quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.

---

Yeah, she raised money during the riots. She didn't personally cause them, so that's one little difference between her and Trump.

---

Except that Trump exhorted his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" while Kamala said this about ongoing riots:

"They're not going to stop," Harris said at the time. "This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not going to stop and everyone beware, because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November and they're not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not and we should not."

---

She said that about protests not riots. I know you have trouble with that distinction.

---

she said that about protest that turned to riots, when asked about raising bail money for those arrested FOR RIOTING.

You can't split hairs here, Quash. IF you maintain Trump is responsible for J6, then Harris is responsible the the 2020 summer of love.

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.

---

Yeah, she raised money during the riots. She didn't personally cause them, so that's one little difference between her and Trump.

---

Except that Trump exhorted his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" while Kamala said this about ongoing riots:

"They're not going to stop," Harris said at the time. "This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not going to stop and everyone beware, because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November and they're not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not and we should not."

---

She said that about protests not riots. I know you have trouble with that distinction.

---

she said that about protest that turned to riots, when asked about raising bail money for those arrested FOR RIOTING.

---

Nope. Watch the video.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They're only eligible if a judge says so. The fund is just removing money from the equation. If you were talking about J6 defendants, these distinctions would matter.

---

Doesn't change anything.

---

No, it doesn't. But if you were intellectually honest and consistent, it would.

---

Let me amend: Doesn't change anything for any reasonable person. Sorry, I forgot who I was dealing with.

Whether a judge agrees to allow the fund to be used for that purpose, it's still there to be used if necessary. Again, Harris was not ignorant of the fact the fund could be used to bail out violent rioters. Yet, she encouraged supporting it anyway.

But you continue to split those hairs if you think it helps your ****ty argument.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.

---

Yeah, she raised money during the riots. She didn't personally cause them, so that's one little difference between her and Trump.

---

Except that Trump exhorted his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" while Kamala said this about ongoing riots:

"They're not going to stop," Harris said at the time. "This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not going to stop and everyone beware, because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November and they're not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not and we should not."

---

She said that about protests not riots. I know you have trouble with that distinction.

---

she said that about protest that turned to riots, when asked about raising bail money for those arrested FOR RIOTING.

---

Nope. Watch the video.

---

who got arrested for protesting? Were these innocent protestors falsely imprisoned just for exercising their first amendment rights? By all means, We should all be like VP Haris and donate to get the falsely imprisoned people out of jail!

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.

---

Yeah, she raised money during the riots. She didn't personally cause them, so that's one little difference between her and Trump.

---

Except that Trump exhorted his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" while Kamala said this about ongoing riots:

"They're not going to stop," Harris said at the time. "This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not going to stop and everyone beware, because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November and they're not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not and we should not."

---

She said that about protests not riots. I know you have trouble with that distinction.

---

she said that about protest that turned to riots, when asked about raising bail money for those arrested FOR RIOTING.

---

Nope. Watch the video.

---

who got arrested for protesting? Were these innocent protestors falsely imprisoned just for exercising their first amendment rights? By all means, We should all be like VP Haris and donate to get the falsely imprisoned people out of jail!

---

She wasn't asked about bail at all. It was no part of the conversation.

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Hiroshima/Nagasaki scenario is the kind of false dilemma that often presents itself when you try to apply the trolley hypothetical to real life. A negotiated surrender would have avoided both tragic outcomes. However, it would not have secured our post-war hegemony in the way we desired.

Things get even messier when you consider that elections aren't surprises or one-time events. We all gather to watch this absurd scenario every four years. At some point, reasonable people have to ask who's tying all these people to the tracks and why. Who is this Whiterock, and why is he telling us we have no choice? For that matter, why is his company busy laying tracks and recruiting "volunteers" in countries all over the world? What's his angle? As repulsive as "virtue posturing" may be, there is something worse. Exploiting the misery of others while accusing them of hypocrisy is doubly hypocritical.

