7 hours ago, Old Man said:

I’ve found that Female Cops’ Lives Don’t Matter Quite As Much, in practice. 

Also, policemen of color seem to be a bit more vulnerable to successful prosecution than their white colleagues. 

27 minutes ago, zslane said:

IMO, this movie isn't even for Harley Quinn fans since the movie doesn't present a Harley Quinn that any fan of the (comics) character would remotely recognize. 

As a long time, comic book reading fan of Harley Quinn,  I totally recognize the character in the trailer.  The "J-man" is a drug that she occasionally relapses into, but in most of her comics, she is her own sociopathic gal.  Also, in the comics, she is no stranger to female empowerment storylines.  They were a big part of Gotham Sirens and certainly have been common in the Jimmy Palmiotti/Amanda Connor run.

10 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

So, who is this movie for?

Judging by the trailer, I would say it is for Harley Quin fans.  Cassandra Cain fans not so much.

Future trailers might do more to flesh out Black Canary, Huntress and Renee Montoya.  I certainly hope they do.  So fans of those character may eventually be happy.  Unfortunately, they have clearly deviated from the comics quite a bit on Cassandra.  I have never been a big fan of that character, so it doesn't bother me much.  However, if I was a fan of her, I would probably be pissed.

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

What's relevant is the date of the article, not the slant of the news coverage of that particular site.

 

Since the date of the article exists, any competent defense team is going to be able to find other sources which say much the same thing, somewhere around the same date.

 

Even the transcript of the Trump-Ukrainian leader phone conversation shows the Ukrainian leader saying he's already personally aware of the Biden investigation situation and is doing something about it. How difficult would it be for a Trump defense team to find an official Ukrainian source which says that the investigation had already been restarted somewhere toward the beginning of the year, nowhere near the time of the phone conversation?

 

 

I hate responding to people who can't respond back, but he raises a couple of points that I feel need response. 

That Russian mouthpieces should have started spreading nasty stories about Biden back in May, means nothing except that back in May Russia was already aware that Biden was Trump's likely 2020 rival.  They were just feeding an anti-Biden conspiracy theory that they hoped would take root and damage his ability to call Trump on corruption in 2020 election.

As for the Zelensky's statements during the phone call, the whistleblower's complaint alleged that Zelensky had already been informed that he had to "play ball" on the investigating Biden just to get to have that phone call with Trump.  So of course he was aware of Biden's investigation situation.  That is how he got to be on the phone with Trump in the first place.  Trump never should have mentioned Biden by name.  His people had already let Zelensky know what he wanted.  His bringing it up him self in front of a room full of witnesses was just trademark Trump stupidity.

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

I posted a link to the damned transcript. If you find any lines in there showing Trump blackmailed anyone at all, cut-and-paste the damned lines so the rest of us can see it.

 

Here's the federal law which defines blackmail:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/873

 

18 U.S. Code § 873. Blackmail

 

Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 740; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

When you are already holding someone's head underwater,  you don't have to issue threats.

13 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I highly appreciate information on news sources (anyone who posts research and documented sources I find valuable here gets my commendations), but I'd like to ask that we not get too personal in discussing these issues.

Fair enough. I will edit my post.

7 hours ago, archer said:

 

That hack's story from Feb 2019 points out that Ukraine at that time had already restarted the investigation.

 

If you don't like the hack's story, here's one from May 2019 stating that the investigation had already been restarted at that point in time.

 

https://112.international/article/biden-brought-his-people-in-ukraines-prosecutor-generals-office-to-cover-his-sons-business-shokin-39549.html

 

Either of those news stories is long before Trump sent Guiliani to make first contact with Ukraine over the matter, much less before the Trump phone call.

 

 

I'm saying, impeach Trump over enriching himself at the taxpayer's expense while in office. You can point to multiple incidents of Trump directing business to his companies while in office. That's illegal.

 

In contrast, this Ukrainian phone call thing while useful for grabbing headlines and getting some Democrat officeholders off of the fence is going to get ripped apart like tissue paper if anyone cares to give a substantive defense.

 

The investigation already being in progress for months before the threat of withholding money mitigates the claim that Trump was somehow forcing Ukraine to do something that it didn't want to do.

