On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Government of Russia's Ambassador to the United States ("Russian Ambassador") to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day; and FLYNN did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request; and

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015026/download

The charging document made clear this is what he lied about. Yet in the transcript he does not ask the Russian government to “refrain from escalating the situation”, as he clearly states “we're not going to escalate this thing“, and "I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat" [my emphasis]. "Us" and "we" I assume mean both countries or even America itself, but not Russia. What does your understanding about the distinction between words and meaning and the natural flow of conversation say about this?

There is no evidence Flynn even knew about Obama's sanctions, because he doesn't mention them. The expulsions of diplomats were declared and enforced by the State Department, not by Obama's EO.

Further, Obama's EO and sanctions were signed the day before the phone call, December 28th, not the morning of December 29th. This is another lie in Mueller's charge.

Michael Flynn accepted a plea deal to to protect his son. "My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel’s Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country".

I did read it, but I also read what you suspiciously left out of it.

And please make sure that its uh - the idea is, be - if you~ if you have to do something, do something on a reciprocal basis, meaning you know, on a sort of an even basis. Then that, then that is a good message and we'll understand that message. And, and then, we know that we're not going to escalate this thing, where we~ where because if we put out- if we send out 30 guys and you send out 60, you know, or you shut down every Embassy, r mean we have to get this to a - lefs, let's keep this at a level that uh is, is even-keeled, okay? ls even-keeled. And then what we can do is, when we come in, we can then have a better conversation about where, where we're gonna go, uh~ regarding uh, regarding our relationship. And also, basically we have to take these, these enemies on that we have. And we definitely have a common enemy. You have a problem with it, we have a problem with it in this country, and we definitely have a problem with it in the Middle East.

Clearly he's still talking about the expelling of diplomats.

On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution; and that the Russian Ambassador subsequently never described to FLYNN Russia's response to his request.

Kislyak: So, we will try to help, uh, uh, to give additional time for the conversation on ... on this issue, but if it is put on vote, uh, for historical reasons, as I explained to you,
Flynn: Uh huh ...
Kislyak: ... We cannot vote, uh, other than to support it.
Flynn: Okay.
Kislyak: That is something, uh, that is, uh, part of the position that we have developed, with the, um, countries in the region for a long period of time. But, uh, responding to your, uh, telephone call and our conversations, we will try to help, uh, to~ uh~ postpone the vote and to allow for consultations.
Flynn: Okay. That's .. that's good.

No where in that quote did Flynn ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution. Unfortunately, the December 22nd phone call remains classified.

Do you not care about local businesses? What about when the businesses (local or chain) relocate, leaving their area more destitute?

Clearly they don’t. Why fret about flesh and blood human beings when you can making sweeping generalizations? That’s why human beings are often the brick and mortar of socialist schemes. Can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

In contradiction to the charging documents, it is true that “On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Government of Russia’s Ambassador to the United States ("Russian Ambassador") to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day”.

In fact, Flynn requested that Russia respond in “a reciprocal manner” to the expelling of “some number of Russians out of the country”.

He did ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating. You can read it right there in the transcripts. It is false to claim that he didn't ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating because he didn't use the sentence "refrain from escalating". As this is a philosophy forum, perhaps engaging in some philosophy (of language) -- or even just linguistics in general -- will teach you the distinction between words and meaning.

Even if I do agree with you (I don’t; we’re talking about putting people in jail for making false statements, so precision is important), did he in fact say so in regards to “US Sanctions”? Or did he say so in regard to the expelling of Russian diplomats?

He either asked Kislyak to refrain from escalating or he didn’t. He in fact did not. It takes some mental gymnastics to say he did.

Here’s the charging documents: https://www.justice.gov/file/1015026/download

There are some contradictions in the Mueller charging documents. As the transcripts show, Flynn in fact did not ask the Russian ambassador to “refrain from escalating”, but asked him to “make it reciprocal”. “Because I don’t want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit for tat”. He said this in regards to the dismissal of Russians from the country, not the sanctions.

As for the rest of it it’s what one would call diplomacy.

Lol. Sometimes you can come up with some gems. :ok:

I think it’s boring. I can’t even be bothered to read them, let alone respond.

Left or right are old, outdated ideas really, we all know you need a combination of the two...trouble is the left are the establishment now and wish to destroy the ideas of the right that are fruitful.

I used to vote Labour once upon a time and I vote Conservative now...but last time I wish I could have voted for the Brexit party... a party of both the left and right.

Yeah I've abandoned that spectrum myself. I just don't find affinity with abstract groups and communities in general, probably the logical result of my nominalism.

I still consider myself a man of the left, just not their version of it.

Truth shines in a free and open encounter with falsehood.

I like debate, no matter how contentious. It’s good for you.

I will abide, even when the rules are selectively applied.

I apologize for what I said, Benkei. I know you meant no ill will. That stuff just bothers me.

I don’t view the world through the lens of race, and I despise people who pigeon-hole others into such groups and then pretend they can derive from it some sort of knowledge about the world. I’m sorry, but this has been the modus operandi of racists since the beginning of time and I refuse to participate.

If you and your family are in a theater right now and someone does the same. People rush out in a panic trampling eachother many getting hurt, one of which being you, some getting killed, one of which being a family member. You don't think the individual who caused all that should be punished in any way? At least banned from the theater? lol

I'm not sure that would happen. Perhaps a real example would suffice.