---

How many straw man can you pack into a single post? Thereo was no indication that Japan was prepared to negotiate a surrender.

---

Of course there was.

Quote:

---

The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, andfor manythat the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, Truman's chief of staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… In being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement 11 days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that "the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air."

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that "the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan." Adm. William "Bull" Halsey Jr., the commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [The scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…"

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he "voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." He later publicly declared, "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Even the famous hawk Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, the head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that "the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."

The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan's emperor would be allowed to stay as a figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion could begin.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/tnamp/

---

---

Major reading comprehension error, counselor.

Each one of those statements was an assessment by an American military commander that the use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary because Japan was already defeated. Pointedly NOT one of those statements by any of those commanders indicated they were aware that Japanese political or military leaders were prepared to surrender.

---

From paragraph 1:

"William Leahy, Truman's chief of staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

---

Please post a copy of the pre-Hiroshima Japanese offer of formal, unconditional surrender.

Now, you are asserting Truman was a maniacal barbarian who spurned a Japanese offer of surrender so he could drop a couple of nukes just to see the mushroom cloud and cackle "boy I really showed those *******s how to bomb a city, didn't I! Hahahahahaha!"

---

Its amazing you are so wrong so often. Your reading comprehension is truly shiiite but honestly I should have figured from your username. I'm sometimes impressed by stupid people and you are garnering it like a pig hoarding mud.

If someone is getting ready to do something, like presenting a document or offer, by definition they haven't done it yet, an d have not presented the document. Is that easy enough to understand?

The pig is going to cover itself in mud after the kind farmer bathes it. We all know it. We have the secret intelligence indicating it. The pig itself is squealing about it all across the farm. However before it can get from the bath to the mud, it gets nuked.

Can you see how asking "show me the mud" is a really stupid bar to set for the claim "the pig was going to cover itself in mud?"

---

What a dumb take. Classic analytic error of conflating what SHOULD happen with what WILL happen.

There are a number of scenarios where foreign interests come out of the woodwork offering us things. Most myriad are opposition party leaders who dangle prospects of an imminent coup against a weakening government. "Get on board with us and we'll be very receptive to your entreaties" they say. All kinds of scenarios..."government is going to crack down on us...government is going to fall....president about to go into exile...etc...." All they're doing is trying to further their own agenda, to get US help for their agenda. Sometimes there are 4-5 major threads or more of that going on and twice that many unserious ones. I once traveled across several African countries meeting with reps from one group that ultimately did end up working out & taking power, 6 months down the road (without our help). During that time, there were even factions WITHIN the government ruling class reaching out offering to right the ship. Instability does that.

So were there Japanese officials around the world making overtures in 1945? Japanese opposition leaders doing same? Sure. I'll bet we'll never know how many there were. Might have even been Chinese or Korean groups claiming to know something/someone, offering to do the job, etc..... It's sometimes comical how sophomoric such things can be.

One thing we know for sure.....in 1945 Japan was a military dictatorship with a nominal royal head of state. And neither military leadership nor head of state. the factions that actually controlled the military, had made any kind of public or private made entreaties to the USG to sue for unconditional surrender. They SHOULD have been. They were militarily defeated and had zero percent chance of victory. But. Given their warrior culture, such was so far beyond the scope of their worldview, they were going to solider on to the last soldier, as they had done island after island after island... We did the right thing - we came after them deliberately and relentlessly until they capitulated. We could have dithered around for months/years waiting for the regime to fall, which it likely never would have. To end it, we had to invade (or use the nukes). We wisely chose the latter to force the timely outcome we got.

You guys can make it up and run with internet crackpot theories all you want, but I've actually played the game. You see, everybody reaches out to the spy agencies first, because in most countries in the world, the spies have more influence than the diplomats. Not exactly true in our system, but it is nearly everywhere else and cultural lenses are cultural lenses. So unless you're prepared to post documents out of national archives detailing the discussions between emissaries of Tojo and the Emperor making a formal offer of surrender, you're just pushing bilge out of your bunghole.

