[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.7348[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1602908688125.jpg (409.17 KB, 1332x1532, 333:383, 1602715851324.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Will the Hunter Biden laptop leak have much influence on the election?
108 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>But, uh. The court doesn't do investigations. You're supposed to be done with that by the time you press charges, especially in a civil trial.
I would suggest this is the big problem.
The state does not investigate itself. Not for things that matter. Everyone's forced to dedicate their own personal resources, while still lacking the abilities law enforcement can bring forth in their investigations.

It's almost like the entire system is built to ensure corruption is near impossible to uproot and show light on.


There are actually multiple independent oversight agencies as well as mechanisms for people who thought there was fraud to trigger an investigation which has to go through certain mandatory steps and then publish their findings. All that happened. Multiple times. Even a recount. Even multiple recounts. I don't know what more investigation was wanted.

I'm just saying that if you wanted the court to investigate it more, courts don't do that.


I want the federal government to investigate it, as was done in 2016 over a conspiracy theory quite literally created off of partisan interest funding a dossier which had no evidence behind it.

We've had hundreds of sworn statements at this point. It seems to be an objective fact as far as I've seen that ballot watchers were prevented from doing their job. Likewise, states ignored their constitutional requirements, and changed restrictions on voting without going through the required channels, without consequence.

I will not be happy until the individuals responsible for the objective mistakes that have occurred, that we know for a fact have occurred, are at the very least removed from their position and barred from ever doing that again,.
I do not care if they try to hide behind 'glitches' or 'mistakes' or orders from someone else, they should not be granted the trust to fail like that again, and throw our entire democracy at risk because of their actions.

Yet, nothing like that, at all, seems to have occurred. All that we get is time and time again they say "Well, it's not enough evidence of fraud", or worse "You just don't have standing to complain about this".

What is the point of law enforcement if they do nothing about matters of the sanctity and trustworthiness of the nation?
If we do not have a system that ensures it is just and fair, what's the moral justification for the system at all?
Why not secede from what appears to many a blatantly unjust, untrustworthy, and corrupt state?
Why listen to the demands of what appears, to many, an illegitimate president?


File: 1610581868442.jpeg (429.97 KB, 1920x1280, 3:2, 27c3acf721bffc0279f6e039a….jpeg) ImgOps Google

36 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Yes, but that is a generalized injury, not a particularized injury.
It's a state. Any injury is going to be generalized. It is not an individual, it is effectively a member nation.

>Even Trump's own Supreme Court appointees agreed!
As I recall, there was an opinion writ from at least one of them saying that the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to refuse a case from the states, regardless of if they have standing or not.
They had not participated in the vote due to the conflict of interest, however.

>I strongly disagree.  I'm not a lawyer, but I know something about standing.
Okay. I strongly disagree with your disagreement, as per what I have seen and heard in regards to the argument.
They could've refused Texas after hearing their case, but instead they refused to even allow Texas to get to that point.

>Query: If Trump knowingly told falsehoods about election fraud to solicit donations, is he criminally liable?
The presumed falsehoods were post election, so that quite clearly wouldn't be the case.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1611368317073.jpg (259.07 KB, 708x1000, 177:250, 33c5f9f95a8bad57ed633855e5….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>As I recall, there was an opinion writ from at least one of them saying that the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to refuse a case from the states, regardless of if they have standing or not.
Yes, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito believe that Supreme Court must grant leave for states to file a Bill of Complaint invoking the Court's original jurisdiction, even if the Supreme Court will inevitably rule against the state on grounds of standing.  I don't have an informed opinion on whether original jurisdiction is mandatory (as Thomas and Alito believe) or not (as the rest of the Supreme Court justices believe).

>The presumed falsehoods were post election, so that quite clearly wouldn't be the case.
Trump raised over $200 million after the election by soliciting donations to fight the alleged fraud.


>Trump raised over $200 million after the election by soliciting donations to fight the alleged fraud.
Fair enough. However that still leaves both my other points;

>"However, besides that, no, I would say, that wouldn't be. Because quite literally every single politician lies on the campaign trail."
>"I would say that you would have to prove he lied, knowingly. Failing to do that would result in an unjust outcome."


