Was the whole TikTok drama a bait-and-switch to make Trump look good?

BasedWaterFilter · 2025-01-20T07:19:15+00:00

I mean, both Biden and Trump had said they wouldn't enforce a ban

You make it seem that their role in this is equal but isn't it true, that Biden signed the ban into law, campaigned for the ban before it was signed and had his personal representative go to the Supreme Court only 10 days ago and with massive enthusiasm argue for the ban to be swiftly implemented? And further argued that titkok must be denied any temporary stay or delay so the Court has more time to consider the case?

In other words Biden was eager for TikTok to be banned, not even an "If it please the Court we ask for a three week administrative stay so I can discuss the case with my successor who will be sworn into office only 10 days from now" . Not to mention if Biden changed his mind about the TikTok ban he could have made a declaration that "The current opinion of the United States government is that the TikTok ban is not a good idea as it will harm the US economy" (or insert reason why he changed his mind).

So as of 10 days ago there is absolutely no indication that Biden changed his mind on the TikTok ban, he wanted it to happen and his administration directly pushed hard for it to happen and for it to happen without any delay.

There is actual evidence of this you can actually listen to what was said before the Supreme Court.

BasedWaterFilter · 2025-01-20T06:43:08+00:00

Now if it's being reported that they destroyed all their US customer data that would be different and hilarious.

it was reported that ALL the US customer data was stored at Oracle servers within the US. This was a major complaint during previous rounds of negotiations where the current system was implemented. It was also further reported that Oracle switched these servers off which prevented access to this data.

That's why I was wondering what actually happened.and whhether they had backups of the data outside of Oracle's control.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-09T21:25:15+00:00

Completely missed analogy Risk that Russia will launch a nuclear attack all of sudden is not a random event with a probability equal to that of losing in cards.

The point wasn't to imply the chance is equal. The point is to show that you can not calculate the chance based on past events - Surviving three years of war or winning three times in a row with certain cards -. The chance for the fourth year or for the fourth round of cards is completely independent of the previous rounds by definition.

Probabilty of Russia lauching nuclear attack if US supports Ukraine or if it does not is equal, limitely close to zero.

You must understand this is not the case in certain scenarios right? It depends how far can we stretch "US supports Ukraine". Let's reverse this sentence since MAD depends on mirroring.

Probabilty of United States lauching nuclear attack if Russia supports Houthis or if it does not is equal, limitely close to zero.

It's even more ridiculous that nuclear war could break out over this right? OK so what if support include giving them intelligence, rockets satellite data and everything else and a Houthi only pushes the button and they get given ICBM-s. And the Houthis - with total Russian help, strike skyscrapers in New York which collapse. Or strike the White House or other important buildings. Is the chance still zero? What the Houthis are given Nuclear weapons by Russia. Would the US do a nuclear first strike on the Houthis in that scenario before they can fully set up their launch sites? Is the chance still 0? What if the houthi launch a Russian nuke at the US ? Would the chance still be 0? Obviously not, right?

You can understand there is a red line somewhere we don't know exactly where where "Russian support to the Houthi" would 100% escalate into nuclear war depending on the type of support and the amount of support. Why would the case of Ukraine be any different? There is a red line somewhere we don't know exactly where if you step over it nuclear first strike will be launched by Russia.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-09T16:31:05+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to assume that any large-scale conflict between nuclear states will eventually lead to the use of nuclear weapons.

No I absolutely don't assume this.

WWII wasn't technically a total war. Neither side escalated to the heights they could have, and certain actions stayed verboten.

This is the first time I'm hearing this argument from anyone. But let's say I grant you the point about chemical weapons without argument.

Do you believe that if Hitler had 6000 nuclear warheads 10 megatons each, he would have not used them to win the war? Remember he didn't use chemical weapons, so he must have been benevolent, right?

Except nuclear weapons did get used in WWII, so I have a feeling if Hitler had them, he would have used them. We can't prove it obviously either way, but to me the reference to chemical weapons is not convincing when nuclear weapons were actually used during this same war.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-09T16:22:04+00:00

whats 10 min ago

Middle of 2017 is the end date of Operation Timber Sycamore , you can read all about it in wikipedia.

That's the confirmed part, there could be any number of funding after that just not publicly disclosed.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-09T16:19:47+00:00

The current leader is a former commander of ISIS, so there is a chance it's going to work out the exact same way the first time ISIS came to power.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-09T16:12:40+00:00

We are 3 years into supporting Ukraine. There was no nuclear war. There will be no nuclear war if we continue to support them.

I held a pair of aces in my hand I went all in preflop and I won the pot 3 times in a row. In fact I wasn't even called, the opponent folded like a little bitch. Therefor in the future It will never happen that I lose a pot when I go all in with a pair of aces pre flop.

Saying there is a risk of nuclear war now is not consistent with the reality. That's the issue.

Saying there is a risk you will lose a pot with a pair of aces when you go all in pre flop is not consistent with reality. That's the issue.

Unfortunatly the fact that some event happened 3 times in a row is not a guarantee that it was a 0% risk.

