EPTOn May 04 2024 09:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Well I hear that Trump really loves to grab em.
Well I hear that Trump really loves to grab em.
Boom
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4195
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25159 Posts
Boom | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6230 Posts
On May 04 2024 08:24 WombaT wrote: Even folks who hate plenty of their fellow humans like doggos so I’m not sure who she thought this revelation would play well with. More seriously, she's just trying to demonstrate that she's a hardass. There's a fairly sizeable portion of Trump's base that will wonder if she'll be "soft" on X because she's female. Takin' old yeller out back is just a weird attempt to head that off. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10490 Posts
On May 04 2024 07:03 Sermokala wrote: No I said that he would intentionally hide the nazi flags to paint the protestors in the best light because he supports them, as in he supports the protestors. Like I said maybe fives times now: He doesn't support them and there were no nazi flags. The guy has said his youtube channel was started when he got laid off in 2020 and it's just him making videos while walking around his city. The funny thing is others have accused him of being a FED trying to infiltrate the trucker protests. So you think he supports the protestors, others think he is trying to infiltrate the protestors, and the truth is that he's just some random Canadian and you're both just talking out of your ass. I'm not sure how hard it is for you to just say "How embarrassing, I'm not sure why I assumed the worst of people but I made some wrong assumptions and perhaps I owe that youtuber an apology." Except you can't do that because you need to keep up the illusion that these are evil bigoted people to rationalize your own scorn and hatred towards them. I'm calling myself a free thinking person to differentiate myself with you because you obsess over authority so much that you can't imagine someone not defaulting to what an authority figure tells them. Right, I default to authority and also I'm an antivaxxer that goes against the CDC/expert recommendations. I'm literally defending protestors against the government while you're regurgitating the head of state's slurs against the protestors without a single shred of evidence being presented to you. But you're the free thinker and I'm the one that defaults to authority. I'm sure that makes sense in your head. | ||
|
drmama
1 Post
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44271 Posts
| ||
|
Diermait
8 Posts
It is almost like the Secret Service is a ritual guard for a monarch, except it is the US version. Or there Judge Merchan is a coward. Or there is a four tier justice system. One for black people & minorities, one for ordinary Americans, one for rich people, and one just for Trump and Trump alone. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21665 Posts
On May 07 2024 07:36 Diermait wrote: Its not to hard to jail Trump, House arrest as an alternative to incarceration is not a new concept.It also means Trump violated his bail conditions on all the other charges. And that he should go back into pre-trial detention. But of course no one will do a thing because 'it is too hard to lock up Trump'. I get that the US constitution awards every past president life-long Secret Service protection, to make sure they stay safe (it is actually a bit weird, but ok). But if you are in jail, you already are safe. So there's literally no need for a Secret Service detail for a ex-president behind bars. The idea to lock Trump up with a Secret Service detail, and have SS agents behind bars with Trump, is absurd. As is building a special jail for just Trump alone. I get they don't want some lunatic to beat Trump to a bloody pulp in Ricker's Island. But doesn't the US have like SuperMax prisons where the inmates are completely safe? Just put him inside a VIP jail cell at a SuperMax. Or at a normal jail they have for white-blower witnesses who receive death treats from other criminals. I get they couldn't keep Epstein safe. So do a better job than that. But it wouldn't be that hard. They can also have Trump stay in jail at the courthouse overnight. Or just a few hours before and after the trial starts, to give him some sense of what it feels like. It is almost like the Secret Service is a ritual guard for a monarch, except it is the US version. Or there Judge Merchan is a coward. Or there is a four tier justice system. One for black people & minorities, one for ordinary Americans, one for rich people, and one just for Trump and Trump alone. The problem is the optics of jailing one of the 2 candidates in the run up to an election. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44271 Posts
On May 07 2024 07:52 Gorsameth wrote: Its not to hard to jail Trump, House arrest as an alternative to incarceration is not a new concept. The problem is the optics of jailing one of the 2 candidates in the run up to an election. Optics shouldn't decide the law though. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21665 Posts
