|
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 |
Northern Ireland27071 Posts
On July 17 2024 07:31 Acrofales wrote:
We'll, it is true that we generally hold TL posters to a higher standard than US presidents. For instance, the State of the Union could include a whole paragraph about how OP banelings are, and that Zerg needs nerfing and people might think the president had gone off the deep end, but he wouldn't get censored for it. Things have gotten a bit lax in here over the years, but a good balance wine is still a proper way to get banned from TL!
Which kind of balance wine goes well with cheese, red or white?
|
On July 17 2024 08:24 KwarK wrote:
On an unrelated note I’m interested in seeing the results of the report into the SS failures that let the shooter take a shot. Apparently crowd members had reported seeing him there to law enforcement and looking at photos he’s extremely conspicuous there. Black clothes on a light roof. Someone really ought to lose their job over the shooter getting an opportunity to tease us like that.
I've seen reports that the USSS is saying it was outside the perimeter, so it wasn't in their jurisdiction and a state issue. The state cops said that by law he wasn't doing anything wrong until he pointed the gun at Trump.
|
On July 17 2024 08:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 07:59 BlackJack wrote:
I mean if you want to retreat behind "I'm just a lowly forum user of no importance so I shouldn't be held responsible for the shitty things I say" then I'm happy to leave it at that. It’s not a retreat, it’s a statement of objective fact. It would be extremely reckless for Trump to say some of the things that I’ve said. It is not reckless for me to say them. Feel free to hold me responsible for the damage my words do, I’m not afraid because they’re not going to do any damage. It’s not that I’m not being held accountable for the harm my words do, it’s that there is no harm. I accept equal blame for the deaths of people in mobs I incite as Trump, but unlike Trump nobody has ever died in one of my mobs. I don’t know why you’re picking this hill to die on. It is objectively true that I have less power than Trump. If I show up to work angry and confrontational then nothing bad happens, if Trump does the same then bad things happen. It’s not an excuse, it’s a fact, even if you don’t like it. Facts famously don’t care about your feelings.
That's why I keep mentioning that it wouldn't fly if I or Introvert said the same deranged things you say. Neither of us are former Presidents so your catch-all doesn't work at explaining that away.
|
On July 17 2024 09:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 08:24 KwarK wrote:
On an unrelated note I’m interested in seeing the results of the report into the SS failures that let the shooter take a shot. Apparently crowd members had reported seeing him there to law enforcement and looking at photos he’s extremely conspicuous there. Black clothes on a light roof. Someone really ought to lose their job over the shooter getting an opportunity to tease us like that. I've seen reports that the USSS is saying it was outside the perimeter, so it wasn't in their jurisdiction and a state issue. The state cops said that by law he wasn't doing anything wrong until he pointed the gun at Trump.
That's hilarious if true
|
United States44142 Posts
On July 17 2024 09:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 08:17 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2024 07:59 BlackJack wrote:
I mean if you want to retreat behind "I'm just a lowly forum user of no importance so I shouldn't be held responsible for the shitty things I say" then I'm happy to leave it at that. It’s not a retreat, it’s a statement of objective fact. It would be extremely reckless for Trump to say some of the things that I’ve said. It is not reckless for me to say them. Feel free to hold me responsible for the damage my words do, I’m not afraid because they’re not going to do any damage. It’s not that I’m not being held accountable for the harm my words do, it’s that there is no harm. I accept equal blame for the deaths of people in mobs I incite as Trump, but unlike Trump nobody has ever died in one of my mobs. I don’t know why you’re picking this hill to die on. It is objectively true that I have less power than Trump. If I show up to work angry and confrontational then nothing bad happens, if Trump does the same then bad things happen. It’s not an excuse, it’s a fact, even if you don’t like it. Facts famously don’t care about your feelings. That's why I keep mentioning that it wouldn't fly if I or Introvert said the same deranged things you say. Neither of us are former Presidents so your catch-all doesn't work at explaining that away.
Wouldn’t fly how? Are my statements flying in a way that yours would not? Have you tried?
|
United States44142 Posts
On July 17 2024 09:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 08:24 KwarK wrote:
On an unrelated note I’m interested in seeing the results of the report into the SS failures that let the shooter take a shot. Apparently crowd members had reported seeing him there to law enforcement and looking at photos he’s extremely conspicuous there. Black clothes on a light roof. Someone really ought to lose their job over the shooter getting an opportunity to tease us like that. I've seen reports that the USSS is saying it was outside the perimeter, so it wasn't in their jurisdiction and a state issue. The state cops said that by law he wasn't doing anything wrong until he pointed the gun at Trump.