File: 1611135663992.jpg (43.13 KB, 500x534, 250:267, f12.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So I got lost once more in the whole list of videogames and violence memes. And I think it's clear that it's wrong to state videogames are responsible for the stuff media would claim they are.

Personally, I know the pull of videogames and some other media, both growing up and now. And it takes some discipline to set yourself at work on something without getting distracted.
So I do feel like there is some responsibility on the parent's part to limit the time their kids spend on TV and video games.

When it comes to sex and violence, there is still a societal pressure that enforces that viewer rating code. And people who let their kids watch, say, porno will definitely be questioned.
To a lesser extend, there might be questions asked when a 7 year old kid discusses beating hookers to death in the latest GTA game.

So what do you think?
Is there a responsibility for parents to put some restrictions on the time kids spend on video games?
And is there a responsibility for parents to put restrictions on the content of the video games played by their kids?

By extension, these questions can also cover other media of course.


File: 1611218135488.png (2.4 MB, 3000x2000, 3:2, ff878de.png) ImgOps Google

Yeah, i do believe reasonable restrictions are important. But only in the sense that too much of anything is a bad thing. If a child did nothing but read books, i'd have the same thought. Books are great, but maybe you can play a video game together, go for a hike, or cook a meal together. You might need to hunt for things they enjoy, but i think it's important to making a well rounded person.

In terms of content, kids can handle more than we give them credit for. But it's still a good idea to be mindful of their maturity level when introducing to them violent or sexual content. There's no one size fits all age, it takes actually knowing your kid and assessing this in them.


>Is there a responsibility for parents to put some restrictions on the time kids spend on video games?
>And is there a responsibility for parents to put restrictions on the content of the video games played by their kids?

In either case, I see no reason to bother.  There's probably some extreme cases that might warrant intervention, but those are gonna be rare.


File: 1610319552625.jpeg (78.02 KB, 512x384, 4:3, unnamed.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Whenever I talk about states, I seem at odds with the more common Lockean view of states as tools for individuals to secure freedom.

My sense of Locke is -- "sounds nice; not how things work."  I try to hold the premise that human society is mostly good (and has been through history) -- I try not to become a cynic.  And I find myself more on the side of Hobbes, who sees more respect owed authorities if there must be state power.

I don't have a clear goal of what to accomplish with this thread, except not discussing the topic too much on other threads.

Question for discussion, if you like: "If people have the right to rebel when they feel their rights are violated (but the state disagrees, obviously), why do states also have the right to use violence to subdue the rebellion?  And if you question a state's right to use violence to subdue someone who feels they ought have more freedom (basically what state violence is for, right?), how do you value states at all?"
11 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Hobbe's is the definition that is used in practice, whereas Locke's definition is the one we can use as it pertains to morality.

Hobbes defines what a state does regardless of its morality or legitimacy, whereas what Locke is essentially describing is the moral reasoning for government to exist, and consequently, when rebellion is acceptable.

"No taxation without representation" was the initial call for rebellion in the colonies. Those without a say as it pertains to their right will inevitably rise up against the state. What Locke is pointing to, in essence, is the reason for it.

>If people have the right to rebel when they feel their rights are violated (but the state disagrees, obviously), why do states also have the right to use violence to subdue the rebellion?
Depends on the context. But, overall, presuming the reasons for rebellion are justified, I would say that they don't.
At least, in the sense of a moral right.
You might say the rebel has a moral obligation to pursue all peaceful means of retaining their rights, but even there, personally, I'd just consider that a nicety.

>If you question a state's right to use violence to subdue someone who feels they ought have more freedom (basically what state violence is for, right?), how do you value states at all?
States as I believe Locke sees it exist to protect your rights, whether that be from a foreign power, or an individual.
Someone who steals from you is violating your rights.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


This is why I personally am more absolute about it.
The 'greater good' is irrelevant, by my reckoning.
Otherwise, you get this contradiction you note.

