US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1951

On December 15 2019 06:43 Wombat_NI wrote:

I mean is it always though?

It’s an immensely complex issue tied into certain cultural norms around gender.

A sober person taking advantage of a really drunk person then yes, but if you’re both hammered?

On December 15 2019 08:34 Nebuchad wrote:


Can you think of any other crime that you could be doing where you get to say to the judge "Oh it's okay I was drunk when I did it?"

If not, why should that be any different?

On December 15 2019 08:51 Wombat_NI wrote:

Because it’s a crime where consent is the issue, not whether something occurred or didn’t, especially if both participants were drunk and especially when more societal stigma is placed on promiscuity in one gender than the other.

Despite protestations to the contrary from certain sectors these kind of scenarios are giant outliers, and grey area rape accusations are vastly outweighed by the amount of rapes that aren’t pursued by victims, or don’t end up in a court if they do pursue it, or don’t end up in a conviction if they do happen.

Still, outliers do occasionally happen, although shouldn’t be presented beyond their prevalence.

If we had a less schizophrenic sexual culture it would probably be to the benefit of almost anyone, but don’t see that happening anytime soon.

On December 15 2019 04:18 Simberto wrote:

You can not just make up an incredibly stupid position, and then point at that position and say "Look at how stupid people who hold that position are!". That just doesn't work.

On December 15 2019 13:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
No it's not something we aim for in the thread. My point was more that it does work to a certain extent. People that could actually benefit from something like Obamacare still voted for repealing it because of the things that were said about it on those channels that were just made up. People hate libs a little more now that they heard about the thanksgiving thing. A lot of people think democrats want criminals entering the country. Guys like redlight get convinced by it.

On December 15 2019 13:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
A lot of people think democrats want criminals entering the country. Guys like redlight get convinced by it.

On December 15 2019 16:22 BerserkSword wrote:


What do you expect when Democrats fight tooth and nail to deny Trump building his wall simply because they don't want Trump to gain any political points or moral victories?

When democrats brag about spending 2 billion dollars on border security over the course of Obama's 8 years, while denouncing Trump who wants to pour 10+ billion into border security?

On December 15 2019 16:50 Yurie wrote:


Theses seem like rational positions if you go one step deeper into them.

The border wall isn't possible to build as described. Would cost massive amounts to start building and then fail on. Which you then either have to remove or maintain forever. If you want Democrat representatives to support it then present something that can be built, has a good (or at least decent) business and moral case.

Money is not the sole thing that happens when you move money into an area. You also target how it will be used. As Trump runs border security it is better to remove it fully than keep it running. Adding on money to it would likely result in concentration camps in the long run since that is the path he wants to take it.

If that money was targetted at making the border judicial system run well I think he would get a lot of his money. Make handling cases of people caught a priority. Either giving them access into the US or deporting them quickly. If that is the first priority he is likely to get more money to catch people. As is, catching more people is a humanitarian crisis instead.

On December 15 2019 17:39 zenist wrote:


When it comes to national security, morality pretty much goes out of the window.

On December 15 2019 22:10 Gahlo wrote:

It isn't a national security threat.

But no - they choose some nonsense about witholding military aid to Ukraine lol.

On December 15 2019 16:22 BerserkSword wrote:


What do you expect when Democrats fight tooth and nail to deny Trump building his wall simply because they don't want Trump to gain any political points or moral victories?

When democrats brag about spending 2 billion dollars on border security over the course of Obama's 8 years, while denouncing Trump who wants to pour 10+ billion into border security?

When democratic congresswoman representing El Paso writes border security in the form of physical barriers off as an "obsession"

For all intents and purposes, obstructing increased border security like this is supporting criminal elements entering the country. If youre keeping the status quo and blocking drastic efforts to reduce criminal influx, then you are supporting their ease of entry.

Democrats are acting in such a pitiful manner that it's absurd when taken at face value. From the moment Trump was elected it was nothing but pathetic attempts at trying tear him down. This impeachment farce to me looks like the culmination of Democrat butthurt. I can't believe that this is all happening tbh. I honestly dont know what the Democratic brass are doing. What is their end game here?

If they want to impeach him for something, at least accuse him for one of his actual unconstitutional abuses of power, like instance of military force in Syria (for which I believe he got bipartisan praise iirc). But no - they choose some nonsense about witholding military aid to Ukraine lol. Not surprising to be honest, since withholding aid = less $$$ for the military industrial complex and I guess impeachment is only saved for an act against the MI complex, rather than presidents like Bush and Obama who dwarfed trump in terms of abuse of power albeit to the benefit of the special interests.