---

Its funny because you're the one who wants material proof of something that was in the works but had not materialized. Classic bs from a bser.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Hiroshima/Nagasaki scenario is the kind of false dilemma that often presents itself when you try to apply the trolley hypothetical to real life. A negotiated surrender would have avoided both tragic outcomes. However, it would not have secured our post-war hegemony in the way we desired.

Things get even messier when you consider that elections aren't surprises or one-time events. We all gather to watch this absurd scenario every four years. At some point, reasonable people have to ask who's tying all these people to the tracks and why. Who is this Whiterock, and why is he telling us we have no choice? For that matter, why is his company busy laying tracks and recruiting "volunteers" in countries all over the world? What's his angle? As repulsive as "virtue posturing" may be, there is something worse. Exploiting the misery of others while accusing them of hypocrisy is doubly hypocritical.

---

How many straw man can you pack into a single post? Thereo was no indication that Japan was prepared to negotiate a surrender.

---

Of course there was.

Quote:

---

The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, andfor manythat the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, Truman's chief of staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… In being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement 11 days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that "the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air."

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that "the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan." Adm. William "Bull" Halsey Jr., the commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [The scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…"

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he "voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." He later publicly declared, "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Even the famous hawk Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, the head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that "the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."

The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan's emperor would be allowed to stay as a figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion could begin.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/tnamp/

---

---

Major reading comprehension error, counselor.

Each one of those statements was an assessment by an American military commander that the use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary because Japan was already defeated. Pointedly NOT one of those statements by any of those commanders indicated they were aware that Japanese political or military leaders were prepared to surrender.

---

From paragraph 1:

"William Leahy, Truman's chief of staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

---

Please post a copy of the pre-Hiroshima Japanese offer of formal, unconditional surrender.

Now, you are asserting Truman was a maniacal barbarian who spurned a Japanese offer of surrender so he could drop a couple of nukes just to see the mushroom cloud and cackle "boy I really showed those *******s how to bomb a city, didn't I! Hahahahahaha!"

---

Its amazing you are so wrong so often. Your reading comprehension is truly shiiite but honestly I should have figured from your username. I'm sometimes impressed by stupid people and you are garnering it like a pig hoarding mud.

If someone is getting ready to do something, like presenting a document or offer, by definition they haven't done it yet, an d have not presented the document. Is that easy enough to understand?

The pig is going to cover itself in mud after the kind farmer bathes it. We all know it. We have the secret intelligence indicating it. The pig itself is squealing about it all across the farm. However before it can get from the bath to the mud, it gets nuked.

Can you see how asking "show me the mud" is a really stupid bar to set for the claim "the pig was going to cover itself in mud?"

---

What a dumb take. Classic analytic error of conflating what SHOULD happen with what WILL happen.

There are a number of scenarios where foreign interests come out of the woodwork offering us things. Most myriad are opposition party leaders who dangle prospects of an imminent coup against a weakening government. "Get on board with us and we'll be very receptive to your entreaties" they say. All kinds of scenarios..."government is going to crack down on us...government is going to fall....president about to go into exile...etc...." All they're doing is trying to further their own agenda, to get US help for their agenda. Sometimes there are 4-5 major threads or more of that going on and twice that many unserious ones. I once traveled across several African countries meeting with reps from one group that ultimately did end up working out & taking power, 6 months down the road (without our help). During that time, there were even factions WITHIN the government ruling class reaching out offering to right the ship. Instability does that.

So were there Japanese officials around the world making overtures in 1945? Japanese opposition leaders doing same? Sure. I'll bet we'll never know how many there were. Might have even been Chinese or Korean groups claiming to know something/someone, offering to do the job, etc..... It's sometimes comical how sophomoric such things can be.