 

Threatening to withhold money unless a foreign leader does what you want, even if you think you can find that in the transcript...that happens in Washington all the time. I just posted a video of Biden bragging that he'd threatened this same Ukrainian leader that he'd withhold money unless that Ukrainian leader fired a particular prosecutor (who just happened to be in charge of the investigation into a company where Hunter Biden sat on the board).

 

Threatening to withhold money from a foreign country unless it does what we want has been the main way the US has motivated foreign cooperation since WWII.

 

For the threat to be relevant in any manner in an accusation against Trump, you'd have to prove some underlying crime. Because threatening to withhold money unless a foreign country does what we want isn't itself a crime.

 

 

 

Your linked news source, 112 UA, is owned by Taras Kozak . Mr Kozak is a member Ukrainskiy Soyuz, a group known for it's pro-Russian (and anti-Semitic) views.

You are not doing your case any favors by citing conspiracy theorist like Soloman and pro-Russian TV stations. 

45 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

I stopped reading after "by John Solomon".  He's a widely discredited hack.  

Admittedly, "Frequent Guest of Sean Hannity" is not the most promising line on a journalist's resume.

Apparently, it was Mr Solomon's Ukrainian conspiracy theory that he spouted on Hannity's show that prompted Trump to push for the investigation against Biden and his son.  So, ironically, if Trump is impeached or loses the election over this, America will owe this discredited hack a strange debt of gratitude. 

7 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Hmm.  Been watching this closely but I have to now say that, until Kickstarter resolve their issues with their staff, I will no longer be supporting any Kickstarter based projects.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/09/kickstarter-to-workers-and-project-creators-drop-dead

 

Disappointing.  

5 hours ago, archer said:

 

The whistleblower chain of command looked at the complaint and determined that the Trump phone call wasn't "a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information".

 

Can you cite a source for this statement?  Everything that I have read has said the exact opposite.

Quote

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson determined that the allegations were credible and of “urgent concern.”

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/462660-five-things-to-know-about-the-whistleblower-complaint

3 hours ago, Old Man said:

AIUI people who live in SF had trouble believing it would take five years for a rat to step on the button. 

Maybe that was the problem.  Maybe in most of the other 14 million possible time lines, the rat stepped on the button too early and missed Scott as a result.

1 hour ago, Sociotard said:

Vox claims that Bolton left because he couldn't goad the President into starting a war. I still think that the President's foreign policy is bad, but I will give praise where praise is due: he didn't attack when Bolton told him to. Thank you Mr. President.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/10/20859357/john-bolton-trump-war-north-korea-iran

This was my first thought too, but then I reminded myself that he is the one that appointed Bolton the job in the first.  Causing a problem and then taking credit for solving it is a big part Trump's MO.  So, no, I give Trump exactly zero credit on this.  If he had just stayed in the nuclear deal that that Obama's team negotiated we would not be bordering on war with Iran, his hot and cold running relationship with Kim Jong Un has not made the world a safer place,  and the deal that he was getting ready to strike with the Taliban would have been disastrous for Afghan women.  So, screw him. 

Yeah, being attracted to Margaret Thatcher would just be too weird.  I don't watch The Crown, but if I did, I think this would force me to stop. 😣

Some children of service members and federal workers born abroad may no longer receive automatic citizenship.

The thing about this that gets to me is not the unfairness of this to the children in question, or the colossal ungratefulness this shows to the service and sacrifices made by the parents for good of our nation.  I have come to accept that neither Trump or his henchmen have any sense of fairness, or ability to feel gratitude or empathy for the non-rich.

No, what gets to me with these new rules are their incredible stupidity.  I mean sure Trump is as dumb as a sack of defective hammers, but it is hard to imagine that this policy came directly from the orange man.  It is just too specific and detailed to workings of citizenship for it to ever have crossed his Fox News controlled mind.  It had to have come from one of his underlings, but what here they trying to accomplish?   Attacking one's own troops is never a good look.  Giving these kids automatic citizenship cost virtually no money.  Moreover, these kids are exactly the sorts of citizens that we or any other nation wants to have in that they are educated and have been raised to value service to their government and nation.

Really, WTAF?  I can only scratch my metal plated head on this one.

