Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - honk

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 78  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 12, 2024, 01:16:29 AM »
An outright case of reverse jury nullification if there ever was one:

Is that really how it works? Some random guy on the Internet can hint that he knows the verdict ahead of time, and that's it, we need a mistrial now? Would this work for someone else? Hey guys, my brother is on Hunter Biden's jury, and he's already promised a conviction! MAGA forever!

The court can investigate and determine if any jury members are telling people that it's going to be a sham trial. If they are, then it is grounds for a mistrial.

Yes, if it were real, then it would be major, just like any of the thousands of troll posts about serious subjects that are made every day would be major if they were true. It's baffling why anyone is taking this one seriously.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 11, 2024, 01:36:39 AM »
An outright case of reverse jury nullification if there ever was one:

Is that really how it works? Some random guy on the Internet can hint that he knows the verdict ahead of time, and that's it, we need a mistrial now? Would this work for someone else? Hey guys, my brother is on Hunter Biden's jury, and he's already promised a conviction! MAGA forever!

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 06, 2024, 02:07:05 AM »
Wow, hypocritical. Stormy Daniels retracting her claim that she slept with Trump doesn't stop you from disbelieving her.

Daniels didn't "retract" anything by saying she didn't sleep with Trump. She literally just made a lame joke about how their encounter didn't involve any sleeping:

I'm not going to waste any more time on the ridiculous Segura story. Anyone can claim anything they want about their life or their career on the Internet.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 05, 2024, 02:09:05 AM »
There's no evidence that either of the Clintons have had anyone killed. That's just a lie that right-wing media have repeated so much that even some relatively normal people have apparently begun taking it for granted now. I've seen the ominous "lists" of victims, I've seen the "evidence," and none of it amounts to anything more than happenstance. To respond to some of Tom's points, nobody, including Trump, is disputing that Cohen paid Daniels the money, so unless the argument is that Trump had thought at the time that Cohen was simply stealing from him rather than paying Daniels, I don't see how repeatedly bringing up the Red Finch incident and calling Cohen a thief is meant to exonerate Trump. Despite the crank website that Tom linked doing its best to dress up the allegations of Cohen and Daniel being both partners in crime and lovers as a "report" to be taken seriously, it is in fact just a story from a random guy on Twitter. A quick look at his account suggests to me that his claims of being a successful, well-connected businessman and data scientist are almost certainly not true, and neither is his story of Michael Avenatti casually confiding in him his elaborate criminal conspiracy with Cohen and Daniels.

Oh, and after writing the above, I did a bit more research, and it turns out that OAN already tried writing an article based on this guy Seruga's account. Here's their story, and here's their retraction when Cohen sued and OAN realized they had no evidence that their story was true beyond a "trust me, bro" from a random guy on Twitter. Funny how that works.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 03, 2024, 08:59:16 PM »
That, along with the bank records of the relevant payments, emails discussing the payments, and even a recording of Trump talking about the payments. Not to mention the fact that Trump's "I was just paying my lawyer" defense was extremely implausible on the face of it - why would Trump suddenly give his lawyer a $130,000 bonus?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 03, 2024, 04:46:09 PM »
Trump falsified his business records by disguising his payments to Cohen as being for legal services rather than reimbursements for the payment to Daniels. Election-related expenses need to be properly declared, which Trump didn't want to do because it would have defeated the purpose of paying Daniels for her silence to begin with. Again, elections have rules, no matter how much Trump and his fans don't like or understand that.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 01, 2024, 02:24:52 AM »
Beyond the testimony of the witnesses, there were bank records of the relevant payments, emails discussing the payments, and even a recording of Trump talking about the payments. You're making a crude argument from your own ignorance if you're going to insist that there was no evidence simply because you didn't hear about what the evidence was - something that you could have easily rectified by paying attention to the trial.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 31, 2024, 04:47:46 PM »
The Jones case was an out-of-court settlement for a lawsuit over sexual harassment. It wasn't "hush money," it was a very public affair that needed the Supreme Court to first settle if sitting presidents could be sued, and there was no ongoing election that Clinton could have been violating the laws over. Elections have rules, no matter how much Trump and his fans don't like it and don't understand it. Just like it's illegal for foreign governments to interfere and try to swing the election one way or the other, it's also illegal to cover up campaign payments instead of properly declaring them. The irony, of course, is that Trump never needed to make this payment at all, let alone cover it up. Trump's fans admire him all the more for having an affair with a porn star, while also paradoxically maintaining that it never happened at all. And of course nobody will be persuaded to not vote for Trump just because of this verdict.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 14, 2024, 01:19:48 AM »
Again, I still don't understand exactly how wanting someone who has been charged with multiple crimes to have their day in court is wanting to "eliminate due process;" much less how having that same person entirely avoid having their day in court by being elected president and then abusing their office to make their legal problems go away is totally fine.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Man or bear?
« on: May 11, 2024, 04:08:21 AM »
I'd prefer it to be a moose. I feel like a moose and I could just let each other be. There would be an unspoken understanding between us that its mooseness and my humanness present no legitimate potential for conflict. Thus harmony prevails.