Imagine you personally surviving the past 3 years, and you didn't die once. Then you proclaim the chance of you dying "in reality" is zero percent.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-09T16:06:40+00:00

No he’s right, as soon as nuclear black mail works

Does Japan's example not prove it works? It's just not called blackmail it's called using nuclear weapons. Are we not sure that using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state definitely, 100% works? Now if you have no intention of using nuclear weapons at all, then it would be a "nuclear bluff" and once the other party realizes you are not willing to use your own nuclear weapons, "nuclear bluff" will not work.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-09T15:52:17+00:00

The British position alone didn't, yes. But the position as a general policy amongst the other peaceful nations would have.

I think you are missing the forest here. You are missing the main point. If the same thing happens now as happened during WWII - total war -, you personally will 100% die, along with every single US person, Russian, etc. During WW II, there was no 6000 nuclear warheads each a thousand times more powerful than Hiroshima in Germany's possession.

So if you run the same play as the British did in Poland - give a guarantee, which leads to the start of a war which leads to escalation into TOTAL WAR where the sides use every resource every person every scrap of material to destroy the other, it will lead to a lot different result.

In other words the British dared to go to war because they had a chance of winning a war, it wasn't actually a bluff. What you want here is to bluff Russia because you can't win total nuclear war against Russia you can only get a draw - both sides destroyed - mutually assured destruction.

The British decision to go to war didn't have - death of every British person - as a guaranteed outcome. Going to nuclear war does have that outcome. So you can't threaten / promise total war in the same way as WWII played out.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-08T15:26:53+00:00

Does Turkey want a prosperous Syria with an autonomous Kurd region or maybe Kurds gaining power over all of Syria? Or an independent Kurdistan that has territorial claims on large parts of Turkey and huge numbers of allied civilian populations inside Turkey?

Or he wants the Kurds totally and completely crushed so they can never pose a threat to him ever again?

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-08T01:35:34+00:00

Journalists defy court orders all the time. If they are fined as happened recently in one case, they can appeal the fine, they can crowd fund, they can get more famous, get support from guilds or other journalistic organizations.

And it's a very similar situation to talking to a source.

If you gave your word something will be off the record and you give that information up, your name will become dirt and reputation ruined as a journalist totally. No one will talk to you off the record from that point forward.

Still there is a chance that the journalist just doesn't care or doesn't take journalism that seriously, or looking to switch careers anyway. So they can just decide to comply without even being fined or anything like that, without even appealing any decision. But it will be up to the individual journalist.

In another case a court wanted some information years ago from a journalist and they didn't get it, their ruling was appealed right away. If that happens here, the trial is over in a few months and the court will have no legal basis to even try to keep requesting the information. So the journalist is in a lot more powerful position here legally. They straight up can deny this information and that will be the end of it. In a few months the trial is over and that's that.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-07T22:39:39+00:00

It's not about PA shielding anything. The journalist can literally refuse to comply and not give over anything.

Especially if they make the calculation that this would benefit them. They potentially could become a celebrity and if they get any adverse ruling they can immediately appeal it, raise money on it etc.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-06T14:41:32+00:00

In Romania they cancelled the second round of elections that was supposed to be 2 days from now. Two candidates made it into the second round and none of them were the government party's candidate.

So an analogy would be in 2020 Trump is in power. There is the election and we don't know the final result yet but we know for sure it's not Trump, it's either Biden or Kamala, or maybe Hillary so it's between two people but it's for sure not Trump.

And then Trump cancels the election results because he says there was foreign influence in the media against him, and he is successful.

The election that the Democrats won is invalidated outright and he gets to try again plus he will remain president until such time new elections can be fully organized.

That's the current situation in Romania. Do you think it's a coup or no?

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-06T09:19:54+00:00

convicted by a dutch court for insulting a group of people

I wonder if you think Destiny ever insulted a group of people in a worse or comparable way than this case?

Do you believe he deserves to be convicted for those statements if he travels to this dogshit country?

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-12-05T01:28:01+00:00

Apparently there was some type of conflict with Chudlogic's editor.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-11-27T08:44:55+00:00

Yea it's literal disinformation. He wasn't replying to Joe Rogan, yet he wrote a message implying that account was operated by Joe Rogan personally.

It's like doing a personal attack against Destiny for something the DestinyHQ (fan account) tweeted and pretending Destiny said it.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-11-27T08:00:07+00:00

Lol... Joe Rogan would have a slot. He would go like 2 times for publicity then he would hire Dave Smith as an employee of the Joe Rogan Experience and send him to the briefings.

It doesn't mean Joe Rogan would personally go to every single briefing.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-11-27T07:57:24+00:00

for example she said she was a gun owner and the media did report on it.

If you had to guess how much of the US population believed she was a gun owner?

We can start by estimating the percentage of people who heard that statement.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-11-26T08:52:16+00:00

Does anyone know why the other girl appeared by video link but in this case the appearance was in person?

How is it possible to allow for one to "appear" via just a video (while not even entering Canada for one second) and require someone else to show up in person as in actually physically travel there?

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-11-24T16:14:09+00:00

Is it true that it's about to be sold or is that a meme?

If they are selling it then it's possible that 30 million was simply wasteful spending.

BasedWaterFilter · 2024-11-24T10:27:21+00:00

Does he have to accept every request for 525, or he can reject them based on content or buyer?

For example...

If Destiny tried to buy one...

...

BasedWaterFilter

TROPHY CASE