22 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

23% of registered Puerto Rican voters voted overwhelmingly for statehood. The main political party supporting the status quo organized a boycott of the referendum by their supporters.

Opps! I had recollections of there being a referendum and it passing.  So when I opened up the wiki page and saw the numbers, I read no further. My bad.

9 hours ago, archer said:

 

If Puerto Rico could decide as a group what they wanted from the US, it would be likely that the US could treat them more fairly.

 

Some of them strongly want independence. Some of them strongly want statehood. Some of them strongly want to keep the current status but get more economic assistance and assorted non-economic benefits (the specifics of which vary almost from person to person).

 

I know what I'd do with Puerto Rico if I were given control over the situation. But it's difficult to build any kind of political consensus for major changes in any direction until they coalesce behind some idea of what they'd be satisfied with.

Puerto Rico voted overwhelming for statehood

8 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I linked the chart a few pages back in this post.

 

It's from a Vox article that Sociotard originally posted. The chart is from the International Crime Victims Survey, Gallup Europe. It shows that the US is a bit below average of 15 industrialized countries in 11 violent crimes. (The next chart shows that we have about three times more homicides.)

Thanks for pointing me to the link that you were talking about, but I am not buying the Vox article at all.  In the relevant year for their chart, 2000, the US had a 5.5 homicide rate per 100,000 citizens.  The Vox article claimed that our violent crime rate was 5.5.  So unless, the only violent crime in the us is murder, the Vox article doesn't add up.  

I don't know what the 11 index crimes that are being referred to by graph in the Vox article, but in 2000 the US had a forcible rape rate of 32.0 per 100,000 people and a robbery rate of 145 per 100,000 people (link).  What sort of crime index skips over forcible rape and robbery?

10 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Maybe. I'd have said it's very likely before, but according to that survey, Canadians commit more violent crimes, so not sure now.

What survey?

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

And with equal respect-and promptly dropping the matter, as we both obviously have strong and differing opinions on appropriate measures in such cases-- I offer that letting him "live with the horrors of his soul" or what-have-you offers nothing but the chance for society--or a satiated victim-- to come to the realization that they, ultimately, may be no better that the person who's torment brings them satisfaction. 

 

 

And you would be incredibly wrong. 

Superman move planets.  Hulk holds up mountains.  Both are ridiculously impressive, but there are still many orders of magnitude between the two tow feats.

1 hour ago, Cancer said:

Man, Saturday Evening Post and Indianapolis.  Thirty-plus years ago both of those despised RPGs and gamers like we were illiterate, malodorous, Satan-worshipping, child-sacrificing sociopaths who were working to corrupt the young and bring about the end of the world.

What is that now inaccurate?  Do I need to change my business cards?

As long as independents like Valiant and IDW are managing to stay in business, I can't imagine DC stopping publication.  It might need to be spun off into its own, smaller, leaner business in order to make things work, though.

6 hours ago, Logan.1179 said:

A co-worker suggested John Carter, but it turns out it has 52%.

And an audience score of 60%, which is considered fresh.  Lots of people like John Carter.  It just had a bad ad campaign and they spent way too much money making it.  It is like sometimes Disney sets out to make a movie which can't help but lose money.

21 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

If the Super Soldier Serum makes you the ultimate human being without flaws, he theoretically would NEVER age, as science understands aging today.  At the very least his aging should be massively reduced (as in the comics where he's just as vigorous today as he was in the 60s).

At some point, one of the Marvel editor and chiefs said that as comic books only come out once a month and usually only cover a few days of the time for the character in them, only one year passes for the characters for every seven years that pass for the reader.  By this math, Captain America only came out of the ice 8 years ago.  So, of course in the comics he hasn't lost too many steps.

Jupiter Ascending 27%

I also like Speed Racer

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah when the cast of characters looks like a college guidebook cover, you know they were picked for physical appearance, not talent or character.

 

Its just as dumb to cast all white dudes because you don't think girls can do the job or some other lame reason.

Exception:  If the characters are in medium where pretty much everyone looks good and the team is internationally comprised, then by all means they should look like a college guidebook cover (see Len Wein and Dave Cockrum's X-Men for an example).

Edit: Also Star Trek bridge crews