News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by mandmandam on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @04:11AM (#40854559)
This is what I'm talking about.

That story was painted as a Russian hoax by federal agents who knew better. It was systematically suppressed on corporate and social media, and the people who were telling it were smeared. All right before an election that was extremely close.

And here you are saying it wasn't a big deal.

Besides, Joe Biden is currently incredibly complicit in atrocities and war crimes up to and including genocide and ethnic cleansing. I don't hear many Democrats calling for him to be held accountable.

> Get the fck out with this both sides bullshit,

Settle down, we don't talk like that here.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by kaba0 on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @04:47AM (#40854732)
> Besides, Joe Biden is currently incredibly complicit in atrocities and war crimes

Sounds pretty standard US foreign policy, but interestingly it only matters now.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by mandmandam on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @05:08AM (#40854812)
See, you're doing it again.

If Trump were the one lying about pics of beheaded babies, or vetoing UN ceasefires, Democrats would suddenly have empathy for the Palestinian people.

People who have empathy all the time have been decrying the Dems AND Republicans for decades. A lot of people were unhappy about Obama droning record numbers, and starting new wars - but we had little to no representation in media or Congress.

Same thing with the kids in cages at the border. It didn't stop being a thing, but Dems stopped talking about it once Biden got in again. The hypocrisy is astounding, but somehow Dem voters just don't remember to be mad or something.

You don't have to keep making my point; but by all means keep going if you like.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by remram on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @11:20PM (#40862453)
What the hell are you talking about and how does it relate to the earlier discussion:

> Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did

Hunter Biden is being prosecuted, the government and voters don't care to prevent it, and he's not a candidate. What are you on about with Palestine, the UN, and fking Obama now?

You can't just list all the words you don't like and call that "making a point".

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by mandmandam on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @06:17AM (#40864540)
> Hunter Biden is being prosecuted,

Yes, 4 years after intelligence agencies and papers of record told us that it was a Russian hoax.

> the government and voters don't care to prevent it

Again, a full Presidential term later.

> and he's not a candidate

I seem to remember him being closely related to one though, which some voters would actually find relevent. Especially when said relative is implicated in shady Ukraine deals.

> What are you on about with Palestine

Complicity in genocide, which is actually an international war crime which every person has a legal duty to fight against.

> the UN

That's where Biden vetoed 3 ceasefire agreements aimed at ending genocide - how did you not hear?

> and fking Obama now?

You can say 'fucking' you know... Obama was a fairly clear example of a Democrat who should have been prosecuted for war crimes, seeing as he was assassinating US citizens and many many brown people) without trial, starting wars, arming chainsaw dismembering dictators, etc. His VP was also very familiar, perhaps you don't remember who that was.

I love how you guys keep proving my point. It's also very very sad though.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by remram on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @09:36AM (#40865836)
Again, what the hell is 'your point', since it is not related to the thread above you?
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by dang on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @02:57PM (#40868957)
Posting like this is not allowed here and will get your account banned, so please don't post like this—no matter how wrong or provocative someone else is being, or you feel they are.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by dang on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @02:57PM (#40868959)
Posting like this is not allowed here and will get your account banned, so please don't post like this—no matter how wrong or provocative someone else is being, or you feel they are.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.