I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
Are you suggesting I'm a Russian bot because I commented on a post about Russian bots?
I assumed that because there was not enough evidence, because there was no action taken. I would imagine that this evidence would have been reported extensively. Or was it they had evidence but not enough to take any action or impose accountability? Like when the courts have evidence and are almost positive that a crime was committed but cannot go for an indictment because there is not enough evidence to bring charges?
I'm genuinely interested. I don't know much about it. Why didn't they prosecute if they had proof?
How does one know someone is a bot?
Is the word 'collusion' exclusive to Trump? I have seen/heard it many times, many sources.
Was that intended to be rude? If not, thank you for your warm welcome!
I think some make too big a deal out of it. Different parties have been trying to influence our elections for a long time. And I don't see that a Russian bot is any worse then the methods our own politicians and media use to try and influence us.
Are you suggesting I'm a Russian bot because I commented on a post about Russian bots?
I assumed that because there was not enough evidence, because there was no action taken. I would imagine that this evidence would have been reported extensively. Or was it they had evidence but not enough to take any action or impose accountability? Like when the courts have evidence and are almost positive that a crime was committed but cannot go for an indictment because there is not enough evidence to bring charges?
I'm genuinely interested. I don't know much about it. Why didn't they prosecute if they had proof?
How does one know someone is a bot?
Is the word 'collusion' exclusive to Trump? I have seen/heard it many times, many sources.
Was that intended to be rude? If not, thank you for your warm welcome!
Actually, we have no idea of what evidence we do or do not have, given the suppression of the Mueller report by Barr’s DOJ.
And, yes … after years of trollish disruption, we tend to be a bit suspicious of brand new members posting immediately on political threads and coincidentally going off on a tangent that has little to do with the thread (aka derailing the thread).
According to the allegations in the criminal complaint, Artem Mikhaylovich Lifshits, 27, of St. Petersburg, Russia, serves as a manager in “Project Lakhta,” a Russia-based effort to engage in political and electoral interference operations. Since at least May 2014, Project Lakhta’s stated goal in the United States has been to disrupt the democratic process and spread distrust towards candidates for political office and the political system in general. Since 2014, Project Lakhta has sought to obscure its conduct by operating through a number of entities, including the Internet Research Agency (IRA). The Translator Department, where Lifshits served as a manager beginning around January 2017, is alleged to be responsible for much of Project Lakhta’s influence operations, which are still ongoing.
The bipartisan report, three-and-a-half years in the making, found Russia used Republican political operative Paul Manafort, the WikiLeaks website and others to try to influence the 2016 election to help now-U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign.
Action was taken, however if the responsible parties, in this case, Russians are out of the jurisdiction of the US, then no indictment or charges are brought.
Apparently, foreign governments trying to influence our elections with mis- and disinformation is no big deal, to some, at least. I mean, really, what's the harm in starting rumors like pedophiles drinking the blood of children.
Actually, we have no idea of what evidence we do or do not have, given the suppression of the Mueller report by Barr’s DOJ.
And, yes … after years of trollish disruption, we tend to be a bit suspicious of brand new members posting immediately on political threads and coincidentally going off on a tangent that has little to do with the thread (aka derailing the thread).
Time will tell …
I asked a question in a discussion thread. I'm sorry if broke a rule or something. I read the terms of service and do not think I violated any of them. Am I wrong? Perhaps I'm new so I do not know all the politics or rules of this thread. Is there a special political thread TOA that I'm not aware of?
I asked a question that was related to the post.
I've read these and other threads for a long time. I kept seeing adds to sign up, so I did. It didn't say where one should make my first post or where I should not.
I feel you are being rude for no reason. Did I do something to offend you in my first post or another? I did not intend to.
For reference, what is a 'tangent"?. Maybe if you specify what your specific terms of engagement are, I can adapt and you can feel better about my post?
Action was taken, however if the responsible parties, in this case, Russians are out of the jurisdiction of the US, then no indictment or charges are brought.
Apparently, foreign governments trying to influence our elections with mis- and disinformation is no big deal, to some, at least. I mean, really, what's the harm in starting rumors like pedophiles drinking the blood of children.