Rather, the question simply needs be "are rights being violated".
Of course, my standard also means you have justification for rebellion over a traffic ticket. But, on the same token, I'm not overly hurt by that possibility.
That might be my inclination more towards martyrism, though. Still, I doubt there'd be as much corruption in the police departments if getting shot was a regular consequence for a betrayal of one's oaths.


File: 1611100151545.png (20.13 KB, 230x207, 10:9, 1361157.png) ImgOps Google

>Hobbes defines what a state does regardless of its morality or legitimacy
I think that might be more correct for Machiavelli.

>Those without a say as it pertains to their right will inevitably rise up against the state.

Perhaps.  Following America, rebellion against monarchy spread to Europe.  Constrained to look at that period, you would say autocracy is unstable.  Simply having the most people, perhaps the modern period is the best to look at for understanding states, so yes.

>But, overall, presuming the reasons for rebellion are justified, I would say [the state has no right to put it down].

OK.  That's the typical view, yes.  I don't know.  Just seems to place states in a problematic light, especially if they are granted the power to subdue, but may not have the moral right.  You could say between anarchy and state power, states are the lesser evil.  But I won't advocate granting evil authority, so that won't do.


Maybe I'm coming to a reckoning.  If I were observing a study group of alligators, I would think of what they did and the causes.  There wouldn't need to be good and bad alligators.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1610167903597.jpg (91.62 KB, 658x635, 658:635, ooops.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I am quite eager to see Biden policies on my meme country.

Does he like coups or is rather a calm guy?
8 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1610397593489.jpg (93.66 KB, 546x923, 42:71, 5c8baf8b726557b96a7a158940….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Hmm, maybe it would be for the best if Biden avoids public appearances for a few months.  I've heard that his inauguration might be mostly virtual because of COVID-19 anyhow.


File: 1610408314298.png (30.48 KB, 314x398, 157:199, 4444.PNG) ImgOps Google

So, he peaceful guy?


That people needed death and insurrection to see Trumpies as 30's-esque early Reiche just proves ive been right about education and complacency for 50 years.

Itll be fun to see if we're past the tipping point.  197 House Republicans today still voted Fourth Reiche.


File: 1609450901392.png (180.12 KB, 1016x686, 508:343, Screenshot from 2020-12-31….png) ImgOps Google

Or probably more accurately additional steps required to run Flash content (or what was once Flash content) following major browsers pulling support.

While I see the issue appearing in news articles, the technical side isn't really news.  The stories are probably more capturing reminiscence, or a feeling that something is being lost: "To me, [Flash] aesthetics mark a time when the internet felt fresh and subversive." - LA Times.

My question is: in the past 20-25 years, how has the internet changed?  Of course, we are all aware of technical changes, but has the culture changed as well?

Also: Happy New Year!!!


See also: https://ponyville.us/pony/res/1069724.html

>has the culture changed as well?
Yes.  A lot more stupid people.  Back in the day, most Internet users were above average in intelligence and tech-savviness.  They also tended to lean noticeably more libertarian than the general population.  Nowadays, almost everyone is online.  


File: 1610063237358.png (34.18 KB, 200x525, 8:21, Screenshot from 2021-01-07….png) ImgOps Google

When I think of early works of flash...intelligence does not seem their feature.  But dealing with new technology and the bugs requires tech skills or at least persistence.

The relationship between average intelligence of members and -- goodness I guess -- of a society is probably positive, but maybe complicated.  I agree with the libertarian leaning -- part of the permissive (and subversive) nature of the early internet.


File: 1608787001487.jpg (381.2 KB, 880x1280, 11:16, 250-2506089_black-friday-s….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

It seems as if there is a lot of push for Black Friday to be an official holiday, or at least, it looks as if it is heading that way.

With that in mind, I can't help but wonder, should it be boycotted? I can see some dangers with setting a 'sales day' as a precedent for an official holiday. It feels greedy, and an unhealthy version of capitalism.

But what are your thoughts on it?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1608809141576.jpg (90.47 KB, 850x829, 850:829, sample-dc7d5a5de8c62c070c7….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I think capitalism is what pushes Christmas shit to be sold in October.