Praise the moose.

Please be careful. While moose aren't usually aggressive towards people, they're such enormous animals that they pose an inherent risk, and they can lash out if they feel threatened.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 08, 2024, 03:30:53 PM »
Yes, it's almost as if one party in this case is doing everything they can to keep delaying this trial until the election in the hopes of winning the presidency and making all their legal problems go away. I wonder who it could be?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 07, 2024, 03:04:03 PM »
Who cares? Seriously, how is this a valid legal issue?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 01, 2024, 01:23:09 AM »
Very impressive, Trump now has even more paper wealth that he can't realize or use in any meaningful way.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 01, 2024, 12:04:10 AM »
I have nothing to say in the face of such a thorough rebuttal. Anyway, so much winning:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 24, 2024, 02:24:02 AM »
The Secret Service ensure Trump can't reveal things to people just as much as they protect him.

The fact that Secret Service protection for former presidents is an entirely optional service that the protectee is free to decline is enough to prove that this is wrong, and even if it weren't, a little bit of common sense will quickly point out the flaws in that theory. Do the Secret Service agents monitor their protectee's phone or intercept and read everything they write down? Do they suddenly rush in and get uncomfortably close so they can eavesdrop if their protectee is whispering in someone else's ear? Of course not. Their job is to protect VIPs, not to monitor or control them. I would go so far as to speculate that agents are strongly encouraged to avoid listening too closely to what their protectee is saying to other people so as to be seen as more discreet and trustworthy, although that's just my instinct of what the culture of the agency is probably like.

Even if Trump were sentenced to "prison" it would likely end up a form of house arrest. Trump isn't going to go to some random state or federal prison...Allowing a rambling old man who knows more national security information than most people into a prison is ridiculous.

I agree, but nevertheless, this would be impossible with the Secret Service in their current form. Legislation would be needed to either strip convicted felons of their Secret Service protection and let another agency handle the imprisonment or expand the Secret Service's functions to include providing custody of such a prisoner. I don't think anyone who matters was ever seriously suggesting we should just fling Trump into the general population of any given prison and let him fend for himself, which is exactly why the cries of "they want Trump murdered!" are so disingenuous.

This is what Action80 is talking about, if anyone's wondering and doesn't want to click his link. There's no one single case against Powell, there's no mention of this case being considered "frivolous," and I don't really think it's all that big of a deal whether or not Powell ends up being "disciplined" by the Texas Bar at all.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 20, 2024, 03:31:42 PM »
Again, if Trump is imprisoned, then the Secret Service will not be accompanying him into prison. It makes perfect sense to resolve the obvious conflict that would arise between the Secret Service and the prison by stripping convicted felons of Secret Service protection. Ignoring this problem will not make it go away. I'm not claiming to know exactly how Trump's imprisonment should be handled. I'm just saying that you can't imprison someone with Secret Service protection.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 20, 2024, 02:46:53 AM »
As the snipped article explains concisely, this is meant to resolve the fact that the Secret Service can hardly be expected to protect someone serving a prison term. If Trump does end up having to serve time, then something will have to be done about his Secret Service protection. Trump is not going to be strolling around the prison yard flanked by Secret Service agents. That's not a thing that any prison would ever allow.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: April 18, 2024, 02:26:37 AM »
Well it certainly makes perfect sense that the primary component of a movie's fanbase is the demographic that the entire genre is built around. It's sort of like being surprised that Transformer films are mostly viewed by teenagers as well.

You're not wrong. I just think it's interesting that of all capeshit films, it's the R-rated psychological thriller with no action or explosions where its most enthusiastic fans quickly make it clear how young and inexperienced they are.

This just in: most of Paw Patrol's audience is young children!

You're a teenager for liking Joker.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: April 15, 2024, 03:40:09 AM »
I don't mean to keep picking on Momoa like I have it out for the guy or anything, but he gave an interview before the release of Lost Kingdom where he talked about a couple of interesting subjects. I know that directors sometimes offer actors roles that they didn't audition for, but Momoa's account of how he auditioned for Batman and didn't think much of it until he was inexplicably offered the role of Aquaman makes me even more sure that Snyder cast Momoa more for PR reasons than artistic ones. Bear in mind that this was all long before Momoa became a star in his own right and developed his onscreen chill-dudebro persona. Back then, he was best known for playing fierce, intimidating characters, and most famously Khal Drogo on GoT. It's true that Aquaman has been portrayed in the comics as a brawny badass type as well, like Roundy pointed out, but that's hardly conditional on the actor cast in the role, is it? Very few lead actors in capeshit movies are already known for being especially big or tough beforehand. No, I'm pretty sure that Snyder was worried that people would mock Aquaman for being lame long before they ever saw him on screen, and so he prioritized casting someone he thought would nip those jokes in the bud. To me, that's a very silly and overly defensive attitude to take, but hey, I'm not the in-demand blockbuster auteur who continues to receive huge budgets and full creative freedom to deliver dud after dud, Snyder is. What do I know?