I'm not sure what the last sentence means? However I would imagine talking about blood drinking pedophiles definitely is off topic and derails the thread.
Action was taken, however if the responsible parties, in this case, Russians are out of the jurisdiction of the US, then no indictment or charges are brought.
Apparently, foreign governments trying to influence our elections with mis- and disinformation is no big deal, to some, at least. I mean, really, what's the harm in starting rumors like pedophiles drinking the blood of children.
I'm sure rumors of pedophiles drinking the blood of children made a huge difference at the polls. How many votes were changed on that info, do you believe?
Meanwhile, those in office and those running lie to us constantly.
Have you ever seen a political ad that isn't full of lies and half-truths?
Our president the other day, on national TV, used the Pelosi attack to say if you're against that, you need to vote for Democrats. Disgusting and dispicable.
As far as spreading false information, we're our own worst enemy.
And I heard Herschel Walker claim that people are using the cash from student loan forgiveness to buy video games.
a) loan forgiveness has not been granted
b) cash won't be awarded, the forgiveness will go directly to the loans.
There is harm is spreading false information/lies. People lose trust and refuse to follow laws. Some lies incite violence.
Yes, there is harm spreading false information/lies. Often times people spread what they "heard", without researching it themselves. Often, like in the Walker example above, it is not accurate.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
40 minutes ago, Beerman said:
Yes, there is harm spreading false information/lies. Often times people spread what they "heard", without researching it themselves. Often, like in the Walker example above, it is not accurate.
Walker's ignorance and gullibility will make him an easy Senator to manipulate. His dishonesty just makes him untrustworthy.
I'm sure rumors of pedophiles drinking the blood of children made a huge difference at the polls. How many votes were changed on that info, do you believe?
Meanwhile, those in office and those running lie to us constantly.
Have you ever seen a political ad that isn't full of lies and half-truths?
Our president the other day, on national TV, used the Pelosi attack to say if you're against that, you need to vote for Democrats. Disgusting and dispicable.
As far as spreading false information, we're our own worst enemy.
The uniform sentiment almost word for word is that if you vote republican, you are going to end our democracy and/or going to contribute to the destabilizing of our elections. Or if you vote republican then that makes you an election denier when not all Republicans denied the election results. This is simular to what you said about Biden. Really, so if you vote republican then that means you're all for what happened to Pelosi husband? Get out.
What I can't understand is how voting in a democratic election ,for the side that you think has the best interest for our country, that care about what you care about, whether it's Democrat or Republican, contributes to ending our democracy? Voting for who you wish in a democratic election is threatening to our democracy? Voting for who you want in a election is going to cause mistrust in our elections. What??
If the Republicans lose the primaries, and claim it was stolen or deny the results then that would be discusting. Like wise for democrats.However I do not think they will. And I do not think the majority of those voting republican want to destroy our democracy or put mistrust in our elections any more than the democrat voters would.
It's one thing to criticize the party someone votes for, but it's an entirely different thing to criticize the voter for voting for who they want to in an election. To associate a person with deplorable attributes due to their political choice? That to me seems anti democratic in itself.
The uniform sentiment almost word for word is that if you vote republican, you are going to end our democracy and/or going to contribute to the destabilizing of our elections. Or if you vote republican then that makes you an election denier when not all Republicans denied the election results. This is simular to what you said about Biden. Really, so if you vote republican then that means you're all for what happened to Pelosi husband? Get out.
I do not know to whom this is addressed, but at least on this forum, I have not seen a "uniform sentiment". I can't think that anyone in this group has said that voting republican makes you an election denier. Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Evan McMullin, Jaime Herrera Butler, Dan Newhouse, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brad Rathensburger, Rusty Bowers, Brian Kemp and Dan Crenshaw are not election deniers.
Beerman, BSN
4,423 Posts
I think some make too big a deal out of it. Different parties have been trying to influence our elections for a long time. And I don't see that a Russian bot is any worse then the methods our own politicians and media use to try and influence us.