I think Black Friday is more likely to be made a holiday before voting day will be.


I don't see the issue.
It's simply a day wherein one who has something they would normally not be willing to sell for less does so with someone who wants something they would not be willing to buy for more.

I find it an overall win for the consumer. Same as steam sales, or happy hours.
The increase of volume of sales is what makes it possible, and for that, having a set day is ideal.

Don't think it ought to be a holiday though. That's dumb. Just not immoral.


>for Black Friday to be an official holiday
So most everywhere can be closed, and people get a 4-day weekend.  I'm OK with that.

If you mean a selective holiday -- time off for some groups of workers to create a time of extra labor for the rest, I'm not so OK with that.


File: 1608339956236.png (172.34 KB, 1976x1144, 19:11, aaa.png) ImgOps Google

1) Why does the death rate (first chart) vary significantly by day (color coding)?

2) While I understand viral exponential growth, is it behavior changes or something else that switches the growth to decay?  (It seems the third hump is going to begin decline soon.)
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


2. It might be a mix of "immunity" and ways in which measures to prevent the spread take effect.


Lots of speculation. Not much evidence. Poorly understood for most diseases. The bulk of explanation given for why the seasonal flu is seasonal don't stand up to scrutiny. If you can answer it you'd probably get a Nobel Prize or some crap.


>don't even manage to clear their backlog on Monday, spilling over to Tuesday
That was my first guess, giving it might take some time to decide a death should be attributed to COVID and counted.  An article I found seemed to point more to some unknown difference in behavior on different days of the week, so I wasn't sure what was more likely.

>percentage of local infectable people decreases, thereby
decreasing the spread
Right, herd immunity.  In the early stages you might have considered the effect negligible, but now it is gaining ground, perhaps.

>the seasonal flu is seasonal
I was under the impression it was the mutations of the flu that kept it from being extinguished through herd immunity, but also kept it mild, as most everyone is immune to something similar.  I don't know if that's right, though, and it is not a theory with much precision, if that's what you mean.

It also opens the possibility with Coronavirus, that it will become endemic through mutation.  If I understand, the high rate of spread means it is otherwise doomed to die out or retreat to a non-human resivore.


File: 1609237430355.png (338.15 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, large.png) ImgOps Google

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Townhall, as applicable and where appropriate.  These are holidays and calendar demarcations celebrated in my culture, and celebration is allowed and perhaps even encouraged by the governing authority.  Sometimes celebration of Christmas is political so I will write here, so as not to be obliged to establish with certainty my topic is devoid of politics or seriousness (I think this is the safest board for every topic really).


File: 1608858776285.gif (222.2 KB, 554x668, 277:334, image0-1.gif) ImgOps Google

Do they fall under "except matters of impeachment"?  Impeachment wasnt theoretical.


File: 1608862010529.png (284.69 KB, 631x783, 631:783, 221ba132ed22a53ff07b891837….png) ImgOps Google

Huh?  Are you referring to Article II, Section 2, which says "The President shall ... have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment"?  I'm pretty sure that it means simply that a pardon doesn't affect Congress's power to impeach and remove.


It's clear he's pardoning people connected to himself and the crimes he's committed. We all expected this to happen in his last days.


File: 1608083097576.png (971.63 KB, 1269x1024, 1269:1024, a.png) ImgOps Google

I work many professions, but one involves punching a clock.  And there are American government rules about my schedule and compensation that my corporation must follow.  And I got to thinking -- why?

A bit of research indicates it goes back to The New Deal, so I've began reading a book on that program to try to understand.  While picking out a book -- I usually begin with general overviews -- I see those that are not simply fact books tend to be something like "The New Deal: America's Great Promise" or "The Truth about The New Deal: How it prolonged the depression and continues to cripple American progress."  Usually, if a political program survives a generation or two, it falls into the background.  But in 82 years, I'm not sure how much labor and general welfare issues have.  My workplace requires me to view training on how unions are unnecessary and unreliable, and I can assume attempting to organize would result in termination for failing to follow my training.

