Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Mistakes
. People misattributing a quote or citing something is a mistake because it's humans committing human error (at least that's what a good lawyer would claim). Twitter is computer generated and the only way dates and words are changed from the original tweet is if its done intentionally.
"OK, we've got hours of damning video footage and statements and tweets, but I'm not sure that it's enough, let's put a blue check mark next to some random tweet we're showing, that'll put us over the top!"
You're centering your fascination on the blue check when dates and words were changed. That is probably the best defense you have though when caught red handed. You should have been on the house manager's team, they failed to respond and just took it on the chin.
Dude, a blue check mark only means that Twitter has verified that it is the actual Twitter account of the person. It adds credibility only in the sense that those reading know that it is not an alias account pretending to be someone else who has some degree of public name recognition.
Then why did they do it? They had all this "evidence" and yet still felt the need to doctor more. Guess their case wasn't as lock solid by their own actions.
They made an accident, like lawyers do all the time. Somebody creating the slide obviously used some other tweet as a template, and that tweet was from a verified user.
This. They are putting together a professional presentation, so it is not as simple as taking a screenshot (well it could be that simple but the resulting graphic would look like ####). So they likely had a graphics firm/intern/paid staffer put this together and used more sohisticated techniques than just grabbing a screenshot.
Huh? Gore went all the way to the Supreme Court contesting the count and only conceded when they ruled against him. It was painted as a picture of magnanimity by the press, but was in reality just a crock. The S. Ct. had ruled against him and he wasn't powerful enough to take that branch of government on. Otherwise, he might have. Gore is a stain on our history books, too. Though nothing like Trump.
You know that "accident" would get a mistrial in a real court for doctoring evidence.
Defense: "You're honor the screenshot the prosecution showed is a fake. They have altered the image."
1) This was not a criminal trial
The existence of a non existent blue check mark on evidence that the defense didn't even get until the night before calls all other evidence into question. What else was accidentally doctored that the defense did not catch in his discovery?
It's a human endeavor. Ever prepare for a trial? It's a hectic mess, even for the best of lawyers. It's a miracle more stuff doesn't come out garbled. One blue check mark is indicative of nothing, IMO, other than bad faith by the party that is claiming "doctored evidence." I'm just not seeing the point, and I can understand and sympathize with complaints about stuff deliberately done to obfuscate and deflect truth. This ain't it.
I get that there's a lot of preparation to go into things but for something this serious, literally manufacturing evidence (which is what they did) should be where they say "ok maybe we don't need this piece for the trial."
They didn't manufacture any evidence though. The text of the tweet was unchanged. It is akin to them misspelling her name, or a simple typo.
It's fair to point out and even laugh at unintentional mistakes. It's odd to refer to them as "doctoring."
You're posting this in a thread where "they only acted badly because people weren't there to stop them from acting badly" is an actual argument being made....you might be here a while
Trump's lawyers doctored their job titles ("lead prosecutor") and their home town ("Phillydelphia").
Well, I was young and not really paying much attention to politics at the time. I went back and perused the gist (quickly) and I’m not sure I get the same takeaway you describe, but don’t know enough about it to really espouse a stance. All in all, after he felt his chances in court were moot, he conceded, even though he could have kept litigating. I won’t disagree that the 2000 election was a stain. I will stand by my statement though- Florida was very close, and it was also 266-246 before counting Florida’s 25 votes, so I think asking for a recount is reasonable there. Now, I’m not sure how those procedures worked or if there was a recount and gore would have been asking for a re-recount or what. Sounds like even if he got the result he wanted the republicans would have gone right back to court and he didn’t think the overall chances were in his favor, so he conceded eventually. That’s respectable in my opinion...a lot more so than this last election.
Oh, it pales in comparison to the latest go-round we've had about elections, but the Florida debacle was about as close to a constitutional crisis as one of our elections has ever (this one we came close to political violence, but the constitutionality of Biden's win was never in question in the courts) been, and Gore's continued insistence on fighting the election through the courts (which included friendly Democratic-controlled Florida courts, including their highest court) left the country standing still during the run-up to certification. The only recourse Trump had to certification was exhortations to violence, Gore had the courts, except for the Supreme Court, which put the kibosh on the recount efforts by a 5-4 and purely partisan-line decision. And to be fair, there are still people bitter over the Supreme Court decision and the count, and it still remains a hotly-contested issue among the participants and certain parts of the citizenry that had an interest in the outcome. Bush won, we got 9/11, the Patriot Act, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the rest we're still living. It was indeed an important election and important result that many still believe was decided wrongly. But Gore's refusal to yield earns him no points in my book, though that is through a slightly partisan lens.
A slightly partisan lens? The Florida result was a basically a tie, a full recount would likely have given the race to Gore
An admitted partisan lens which seems to be one or two adjectives better than your offering lens.
It was Bush that appealed to the SCOTUS (hence the name of the famous case being Bush v Gore). Bush used the Supreme Court to stop a recount which most likely would have changed the result. Remember, George Bush had his brother as Florida governor, and the remarkably corrupt Katherine Harris as secretary of state (who implemented a bald-faced, ruthless voter suppression program before the election, and then stonewalled the corrupt result after.)
Re violence, please don't under-estimate the Brooks Brothers Riot - one of the most hilariously disgusting events of the entire Florida 2000 debacle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
And sub-prime mortgage crisis, that’s as big of a deal as the rest (although maybe last on the list of big deals.)
The subprime fiasco was beyond Bush's ken. He didn't cause it, understand it, or understand how to solve it. That was the responsibility of the regulators and Congress.
It's not just hard to fight misinformation, it's impossible. Because the people spreading it aren't interested in getting good information. And they just move on to the next bull#### story while you're still fighting the last two. It's much easier to make something up than it is to debunk it, and you lose when you try.
Misinformation like political rhetoric?
You've completely forgot Kamala's and the rest of the Dems attacks on Biden during the primaries?
During a primary when fighting for a party's nomination, politicians do attack one another. And they say things that they otherwise wouldn't. Harris did attack Biden on his race views over bussing. It was perhaps a bit over the top, but nothing that we haven't seen in any republican or democrat primary in the past X yearstonydead said:
Harris can falsely accuse Biden of being a racist because others attack in primaries? Or Harris can say oh my bad since you’re giving me power? Cut the mental gymnastics they are all the same. The your guy is worse than my guy schtick is so tiresome and thoughtless.
The point of her story is more to call out Biden for being old and to humanize her. It's attacking a position he had 40 years ago. It has little relevance other than to point out Joe has been in politics that long. Attacking a position someone had 40 years ago doesn't prevent you from working with them, especially considering what Cruz, Graham, and Rubio said about Trump before working with him.
