US Presidential Elections 2020 - Bernie wählen... und sterben?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Südländer wrote:

      Warren ist so sehr Indianer wie ich Nigerianer. Dass Sie Ihren Status als "Indianerin" genutzt hat, um sich bei Unis und Arbeitgebern Vorteile dank des Minority-Quotensystem zu erschleichen kann man sicherlich nicht beweisen, liegt aber auch nicht fern.
      Wie kannst du davon nur so getriggert sein, während gleichzeitig der orange Mussolini im Weißen Haus mit seinem korrupten Clan die krummsten Dinger dreht, (wahrscheinlich) seit Jahrzehnten noch und nöcher Steuern hinterzieht und womöglich sogar Landesverrat begangen hat?

      Frage ist durchaus ernst gemeint, ich gette es nämlich absolut zerro.


      total control now.
    • Machen darf das keiner. Oder wo habe ich das behauptet? In der ganzen Warren Thematik bin ich nicht einmal explizit auf die Reps eingegangen.

      Nur hittet es doch etwas mehr Rechtschaffenheit zu heucheln und dann fragwürdiges Verhalten an den Tag zu legen als einfach so fragwürdiges Verhalten an den Tag zu legen.

      (Geht nur um Rasse/Identität, also haut keine whataboutisms raus)

      Für die memes: Ich habe mehr Indianer DNA Prozente als Warren und nicht einer meiner Vorfahren war je in Amerika
    • hatten wir doch schon: nichts was bewiesen wäre. südländer hat einfach in seinem kopf entschieden dass sie schuldig ist. mal im ernst, seit diesem moment war diese diskussion doch völligster waste.
      there's a place I want to take you (were you high?)
      when they knocked on the door looking for you?
      when the unknown will surround you (take my hand)
      as our bodies lift up slowly


      Sundry's Gameblog! - NEUER POST: Borderlands 2
    • Hab jetzt mal wiki durchgelesen und mich ein bisschen durch die Quallen geklickt.
      Kenne jetzt die Seite politifact.com nicht, also wenn das heftiger Bias ist mein B.

      Die ridikülen "first women of color" Dinger, die logischerweise völlig an den Haaren herbeigezogen sind, entstammen Studentenzeitungen,
      weil sie im Dozentenverzeichnis als minority gelistet wurde.
      Ihre Angaben dafür sind vom Verzeichnis der "Association of American Law Schools" übernommen worden.
      Also hat sie, wenn ich das richtig verstehe in einem "Vereins"verzeichnis angegeben einer Minderheit anzugehören.
      Diese Associations sind jetzt nicht Vereine wie man es aus Deutschland kennt, also das ist schon ne Ecke "seriöser".
      Das sind sowas wie Forschungsvereinigungen, die selbst auch teilweise
      Journals herausbringen und wissenschaftliche Konferenzen veranstalten.

      Hat sie actually in keiner Bewerbung angegeben:
      "Warren herself didn’t trumpet this side of her family story. When applying to college and law school, records show that she either identified as white or declined to apply based on minority status."
      politifact.com/truth-o-meter/a…ren-and-her-native-ameri/


      Beweise, dass es ihr nicht geholfen hat Stellen zu bekommen, damit die Uni "diversity +1" schreiben darf gibt es nicht.
      Sie gibt an, sie wurde für ihre akademischen Anstellungen "angeworben". Das halte ich für plausibel, wenn ich mir anschaue wie Stellen vergeben werden.
      Würde aus meiner Erfahrung sagen, dass 90% der akademischen Stellen auf diese Art vergeben werden und du kannst als Bewerbung auch einen Einkaufszettel abgeben.
      Prof will Person XX, weil Forschungsinteressen gleich, oder Vortrag war nice, oder anderer Freund hat gesagt die machtn gudn Tschobb.
      Kaum ein Prof würde "ins Blaue hinein" jemanden einstellen wenn er ne Stelle vergeben darf.
      Die warten fast immer mit der Ausschreibung bis sie einen oder zwei Wunschkandidaten haben und schreiben dann so aus, dass das mehr oder weniger Safe ist.
      Eine richtige Antwort ist nicht immer eine gute Antwort.
    • vox.com/policy-and-politics/20…date-2020-one-on-one-race