I'm posting here so ponies or animals can vent their opinions, I guess.  I am both a laborer and creative type (suppose you can assume I'm one because the other doesn't pay rent, but I won't say it).  Anyway, I think...I'm kinda open minded at this point.  So what do you all think about The New Deal?
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Now, at some level I believe if you're going to make a law, it should be literally followed.  (I've reluctantly realized that's not how stuff works for most authorities, so now I look at punishments to discover significance.)

Do you favor strict constitutionality for its own sake, or do you think the founders were able to produce a special document that ought be followed more exactly than other laws?

You are correct, I think, that the founders didn't intend the Court to have Judicial Review and hoped for a submissive Executive, preferring Legislative supremacy.

>corporations do often get away with breaking the law
Yeah, I guess I don't know for sure.  But my sense is a person like me can't afford the legal costs of bringing a large corporation to court.  Law is for corporations fighting corporations.  The exception, I suppose, is if some institution took my case as part of a social change movement (eg. Rosa Parks and the NAACP), but that's unlikely for any given individual.

Hello, Cheeky Crab.  The 1938 Act is the one I'm mostly thinking of, but the preliminary legislations probably helped smooth the way a bit, too.


File: 1608237492802.jpg (143.35 KB, 1000x932, 250:233, 1520020337875.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Do you favor strict constitutionality for its own sake
I think the Constitution should be interpreted accordingly to its original public meaning.  I favor this because I think it is the most legitimate way of interpreting a legal document.

>or do you think the founders were able to produce a special document that ought be followed more exactly than other laws?
I think it should be followed exactly the same as other laws.  Of course, the Constitution is more vague than most other laws, which makes interpretation more difficult.
I do think that our Constitution is an exceptionally excellent document, but that doesn't affect how it should be interpreted.

>You are correct, I think, that the founders didn't intend the Court to have Judicial Review
Huh?  I never said that.  I think that Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided.

> preferring Legislative supremacy.
The powers of the Legislature are limited and enumerated by the Constitution.  "An unconstitutional act is not a law; ... it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."


>original public meaning

> I think that Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided.

OK, I don't have enough information to offer another comment.


I was reading a book that explained two systems: rule by law and rule of law.  Rule by law is where laws apply to common folk.  Rule of law is where law applies to even authorities.  Rule by law, I understand, people like rules, however authorities may still punish and act at their pleasure.  Rule of law would seem to only occur when the highest authorities happen to do what the law indicates as proper.

America, I think, tries to do a little better 'rule of law' by separating powers.  When a King is also judge in the case of whether his actions are legal, unless he has some kind of major change of heart over time, probably his actions will be found legal.  (And I suppose respectfully they are, King is King and what he says goes, so I suppose you must be able to allow an outside observer to make the required judgement.)

You seem to have some questions about American government confining its own powers, specifically the federal government allowing itself to regulate intra-state business.  Certainly the American government has been more modest over time.  It has been closer to its constitution in time.  Is there anything that could be changed to make America more 'rule of law,' at least in the areas mentioned.  (You may take America to be excellent in other areas, I don't know).


25 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>due to the politicization of courts and judges these days.
Both Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed have nearly universally ruled against Trump's claims.

>a case getting tossed out of a lower court isn't really indicative of its merits
If you mean merits as opposed to standing: Yes, some cases have been dismissed due to lack of an Article 3 'case or controversy'.
If you mean merits as opposed to procedural things: Yes, some cases have been dismissed on grounds of laches and such things.


I'm not sure that's true. Most of what I have seen, it's either been them saying it's outside of their jurisdiction, by and large, which is what was expected for the bulk of these. But there's been a few 'wins' as well, as far as discovery and preventing the deletion of data goes, for instance.
Some of the challenges were lost due to not demonstrating the election would be lost, but those aren't 'ruling against' Trump's claims. For example, it is an objective fact that Republican poll watchers were forced out on multiple occasions, blocked from watching the count, and in one case they quite literally blocked the windows from view, and as far as I have seen, rather than say this didn't happen, the argument is solely "it wouldn't change the outcome" if they are denied.
At least on part of Republican judges, anyway.