One thing we know for sure.....in 1945 Japan was a military dictatorship with a nominal royal head of state. And neither military leadership nor head of state. the factions that actually controlled the military, had made any kind of public or private made entreaties to the USG to sue for unconditional surrender. They SHOULD have been. They were militarily defeated and had zero percent chance of victory. But. Given their warrior culture, such was so far beyond the scope of their worldview, they were going to solider on to the last soldier, as they had done island after island after island... We did the right thing - we came after them deliberately and relentlessly until they capitulated. We could have dithered around for months/years waiting for the regime to fall, which it likely never would have. To end it, we had to invade (or use the nukes). We wisely chose the latter to force the timely outcome we got.

You guys can make it up and run with internet crackpot theories all you want, but I've actually played the game. You see, everybody reaches out to the spy agencies first, because in most countries in the world, the spies have more influence than the diplomats. Not exactly true in our system, but it is nearly everywhere else and cultural lenses are cultural lenses. So unless you're prepared to post documents out of national archives detailing the discussions between emissaries of Tojo and the Emperor making a formal offer of surrender, you're just pushing bilge out of your bunghole.

---

Its funny because you're the one who wants material proof of something that was in the works but had not materialized. Classic bs from a bser.

---

The classic BS is offering up opinions as fact.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.

---

Yeah, she raised money during the riots. She didn't personally cause them, so that's one little difference between her and Trump.

---

Except that Trump exhorted his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" while Kamala said this about ongoing riots:

"They're not going to stop," Harris said at the time. "This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not going to stop and everyone beware, because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November and they're not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not and we should not."

---

She said that about protests not riots. I know you have trouble with that distinction.

---

she said that about protest that turned to riots, when asked about raising bail money for those arrested FOR RIOTING.

---

Nope. Watch the video.

---

have seen it many times.
The meaning is manifestly clear. The riots will continue until the desired outcome is achieved.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.

---

Yeah, she raised money during the riots. She didn't personally cause them, so that's one little difference between her and Trump.

---

Except that Trump exhorted his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" while Kamala said this about ongoing riots:

"They're not going to stop," Harris said at the time. "This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not going to stop and everyone beware, because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November and they're not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not and we should not."

---

She said that about protests not riots. I know you have trouble with that distinction.

---

she said that about protest that turned to riots, when asked about raising bail money for those arrested FOR RIOTING.

---

Nope. Watch the video.

---

have seen it many times.
The meaning is manifestly clear. The riots will continue until the desired outcome is achieved.

---

The more you embellish, the clearer it gets, I suppose.

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

I am not. I am saying that Harris publicly encouraging Americans to contribute funds she knows will be used to bail out violent rioters is not merely her "reforming the bail system."

This is pretty elementary stuff. Some of you guys are completely brain dead.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

---

Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

---

Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?

---

I'm not interested in the separate conversation of bail reform any more than I want to discuss tax reform in this conversation. We are discussing Kamala Harris advertising for and bailing out criminals with an NGO she supports. Some of those criminals she personally helped bail out went on to assault people and kill people. She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting. Facts matter.

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

---

Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?

---

She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting.

---

No she didn't.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

---

Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?

---

She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting.

---

No she didn't.

---

Yes she did. It's on video. It's linked in this thread. While riots were occurring she said they shouldn't stop. She publicly promoted and financially supported a bail fund for rioters and other criminals alike. Facts matter.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

---

Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?

---

She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting.

---

No she didn't.

---

Obviously you're being your typical obtuse self, no doubt taking issue with some of Wang's terminology. But if one looks at the timeline of the BLM "protests," his statements are pretty accurate.

Kamala sent out her tweet publicly encouraging people to contribute to the Minnesota Freedom Fund on June 1, 2020. This was 4 days after the violent riots began in Minneapolis. And of course we do know that fund was used to bail out violent protestors who went on to commit violent crimes.

As for the second part of Wang's statement - she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting - Harris said on the Colbert show later in June, in response to a question about the "protests":

"But they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop. They're not. This is a movement. I'm telling you. They're not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels. That they're not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not."

