I will go "upvote" the regulars' posts so you all get past the "3 reputation/wait 120 seconds" business.
Some one please "upvote" my posts too.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/train-derailment-usns-mercy-coronavirus_n_5e859db7c5b60bbd734f6204

[quote]LOS ANGELES (AP) — A train engineer intentionally drove a speeding locomotive off a track at the Port of Los Angeles because he was suspicious about the presence of a Navy hospital ship docked there to help during the coronovirus crisis, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

The locomotive crashed through a series of barriers and fences before coming to rest more than 250 yards (230 meters) from the U.S. Navy Hospital Ship Mercy on Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice said in a release.

Nobody was hurt.

Eduardo Moreno, 44, was charged with one count of train wrecking, prosecutors said. It wasn’t immediately known if he has an attorney.

Moreno acknowledged in two separate interviews with law enforcement that he intentionally derailed and crashed the train near the Mercy, according to the criminal complaint.

“You only get this chance once. The whole world is watching. I had to,” Moreno told investigators, according to the complaint. “People don’t know what’s going on here. Now they will.”[/quote]

Posting this from an iPhone using Safari.
So far so good.

@Jolly said in To Spam, Or Not To Spam:

N.C. State did the study.

Did you read the N.C. State’s paper?

If you did, you’d find that the paper states also that Outlook and Yahoo! Mail are more likely to filter out Democratic fund-raising emails than Republican ones, and the study’s author plainly states they have no reason to believe that Google deliberately biased their spam filter algorithm towards one side or another. Yet you, and the FoxNews piece you chose to cite, complains only about bias towards one side while keeping silent about bias towards the other side.

As for my own preference, I want all fund-raising emails sent to the spam folder, regardless of party affiliation. I do not want email services wasting engineering resources trying to fix any “partisan bias,” rather, I want them focusing on filtering out ALL fund-raising spam emails.

h/t @wtg

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/raining-fish-in-san-francisco-17272717.php

@Jolly said in To Spam, Or Not To Spam:

Except they didn't do that for the Democrat fund-raising emails.

Wrong. I see no lack of Democratic fund-raising emails in my Gmail spam folder. Political fund-raising emails purportedly from Clinton, Carville, Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schiff, Warren, etc. have appeared in my spam folder at one time or another.

If you (or whoever wrote the FoxNews piece) “see” only Republican fund-raising emails in your Gmail spam folder, it’s not because Gmail classifies only Republican fund-raising emails, it’s because you (or whoever wrote the FoxNews piece) are primarily targeted by Republican spammers and you naturally get more Republican fund-raising emails to begin with.

@Aqua-Letifer said in TikTok:

It's far worse than this, folks.

What other “far worse” things about TikTok do you have in mind?

Kudos to Google/Gmail. Political solicitation emails are, indeed, spam. It’s good that Google/Gmail send the lot of them to the spam folder.

@Copper said in A bad day for Trump:

What kind of name is Cassidy anyway?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassidy_(given_name)

@Mik said in A bad day for Trump:

A week AFTER 1/6 she was announcing that she would be working at Mar-A-Lago on the Trump team. Then she didn't get the job. Then she decided to tell these tales, and the clouds parted and jobs from heaven came down.

The “disgruntled (ex-)employee” attack is pretty much foisted on every (former) employee who says negative things about the (former) employer by the employer’s team. I didn’t think you’d get taken in by this sort of attack so easily.

@Mik said in A bad day for Trump:

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/06/29/what-you-should-know-about-ex-meadows-aide-bombshell-witness-cassidy-hutchinson-1255634/

That article reports a lot of very nice things being said about Hutchinson by people in the Trump orbit, that she was well-liked, well respected in that circle, and she indeed has access to a lot of insider meetings. E.g.,

• Sarah Matthews, who is a former Trump spokesperson, told leftist outlet PolitiFact that she was “essentially [Meadows’] right hand and a very close confidante of his even though she was pretty young.”

• Matthews would go on to comment that Hutchinson was “extremely mature for her age, highly intelligent, very personable.”

• Brendan Buck, an ex-aide to former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who stated that as an aide to Meadows, Hutchinson “was always by [Meadows’] side … when there were meetings you’d expect to be principal-level or very small, senior staff-level, he would always insist she was in the room.”

• Alyssa Farah Griffin, who is Pence’s former press secretary, texted PolitiFact that Hutchinson was a “consummate West Wing insider.”

• “She was known as an incredibly hard and loyal worker — arriving as early as 6 am and often staying until after midnight. She flew all over the country on AF1 with the president,” Griffin texted. “She was well liked and well respected. Always moving a million miles a minute. She was also on a first-name basis with most Republican members of Congress, and was plugged in throughout Republican circles.”

If anything, these glowing comments from these Republican figures make Hutchinson and her testimony more credible.

@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:

She changed to a Democrat lawyer three weeks before her testimony.

She changed to a lawyer who was nominated by Trump to lead the DOJ’s Civil Division and was formerly US Attorney General Jeff Session’s Chief of Staff. That’s not a “Democrat lawyer.”

Now that I have shown you a falsehood in what you said, are you going to “Uncle Henry” everything else you say here? Should @George-K “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” everything else you say here?

@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:

There is a speech pattern in her testimony that occurs over and over again. IIRC, it's words to the effect. It's obvious she was coached up for her testimony by a lawyer or legal team that knew her story was full of hearsay and holes, and needed to CYA the silliness.

You keep repeating the falsehood that her testimony is “full of hearsay.” The fact is that her testimony has a lot more “direct witness” material than hearsay. E.g., among things recounted in her testimony:

• Trump saying to remove the magnetometers and let armed protesters in … she’s a direct witness to Trump saying those things.

• Then White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s warning about the criminal liability leading up to Jan. 6 … she’s direct witness to Cipollone making the warning

• Kevin McCarthy’s phone call to Hutchinson expressing surprise and anger that Trump said (while speaking to a crowd) that he was going to the Capitol and McCarthy telling the Trump team not to go to the Capitol … she’s direct witness and party to that phone call, McCarthy called her.

• After the Capitol was breached, then White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s angry reaction to Trump’s inaction, Cipollone’s verbalized worry about the Trump team being responsible for people dying as a result … she’s direct witness to Cipollone’s reactions and statements.

Itemizing the events recounted in her testimony (and the USA Today article I linked to earlier did that) and you would see that there are a lot more “direct witness” matters than “hearsay” in her testimony.