File: 1608157756406.jpg (411.28 KB, 1189x1600, 1189:1600, Dr-Seuss-models-some-chara….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I just want to point out that Trump won the election.

Edit: holy shit im almost Sleepy Joe!  What a great result.


Blah blah blah.


File: 1607477262350.jpeg (433.65 KB, 1116x1024, 279:256, large.jpeg) ImgOps Google

"Someday at Christmas there'll be no wars
When we have learned what Christmas is for
When we have found what life's really worth
There'll be peace on earth"

War is the means by which moral questions are asked of the God of violence, who grants victory to the deserving party.  In some cultures, war is the most honorable occupation.

In America, it seems honor goes more to successful inventors, media personalities, politicians, and rich business people.  It has been said people of privilege attempt to avoid military service, which is not how people typically respond to roles of honor.  The great powers have known peace since World War II.  So, it is possible that war can be made obsolete?  Perhaps market forces or democratic processes (or something else) can be accepted as answering moral questions as effectively as an "appeal to heaven"?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


>I mean, it's not like war is a mandatory part of human life.

No, I don't think so.  Some who have lost wars have lost the right to be seen as fully human.  Or to be living humans.  But if people can imagine human society without war or if people can be seen as living a full life without armed combat, then it is not essential, no.

>stops acting shitty towards one another we'll have no use for war.

I suppose every conflict that's not genocide is about influencing the behavior of some other group -- presumably so those who began the conflict are treated in a way they find tolerable.  I infer you believe it's possible to treat the diverse groups that make up the human population in ways they can all find tolerable.

>At least not until resources are so scarce that civilization as a whole breaks down.
I imagine you are talking about something like food.  In a state of civilization, some do not have enough food.  I think most who are food insecure are peaceful.  I also know fighting takes food, if enough don't have food there will not be the energy to fight.  You have some middle ground in mind, I think, a group insecure about survival that still has enough power to wage war.  Can this state be avoided, or is it pretty inevitable?


War, perhaps. It's not really as economical to wage war any more. The primary reasons to do so are largely gone.
Territory is less valuable now than in the past, and smaller boarders can be a boon in some cases. It's no longer a conflict for survival, when you have a small nation near larger ones.

War, at least between major powers, seems to be obsolete.
Proxy wars will probably continue, but I doubt we'll ever see a 'world war' again, at least on the scale of those conflicts.


>The primary reasons to do so are largely gone.
The economic benefits of war come from a new sovereignty over land and people, minus the costs.  I think it's safe to say all land has value, although with a wide range from prime real estate to wasteland.  Subjugated people have value, traditionally as slave property, but for the sake of argument, I'll say now their main value would be in the rents and taxes levied, and as a voluntaryish labor poor for corporate enterprises.

I'm aware that the richest people that come to mind did not gain their wealth by inheriting or earning large areas of land.  Their relation to laborers is a bit more complicated.  Probably you'd say the relation of wealth to land and labor has changed, though, and that's why war is less likely.

I don't know where to place the economic analysis of war, though.  While I suppose people risk their lives in all sorts of way for money, what level of reward is necessary to compensate a significant chance of dying, or living through the destruction of all you value?


File: 1605744308043.png (89.61 KB, 599x304, 599:304, Screenshot from 2020-11-18….png) ImgOps Google

What options does the American Federal Government have if the state's electors are considered invalid in their selection of the next President?

Much of partisan politics is commonplace, but this would seem to be new territory for the American Republic.  Or is this all just hyperbole and everything stays the same?
20 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


That's probably because the 'military' in this case did pretty much nothing, and the guys they were deployed against were attacking innocent people.

If you do nothing when your local town asshole gets jumped, that doesn't mean you're fine with assault, right?
It just means you're not going to get involved on behalf of a bad person.


Prove they were attacking anyone. That's all Fox News propoganda against "antifa", which isn't even a group.


Never said anything about antifa.
I will say this is the first time, though, I've run into anyone denying the violence and destruction that followed the BLM riots.
Heard plenty trying to underplay it, but not outright saying it didn't happen.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]