On May 07 2024 07:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: they shouldn't. But they always do.Optics shouldn't decide the law though. If they didn't then Trump would have been jailed months ago. | ||
|
Diermait
8 Posts
Sure, there is a first past the post electoral college for the US presidency. Which means it will either be Trump or Biden. But that doesn't really matter either because Trump can be POTUS from jail. People can still decide to vote for Trump despite Merchan putting Trump in jail for his gag order violation & criminal concept of court. Merchan could even have put Trump in jail without anyone knowing about it. Just for a few hours. What about the optics that Trump keeps attacking the jury and the witnesses, and he barely gets a hung jury. One that he wouldn't have gotten if he hadn't put his thumb on the scale, which Merchan let him do. In fact, the optics for Trump himself are already terrible. If the optics are what matters, Trump should drop out from the presidential race. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23218 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8982 Posts
On May 07 2024 07:36 Diermait wrote: It also means Trump violated his bail conditions on all the other charges. And that he should go back into pre-trial detention. But of course no one will do a thing because 'it is too hard to lock up Trump'. I get that the US constitution awards every past president life-long Secret Service protection, to make sure they stay safe (it is actually a bit weird, but ok). But if you are in jail, you already are safe. So there's literally no need for a Secret Service detail for a ex-president behind bars. The idea to lock Trump up with a Secret Service detail, and have SS agents behind bars with Trump, is absurd. As is building a special jail for just Trump alone. I get they don't want some lunatic to beat Trump to a bloody pulp in Ricker's Island. But doesn't the US have like SuperMax prisons where the inmates are completely safe? Just put him inside a VIP jail cell at a SuperMax. Or at a normal jail they have for white-blower witnesses who receive death treats from other criminals. I get they couldn't keep Epstein safe. So do a better job than that. But it wouldn't be that hard. They can also have Trump stay in jail at the courthouse overnight. Or just a few hours before and after the trial starts, to give him some sense of what it feels like. It is almost like the Secret Service is a ritual guard for a monarch, except it is the US version. Or there Judge Merchan is a coward. Or there is a four tier justice system. One for black people & minorities, one for ordinary Americans, one for rich people, and one just for Trump and Trump alone. Can you clarify who "ordinary Americans" are? Are Black Americans not American? Same for other minorities? | ||
KwarK
United States42640 Posts
On May 07 2024 12:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Can you clarify who "ordinary Americans" are? Are Black Americans not American? Same for other minorities? Whites. Seems a weird thing to pull him up on, he's not inventing or defending the tiered justice system, he's just describing it. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8982 Posts
On May 07 2024 12:49 KwarK wrote: Whites. Seems a weird thing to pull him up on, he's not inventing or defending the tiered justice system, he's just describing it. I simply asked for it to be defined. The description, through no fault of his own, keeps veiled racist remarks alive. We've had enough of that in these threads, I figured it would be best to just say "white americans" instead of "ordinary americans", as if anyone not white isn't an american/ordinary. If I wanted to pull him up on anything, it'd be his notion that SuperMax prisons are inherently "safer". MinSec prisons (basically vacation homes/house arrest) is probably the only place other than actual house arrest, trump would be sent. That's where all the "low crime" criminals go. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44271 Posts
| ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany934 Posts
Repupbblbllbllbicans (Futurama Nixon) - Candidate on Trial but literraly to criminal and at the same time too rich and to poor to ever face consequences in the US legal system (all the judges of his party grant him any delay he wants...how nice!). -His voters actually would need to ban history books about Trump, because the pornstar-banging wife shopping, P*ssy grabbing fan of incest might not provide a good rolemodel for kids - but totally would be a good president..again. -Wannabe VP-Candidate shooting dogs and pretending to have met Kim Jong Un...and stared him down..because she used to...teach sunday school. OTher: -Alternative candidate and for the time being the most political Kennedy of 2024 ACTUALLY having brainworms and suggest to infect himself with even more brainworms (via Twitter). Democrats: - Somehow Joe Biden is responsible for the hate between Arabs and Jews. - Oh and Joe is old | ||
|
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