      Ist zwar schon ein paar Tage alt, doch die Umfrage zeigt, wie viel Biden DERZEIT vorne liegt.
      'Maturity,' father had slowly begun,'
      Is knowing you're wrong and accepting it, son.
      There's prudence in pausing with patience and joy -
      And hearing the wisdom in others, my boy.
      'A person's perspective,' he said with a smile,
      'Is plain if you walk in their shoes for a while.
      And if you can do it - if maybe you do -
      You might understand, and agree that it's true.'
      I followed his reasons, and nodded, polite;
      Perhaps that was logic - perhaps he was right.
      Perhaps there was truth in his claim all along...
      'I'm twenty,' I countered: 'I'm right, and you're wrong.'
    • Special Counsel Robert Mueller Statement on Russia Investigation

      tldr: "If I thought Trump was innocent, I'd say so. Also, I am explicitly not allowed to say Trump is guilty."
      Hazelnut, Mystify, Cuttlefish, Lark, Lurk, Robert, Anglican, Pheromone, Halter top, Marmalade, Hardware, Laser, Pepper, Release, Kneecap, Falafel, Period, Chaste, Chased, Leggings, Wool, Sweater, Heartbeat, Heartbeat, Heart, Beat, Heart, Beat, Beat, Beat, Beat, Beat.
    • wenn du was als quote darstellst sollte es auch n quote sein. :/
      mein transcript des eigentlichen quotes:
      "and as set forth in the report after that investigation if we had had confidence that the president clearly had not commit a crime we would have said so. we did not however did make a determination to whether the president did commit a crime. the introduction to the volume 2 of our report explains that decision. it explains that under long standing department policy a present president can not be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. that is unconstitutional. even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public that to is prohibited.


      etwa 4:20
      Nice Meme

    • Fair enough.

      Robert Muller transcript via Vox wrote:

      Thank you for being here.


      Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. Now I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I’m speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the Special Counsel’s office, and as well I’m resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life. I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.


      Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference with the 2016 presidential election. As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization Wikileaks. The releases were designed and times to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.


      And at the same time as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election. These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.


      The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understand. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance and it was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrong doers accountable.


      Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.


      And in a second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president.


      The order appointing the Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. And we conducted that investigation and we kept the Office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
      And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.


      We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.


      The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you. First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing. And beyond Department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.


      So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination, one way or the other, about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s — that is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.


      We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General, as required by Department regulations. The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make that — preferred to make the entire report public all at once, and we appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.


      Now I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before congress.


      In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office. So beyond what I have said here today, and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it’s for that reason I will not be taking questions today as well.


      Now before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, and analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office were of the highest integrity.


      And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interference in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.


      Thank you. Thank you for being here today.
      Hazelnut, Mystify, Cuttlefish, Lark, Lurk, Robert, Anglican, Pheromone, Halter top, Marmalade, Hardware, Laser, Pepper, Release, Kneecap, Falafel, Period, Chaste, Chased, Leggings, Wool, Sweater, Heartbeat, Heartbeat, Heart, Beat, Heart, Beat, Beat, Beat, Beat, Beat.
    • Das halbe Dutzend, dass explizit im Report des Department of Justice genannt wird, wäre ein guter Startpunkt. Die digitalen wahlurnen auch. Gibt massenhaft Videos von der def con darüber
      Nice Meme

    • Trump ist ja bekannt für seine SIcherheitspolitik (siehe Mauerbau), daher denke ich, dass mit Sicherheitsmaßnahmen da durchaus was gehen kann.


      Guten Morgen an muh, sleepy, proudbavarian, seren, incognito, zinnsoldat, qory, juff, sic, banez-, arrow^gunz, cloud, zenarius, Tobi und den rest des DS-Stammtischs