I am sure you take issue with Wang's use of the word "riot" to describe what Harris encouraged, but I think most reasonable people (present company excepted of course).would describe the Minnesota protests as "riots," at least in part

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

---

Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?

---

I'm not interested in the separate conversation of bail reform any more than I want to discuss tax reform in this conversation. We are discussing Kamala Harris advertising for and bailing out criminals with an NGO she supports. Some of those criminals she personally helped bail out went on to assault people and kill people. She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting. Facts matter.

---

You are arguing with people who are intellectually dishonest. Sam will never concede this issue. Narrative above facts with him, as always.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

---

Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?

---

She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting.

---

No she didn't.

---

Yes she did. It's on video. It's linked in this thread. While riots were occurring she said they shouldn't stop. She publicly promoted and financially supported a bail fund for rioters and other criminals alike. Facts matter.

---

I know it's in the thread. I linked it. Still waiting for some of y'all to watch it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

---

Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?

---

She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting.

---

No she didn't.

---

Yes she did. It's on video. It's linked in this thread. While riots were occurring she said they shouldn't stop. She publicly promoted and financially supported a bail fund for rioters and other criminals alike. Facts matter.

---

I know it's in the thread. I linked it. Still waiting for some of y'all to watch it.

---

You can tell we watched it by our factual references to said video's exact content, timing, author and audience.

She wasn't just talking about the Minnesota protests. She wasn't just talking about protests that took place even in her lifetime.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

---

Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.

---

I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.

---

You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.

---

Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.

---

Two different issues.

---

It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.

---

Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?

---

Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?

---

Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?

---

She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting.

---

No she didn't.

---

Yes she did. It's on video. It's linked in this thread. While riots were occurring she said they shouldn't stop. She publicly promoted and financially supported a bail fund for rioters and other criminals alike. Facts matter.

---

I know it's in the thread. I linked it. Still waiting for some of y'all to watch it.

---

I suppose you are referencing Harris's statement on August 28th - 3 months after the violent protests began, almost 3 months after she encouraged people to contribute to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, more than 2 months after her appearance on Colbert, and more importantly, after she received ample criticism for public statements - wherein she stated at the DNC convention that, "We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters...We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder."

You know, if you are going to start referring to post-riot statements that politicians are guilted into saying in order to absolve them of responsibility for their words and actions, clearly you must support giving DT a pass for Jan. 6th given his public statements for the protests to "stay peaceful." If you have any consistency, that is.

No, I'm talking about the Colbert show.

Sam Lowry said:

---

She wasn't just talking about the Minnesota protests. She wasn't just talking about protests that took place even in her lifetime.

---

Holy **** that's hilarious. Kamala pushing NGO bail funds for rioters while riots are going on, "der, she wuz jus talkin bout bail reform!" Kamala cheers on riots and says they shouldn't stop, "der, she wuz talkin bout ALL protests dat ever wuz!"

Sam Lowry said:

---

She wasn't just talking about the Minnesota protests. She wasn't just talking about protests that took place even in her lifetime.

---

She was specifically asked about the BLM "protests" occurring across the U.S. That included the BLM protests in Minnesota and the other violent protests that occurred nationwide.

She was not talking about protests that took place in her lifetime. That is a false statement. Go watch the clip and get your facts straight.

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, I'm talking about the Colbert show.

---

Then it sounds like you need to watch the clip again, and look at the specific context of when she made the statement in question, and what she was asked. Because you're dead wrong.

How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.

Sam Lowry said:

---

How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.

---

Chuckle. Now that's some interesting logic.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.

---

Chuckle. Now that's some interesting logic.

---

First semester stuff. You should audit a class some time!

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.

---

Chuckle. Now that's some interesting logic.

---

First semester stuff. You should audit a class some time!

---

Indeed. First semester of clown school. Oi vey.

Sam Lowry said:

---

How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.

---

How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.

---

How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.

---

So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?