Momoa also talks about Lobo, and I think at this point we can pretty much say it's confirmed he'll be playing him at some point in the new universe. This is not how actors respond when asked about mere rumors. Anyway, as was mentioned in this thread earlier, Momoa would actually be perfect as Lobo. He looks the part without needing to be turned into a CGI monster, and he wouldn't need to leave his laid-back comfort zone of acting. My main concern is that with Momoa in the role, they'll very likely try to turn Lobo into the hero of the movie who has to save the day, blah blah blah, and that's just not his character. I could see Lobo as the protagonist of an irreverent, low-stakes MAX series where he travels around the galaxy and gets into hijinks, but for a big mainstream blockbuster, Lobo should absolutely be a supporting character, not a hero. Put him in a Superman or Green Lantern movie where he's a wild card who complicates the plot - maybe the villain hires him to take out the hero, and they get into a few fights, but at the end of the movie Lobo respects the hero enough to show up and help him defeat the villain. Something like that, as opposed to a movie like Lobo: Dawn of Capeshit.

Also, the teaser for Joker: Folie à Deux dropped a few days ago. I'm already exhausted by the discourse around it, just like I was for the first Joker. It's not even the movie itself that I dislike so much as it is its most enthusiastic fans; the people who praise it endlessly for simply going through the motions of being a serious movie and focusing on psychology and character rather than action and explosions. I'm not saying that anyone who liked the movie is dumb or easily impressed, but I think I can say with some confidence that anyone who truly thinks that Joker was brilliant and revolutionary probably never watches movies that aren't blockbusters. Like one infamous Letterboxd review said:

Anyway, here's the new teaser:

I actually think this looks way more intriguing than the first one. I think they did a much better job at translating the costume and makeup for Harley into a gritty, grounded setting than they did for Joker himself. The idea that this is going to be a musical is easily the most interesting thing going on here, but I have to say that I won't be fully convinced that this will really be a proper the-characters-sing musical until I see footage of the characters actually singing. Maybe I'm being a bit too cynical, but producers and directors lie about upcoming movies a lot as a general rule, and they never face any consequences for it. I think it's very possible that this movie might just have a lot of songs that play in the background, or music itself will simply be a big theme in the movie, and then the people who claimed that this would be a musical will shrug and say "Yeah, that's what we meant by a musical." I'm not saying that's what I think will happen, just that it's a possibility that I think a lot of people aren't even taking into account. Also, because this franchise is this franchise and has the fans it has, I just can't get over the people creaming themselves at the closing shot of Arthur smiling through the lipstick on the glass. It's neat, sure, but it's nowhere near as ingenious as people are making it out to be. (Check the comments and I guarantee you'll see at least a few people raving about it.) It's not even original. This is obviously where they got the idea:

I have no problem believing that virtually all of Joker's most devoted fans have never seen Taxi Driver or The King of Comedy (and if they had, I strongly suspect that they'd be far less enthusiastic about Joker), but is The Dark Knight, of all movies, really outside of their reference pools? This poster was everywhere when the movie came out. Maybe Joker's biggest fans aren't old enough to remember TDK's release. It would actually explain a lot if the bulk of the movie's fanbase were teenagers.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 12, 2024, 11:25:48 PM »
I don't know why Tom keeps saying this. It's like he thinks it's the general opinion of liberals, like we've been saying this over and over for as long as he has, perpetually locked in the fantasy that Trump's comeuppance is right around the corner, and obviously that's not the case with most of us. I doubt there are many American liberals that by this point don't have the attitude that nothing is going to hurt Trump because he's invincible, or at least that they'll believe it when they see it.

It's been a common tactic of Trump supporters over the past several years to try and lump anyone who's criticized or spoken out against Trump into one "team," and then act like there's an expectation that anyone else opposed to Trump has to somehow answer for the misbehavior or gaffes of any other Trump critics. They've done it with Louise Mensch, Piers Morgan, Bill Maher, Jussie Smollet, Brian and Ed Krassenstein, and especially Michael Avenatti, to give just a few examples. Just recently you might remember Tom doing it with Keith Olbermann. Obviously Trump and his team don't have a monopoly on stupidity or sleaze, and nobody here needs to defend or answer for whichever delusional people were confidently predicting Trump's downfall.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 78  Next >