while still positing "Hey isn't it odd that the economic terrorism that they're committing for some reason attracts nazis and racists?" Because thats what people who can use their own critical thinking to decide what they think about a situation do Welp. By using that same standard, the pro-Palestine movement is also Nazi sympathetic. 2021 Ontario pro-Palestine protest also flew the Swastika https://twitter.com/bnaibrithcanada/status/1393778246140014600?s=20 Isn't it odd that for some reason the movement attracts Nazis and racists? Kinda makes a fella wonder. Ontario again... maybe it was the same guy... Surprise, surprise Nazi sympathizers are also not terribly supportive of Israel... unless it means deporting all Jews to it. But this is faulty guilty by association thinking. Group A thinks B You think B Therefore you are Group A. This gets trotted out in the immigration debate. Canada has in the last decade increased their immigration numbers substantially to around 500,000 per year. If you dare to voice (in the realm of politics) the idea of turning down that number to say, 2015 numbers or earlier, suddenly you are hit with a racism charge because racists also want less immigrants in the country... because apparently there are no other reasons to want to roll back immigration to a smaller number. And of course you will get some money quote from a racist organization, signing off on whichever party wants to lower immigration because of course they would support any party that would do so. So then "Isn't it odd that for some reason your lower immigration policy attracts racists and Nazis." Kinda makes a fella wonder. But maybe that example doesn't truly demonstrate the ridiculousness of this line of reasoning if you've become too entrenched along particular ideological battle lines. So here's another: The Nazis hated impressionistic art and lauded romantic realism. You hate impressionistic art and prefer romantic realism. You are a Nazi. The proper formulation would be: Nazis hate impressionistic art and laud romantic realism You are a Nazi Therefore you (likely) hate impressionistic art and laud romantic realism. You cannot simply assume that because one or two despicable individuals are supportive of your movement, ergo the movement is based upon the same foundation that the despicable individual is supporting it. That is, unless it is something truly foundational to that despicable belief system/ organization, etc. A good policy can be supported by heinous people for heinous reasons but that does not inherently say anything about the goodness or badness of the policy or the motivations of the people in the main, unless there are more direct links. We cannot go after The Beatles because Charles Manson thought Helter Skelter was supportive of his post-apocalyptic race war ideas. Isn't it odd that for some reason the song attracted Nazis and racists? Kinda makes a fella wonder. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5582 Posts
On May 10 2024 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: We still have half a year before the presidential election, but Trump is already suing to preemptively invalidate some legal mail-in ballots that will be cast in swing states, since mail-in ballots are disproportionately cast by Democrats. If lawsuits like these were filed last election, and passed by unethical judges, then Trump could have won certain swing stages (like Pennsylvania) last time, which could have flipped the 2020 election. Let's hope this Nevada lawsuit gets shut down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDSpOvM-NMQ Nevada has early voting from October 12th to November 1st, and universal no-excuse mail-in ballots gone out no later than October 16th. What is your personal view on how many days after election day it would be okay to wait before not counting non-postmarked ballots that came in the mail, and why? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44271 Posts
On May 12 2024 02:04 oBlade wrote: Nevada has early voting from October 12th to November 1st, and universal no-excuse mail-in ballots gone out no later than October 16th. What is your personal view on how many days after election day it would be okay to wait before not counting non-postmarked ballots that came in the mail, and why? I don't have a number in mind, because that's something that's not actually an issue. Trying to set a specific number feels like trying to solve a non-existent problem. For example, in 2020, Pennsylvania needed another day or so, even while counting through the night. That's necessary. It's not like states are deciding to pause for a week (for no reason) during the process, and it's not the voters' faults if their on-time votes get counted a day late. If the vote is sent in on time, then it deserves to be counted. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13924 Posts