That doesn't make a shitting difference. It says follow the steps below and the first step is what I quoted. Stay. The. Fuck. Home.

But yeah, the fact you read something racist in what I said while simultaneously defending the disenfranchisement of minorities says it all about who the real racist is here.

It applies to sick people only, not "non-whites" or any other group of people. Perhaps you might refrain from holding low expectations of entire groups of people because they don't have the same shade of skin as you.

You left his part out, shill.

If you are sick with COVID-19 or think you might have COVID-19, follow the steps below to care for yourself and to help protect other people in your home and community

The white man has spoken. Non-whites should not go to polling stations.

What a lie. Any other advice you have for non-whites?

That's not because only Democrats would act fraudulently, or "are [all Republicans] utterly truthful" according to you? It's because covid-19 disproportionally affects non-white US citizens who tend to vote Democratic more often. Denying them the ability to vote via mail-in ballots is the ploy and that's the real violation of rights here. Not a little link beneath the President's unsubstantiated claims.

You don’t think non-whites can line up and vote like everyone else? Fucking sick.

See, "yelling fire in a movie theater".

It’s a poor phrase used to illustrate an old standard which was used to censor opposition to the draft.

The standard in first amendment law is “immanent lawless action”, or in other words, the advocacy of criminal activity, if and only when the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action.

A traditional public forum is something like a street or park; "public property which have, as 'a principal purpose, ... the free exchange of ideas'"1. Social media platforms aren't public property. Is Trump planning to nationalise social media?

I think the term “functional equivalent” means it is not actually public property, but functions in a similar manner. Recall when the courts claimed Trump’s Twitter account to be a “designated public forum”. But I agree that is a hard sell.

Which users are they going to monitor? Why are they monitoring them? I don't know how to read this as anything other than Big Brother tracking critics.

It is my understanding that they want to collect publicly available information on the tracking of users by social media companies, along with complaints.

Edit: here’s the actual EO, just signed. It’s similar to the draft, but not the same.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

Apparently this is a draft of Trump's executive order on social media.

I was worried that Trump would attempt to regulate Twitter, but the EO seems to be consistent with law without getting all authoritarian.

1. To order the FCC clarify Section 230 of the Communications decency act ("No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider").

2. To review federal spending of tax-payer dollars on advertising upon social media platforms.

3. A federal review of unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

4. To establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

Is there anything objectionable in it?

I don't see why I would feel any kind of fear now while thinking what I would do if the situation was real. Fear would perhaps be able to play a role only in the real situation, if you would feel any to begin with, that is. Bystander effect is also not it, as it would only work if there are other people around you and I assumed in this situation that you would be alone in the train yard. I think a reason one would choose inaction is that there is no good solution to the trolley case. You are to choose between a minor sacrifce and a major one, and no matter what you choose you are still going to sacrifice someone. If I could, I would just go in front of the trolley and stop it with my bare hands.

Maybe that’s the key to it: do what you can instead of washing your hands of the situation and walking away. Warn the conductor, call the police, make a gallant attempt to get the people off the tracks.

I think it’s a step too far. But the question of who fact-checks the fact-checkers is an important one. The capricious and political use of their labelling and anti-Trump sources, all of whom endorse opposing candidates, makes plain their motives, which seems to me to score points against Trump and to influence the election.

All that being said, it is wrong for Trump to try to regulate social media companies, and I suspect his EO will be slapped down in the supreme court. Twitter is a public company (not a private one as an idiot would claim), and Trump should simply walk away from the platform and watch its stock prices fall.

My mistake.

Another example is that video. There is nothing manipulated in it.

It's the first time it happened!!

Does this really need explaining?

If someone points out that what I'm saying is false, and provides a factual source that contradicts me, it's fine. It doesn't matter if it's Twitter that does it, it doesn't matter if it's a forum member that does it. I want people to correct me when I'm wrong.

The fucking POTUS can't handle that so hard he's supporting censorship of social media platforms.

Apparently it does, because Twitter didn't simply "say it was false", as if they made a statement. They altered the code of the website in a discriminatory fashion.

If you had the power you wouldn't use it though.

Of course not. You guys are all adults, aren't you?

You know you're caught in a contradiction, so all you're doing now is trying to reframe all the exchange we've had in terms of you being freedom loving (and supporting Trump's censorship of Twitter) and me being authoritarian (and thinking that's Twitter's call, and I'm glad that they're doing something towards how how terrible its discourse is).

You gave not a single fuck when Twitter was culling Isis propaganda. Not one.

Utterly false. If only I had the power to add a little link to fox news under your misinformation.

Absolutely.

That explains everything.

You'd be fine if someone did that to you?

I do not want to limit their expressions nor dictate how they run their website, and instead of assuming what I want you might as well just ask me.

Now I have the right to use hate speech in the United States. It's protected speech. Do I believe it is right to use hate speech? No. Now because I think its wrong to spew hatred, does this mean I want to interfere with the speech of racists or terrorists? Do I want them to conduct themselves how I see fit? No. I would use my own speech to say why it is wrong.

That’s absurd. That’s like saying the first amendment protects itself.

I do not.

Was there a point in there somewhere?