reports of long lines during election day, but only found reports of sites opening somewhat late:
Article: NYC Board of Elections spokesperson Valerie Vazquez-Diaz said she had gotten about 10 reports of delayed openings of polling places, predominantly in Brooklyn in Queens, which were all resolved by about 7:30 a.m.
So what problem does NY have,exactly, and what do you think causes it?
deirdre
Senior Member.
Article: Voters and poll workers saying even with long lines, which have been seen throughout the city, voting is a necessity.
what do you think causes it?
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Wow. Nice use of EMPHASIS. Care to provide a citation for that absurd claim instead? Don't sweat it - there isn't one.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Ok. Now I'm wondering why the US is calling itself a democracy at all.
Article: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States [..]
That's the only bit I could find where "the people" actually have a right to vote.
While that is surprising, it doesn't damage my general point, since the same obstructions apply to the House election as to the elections for the Senate and the President.
There are a number of places in the constitution that cover voting rights. "Voting and Election Laws | USAGov" https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws#item-212489
Article I, the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments delineate different aspects of voting (African American, woman, poll tax removal and 18+). Federal law further codifies these rights.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yeah, I just stumbled on that as well.
Article 14 covers the presidential election:
It seems that if a state legislature actually threw out the election result and nominated their own slate of electors for president (as has been suggested last year as a potential option by the StopTheSteal people), that state would immediately lose all of its House Representatives.
Article 17 covers the Senate.
There's your basis, @FatPhil ; turns out my claim wasn't absurd at all.
Article 14 covers the presidential election:
Article: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
It seems that if a state legislature actually threw out the election result and nominated their own slate of electors for president (as has been suggested last year as a potential option by the StopTheSteal people), that state would immediately lose all of its House Representatives.
Article 17 covers the Senate.
Article: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years.
There's your basis, @FatPhil ; turns out my claim wasn't absurd at all.
deirdre
Senior Member.
youre using a quote that says only "male" citizens, aged "21"... to come to your conclusion? you don't think that maybe that passage is a bit obsolete?
Leak
Member
Mick made a thread with lots of info on the topic of The Epoch Times on the 25th of December last year.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
The history's pretty terrible, but it's been brought up to date - explicitly, SCOTUS from Bush vs. Gore (2000):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.htmlThe individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.
deirdre
Senior Member.
he's really mad at Trump for him losing his Senate position. A lot of Repubs -including me- think Trump purposefully worked against the Georgia senate election because Trump was mad at McConnell and other Repubs for not backing him. Trump is kinda spiteful that way.
Article: adding that Trump "seemed determined to either overturn the voters decision or else torch our institutions on the way out."
A criminal trial would be fantastic. but i'm not getting my hopes up.
deirdre
Senior Member.
and Q is proven right by what they say is Biden's definition when he uses the word "unity". smh. oh well, so it goes on. i love the internet age. (that last bit is sarcasm)
Article: "While the final vote did not lead to a conviction, the substance of the charge is not in dispute," Biden wrote.
"Even those opposed to the conviction, like Senate Minority Leader McConnell, believe Donald Trump was guilty of a 'disgraceful dereliction of duty' and 'practically and morally responsible for provoking' the violence unleashed on the Capitol."
The president ended his statement by drawing on his previous calls for unity to heal "the soul of the nation."
"This sad chapter in our history has reminded us that democracy is fragile. That it must always be defended. That we must be ever vigilant. That violence and extremism has no place in America. And that each of us has a duty and responsibility as Americans, and especially as leaders, to defend the truth and to defeat the lies," Biden continued.
"That is how we end this uncivil war and heal the very soul of our nation. That is the task ahead. And it's a task we must undertake together. As the United States of America," he concluded.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
A claim making the rounds is summed up here in this article:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...e-media-got-the-trump-georgia-story-all-wrong
Frances Watson was the source of that December 3, Washington Post story. What she said was based on her memory of the call. She wasn't reporting on the call word for word, she was reporting on what she thought was the gist of what Trump was saying.
She reported that Trump was asking her to "find the fraud"
And he promised she would be a "national hero"
Is that what his message was? Full transcript from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgi...rgia-investigator/WQPJG3F7MJEJ7EQJHLNVUEGYLY/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...e-media-got-the-trump-georgia-story-all-wrong
Trump never did say those things verbatim.It’s one thing if a single news outlet publishes a bogus anonymously sourced “scoop.”
It’s another thing entirely if multiple newsrooms claim they independently “confirmed” the bogus “scoop” with anonymous sources of their own.
The former can reasonably be explained away as a simple error; the latter is not so simple. It's unrealistic so many sources would be wrong about the same thing. It's more likely competing newsgroups spoke with the same anonymous person or people, which leads to uncomfortable questions about whether the media were intentionally manipulated and whether this is a regular occurrence.
In January, the Washington Post scored a humdinger of a “scoop.” Then-President Donald Trump, still reeling from the results of the 2020 election, “urged Georgia’s lead elections investigator to ‘find the fraud’ in a lengthy December phone call, saying that the official would be a ‘national hero,’” the Washington Post reported, citing a single anonymous source who supposedly “confirmed” the details of the private conversation.
But the recently released audio of the phone call shows Trump never said these things. He never urged the investigations chief to “find the fraud” in Georgia’s presidential election results. He never promised the investigator would be a “national hero.”
Rather, Trump said, “If you can get to [Fulton County, Georgia], you’re going to find things that are going to be unbelievable, the dishonesty.” He followed this by saying the official will “be praised” when, not if, she produces the evidence of wrongdoing. There is a significant difference between saying “you’re going to find things that are going to be unbelievable, the dishonesty” and saying, "Find the fraud." One represents the president notifying an investigations official of voter fraud in a specific county in Georgia. The other represents the president pressuring an investigations official to do whatever it takes to find him the votes, regardless of the facts of the matter.
Further, the Washington Post report alleges Trump’s part in the private conversation meandered "from flattery to frustration and back again." The story also claims that the president "pressured" the official. The article then speculates Trump may have committed a serious crime. However, with the exception of flattery, a review of the audio doesn't appear to support these characterizations of the call.
The Washington Post got it wrong, plain and simple.
Frances Watson was the source of that December 3, Washington Post story. What she said was based on her memory of the call. She wasn't reporting on the call word for word, she was reporting on what she thought was the gist of what Trump was saying.
She reported that Trump was asking her to "find the fraud"
And he promised she would be a "national hero"
Is that what his message was? Full transcript from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgi...rgia-investigator/WQPJG3F7MJEJ7EQJHLNVUEGYLY/
Last edited:
Similar threads