On May 11 2024 03:28 Falling wrote: Welp. By using that same standard, the pro-Palestine movement is also Nazi sympathetic. 2021 Ontario pro-Palestine protest also flew the Swastika https://twitter.com/bnaibrithcanada/status/1393778246140014600?s=20 Isn't it odd that for some reason the movement attracts Nazis and racists? Kinda makes a fella wonder. Ontario again... maybe it was the same guy... Surprise, surprise Nazi sympathizers are also not terribly supportive of Israel... unless it means deporting all Jews to it. But this is faulty guilty by association thinking. Group A thinks B You think B Therefore you are Group A. This gets trotted out in the immigration debate. Canada has in the last decade increased their immigration numbers substantially to around 500,000 per year. If you dare to voice (in the realm of politics) the idea of turning down that number to say, 2015 numbers or earlier, suddenly you are hit with a racism charge because racists also want less immigrants in the country... because apparently there are no other reasons to want to roll back immigration to a smaller number. And of course you will get some money quote from a racist organization, signing off on whichever party wants to lower immigration because of course they would support any party that would do so. So then "Isn't it odd that for some reason your lower immigration policy attracts racists and Nazis." Kinda makes a fella wonder. But maybe that example doesn't truly demonstrate the ridiculousness of this line of reasoning if you've become too entrenched along particular ideological battle lines. So here's another: The Nazis hated impressionistic art and lauded romantic realism. You hate impressionistic art and prefer romantic realism. You are a Nazi. The proper formulation would be: Nazis hate impressionistic art and laud romantic realism You are a Nazi Therefore you (likely) hate impressionistic art and laud romantic realism. You cannot simply assume that because one or two despicable individuals are supportive of your movement, ergo the movement is based upon the same foundation that the despicable individual is supporting it. That is, unless it is something truly foundational to that despicable belief system/ organization, etc. A good policy can be supported by heinous people for heinous reasons but that does not inherently say anything about the goodness or badness of the policy or the motivations of the people in the main, unless there are more direct links. We cannot go after The Beatles because Charles Manson thought Helter Skelter was supportive of his post-apocalyptic race war ideas. Isn't it odd that for some reason the song attracted Nazis and racists? Kinda makes a fella wonder. Holy runaway strawman batman. If you want to ask me if I think any of those things you are free to ask. BJ doesn't ask questions or makes any sort of argument, but I want to assume you operate in good faith enough to ask if I believe any of those things. If anything if we take your post in good faith you're agreeing with me against BJ. I get it that having any sort of opinion or stance on anything is a messy tangle when bad faith actors try to coop your arguments and your support to advance what they want. This is why bad faith is so poisonous to any sort of discussion. BJ repeats that the only reason why I think the truckers were nazis or bigots is because one individual (who in his opinon is despicable) believes that they were nazis or bigots, that means any foundation for believing that must be because of this one individual. I keep stating my reasoning for why I believe what I believe but BJ is so entrenched that I can't possibly have any independent reasons for what I believe and it must be because of Trudeau telling me that. You can't deny that there are people who are against more immigration because they are racists. We don't get to live in a world where its simple enough to separate you from them in an instant when the racists are incentivized to be identified with non racists who just happen to want the same thing they want. If you believe that not wanting as much immigration as canada has at the moment doesn't make you a racists that means that you have to also believe that I don't believe that the trucker protest contained nazis and bigots just because Trudeau believes that. You cannot simply assume that because one or two despicable individuals are supportive of your movement, ergo the movement is based upon the same foundation that the despicable individual is supporting it. That is, unless it is something truly foundational to that despicable belief system/ organization, etc. A good policy can be supported by heinous people for heinous reasons but that does not inherently say anything about the goodness or badness of the policy or the motivations of the people in the main, unless there are more direct links. I agree with this, and I don't believe that I've said anything that goes against this. I don't equate the trucker convoy protests to having an opinion about vaccines. I don't equate the trucker convoy protests with wanting there to not be limits on the ability to cross the border as a trucker if you haven't gotten the vaccine because that policy was already going away when it started. We went 20 rounds with me constantly asking BJ why he doesn't agree with people being forced to get the covid vaccine when hes okay with forcing people to get other vaccines because I was trying to get out of him exactly why he was so against vaccine requirements. | ||
| ||