*America intensifies*
|
On July 17 2024 09:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 09:07 BlackJack wrote:On July 17 2024 08:17 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2024 07:59 BlackJack wrote:
I mean if you want to retreat behind "I'm just a lowly forum user of no importance so I shouldn't be held responsible for the shitty things I say" then I'm happy to leave it at that. It’s not a retreat, it’s a statement of objective fact. It would be extremely reckless for Trump to say some of the things that I’ve said. It is not reckless for me to say them. Feel free to hold me responsible for the damage my words do, I’m not afraid because they’re not going to do any damage. It’s not that I’m not being held accountable for the harm my words do, it’s that there is no harm. I accept equal blame for the deaths of people in mobs I incite as Trump, but unlike Trump nobody has ever died in one of my mobs. I don’t know why you’re picking this hill to die on. It is objectively true that I have less power than Trump. If I show up to work angry and confrontational then nothing bad happens, if Trump does the same then bad things happen. It’s not an excuse, it’s a fact, even if you don’t like it. Facts famously don’t care about your feelings. That's why I keep mentioning that it wouldn't fly if I or Introvert said the same deranged things you say. Neither of us are former Presidents so your catch-all doesn't work at explaining that away. Wouldn’t fly how? Are my statements flying in a way that yours would not? Have you tried?
If Introvert called for a 2nd amendment solution to the people unfairly engaging in "lawfare" against Trump I'd imagine at least one other user would give a "hey man, that's not cool." Which would be a far harsher rebuke than you've received.
Edit: correction, I remember DPB giving you a hey man that's not cool, once. That's about it.
|
United States44142 Posts
On July 17 2024 09:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 09:10 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2024 09:07 BlackJack wrote:On July 17 2024 08:17 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2024 07:59 BlackJack wrote:
I mean if you want to retreat behind "I'm just a lowly forum user of no importance so I shouldn't be held responsible for the shitty things I say" then I'm happy to leave it at that. It’s not a retreat, it’s a statement of objective fact. It would be extremely reckless for Trump to say some of the things that I’ve said. It is not reckless for me to say them. Feel free to hold me responsible for the damage my words do, I’m not afraid because they’re not going to do any damage. It’s not that I’m not being held accountable for the harm my words do, it’s that there is no harm. I accept equal blame for the deaths of people in mobs I incite as Trump, but unlike Trump nobody has ever died in one of my mobs. I don’t know why you’re picking this hill to die on. It is objectively true that I have less power than Trump. If I show up to work angry and confrontational then nothing bad happens, if Trump does the same then bad things happen. It’s not an excuse, it’s a fact, even if you don’t like it. Facts famously don’t care about your feelings. That's why I keep mentioning that it wouldn't fly if I or Introvert said the same deranged things you say. Neither of us are former Presidents so your catch-all doesn't work at explaining that away. Wouldn’t fly how? Are my statements flying in a way that yours would not? Have you tried? If Introvert called for a 2nd amendment solution to the people unfairly engaging in "lawfare" against Trump I'd imagine at least one other user would give a "hey man, that's not cool." Which would be a far harsher rebuke than you've received.
I’ve had multiple people give me days of shit for it. How have you not noticed? You’re literally one of those people.
|
United States24779 Posts
On July 17 2024 09:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 08:24 KwarK wrote:
On an unrelated note I’m interested in seeing the results of the report into the SS failures that let the shooter take a shot. Apparently crowd members had reported seeing him there to law enforcement and looking at photos he’s extremely conspicuous there. Black clothes on a light roof. Someone really ought to lose their job over the shooter getting an opportunity to tease us like that. I've seen reports that the USSS is saying it was outside the perimeter, so it wasn't in their jurisdiction and a state issue. The state cops said that by law he wasn't doing anything wrong until he pointed the gun at Trump.
This reminds me of what I heard happened to someone when they were concealed carrying a handgun while playing golf at their country club. The President was coming to play at the club and secret service was everywhere. The agents asked to "wand" the guy since he could come into line-of-sight of the president during the round of golf. The guy showed that he had a permit to carry his handgun (whatever applied in this jurisdiction). The Secret Service said "okay" and posted an agent to shadow him. If the member tried to pull anything, presumably the agent would stop him before he could shoot the president.
The same thing would likely apply here. If you have someone acting suspicious just outside the perimeter of a former president's (and candidate's) speech (e.g., carrying an AR-15 which they are legally allowed to have), then you post law enforcement on them until they leave the area (or the VIP leaves or whatever). The "he wasn't doing anything wrong" isn't much of a defense here.
|
On July 17 2024 07:13 micronesia wrote:
Kwark isn't eligible to be president by the way.
One of the few Republican ideas I'm sad didn't pass. Had the The Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment been passed, we could be on our way to president Schwarzenegger in 2024, and welcoming in our glorious Demolition Man inspired future.
|
On July 17 2024 09:08 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 09:06 Gahlo wrote:On July 17 2024 08:24 KwarK wrote:
On an unrelated note I’m interested in seeing the results of the report into the SS failures that let the shooter take a shot. Apparently crowd members had reported seeing him there to law enforcement and looking at photos he’s extremely conspicuous there. Black clothes on a light roof. Someone really ought to lose their job over the shooter getting an opportunity to tease us like that. I've seen reports that the USSS is saying it was outside the perimeter, so it wasn't in their jurisdiction and a state issue. The state cops said that by law he wasn't doing anything wrong until he pointed the gun at Trump. That's hilarious if true
Police in this case are as competent as the police at Uvalde.
Apparently SS was already looking for the shooter at the time the shots went out which is why the shooter was stopped so quickly. The proactive stuff was done poorly, but reactive was done OK IMO.
Someone also did a slowmo showing how lucky Trump is:
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1e4xbt4/trumps_head_movement_during_the_shooting_was/
It was a pretty good shot a fraction of a second earlier, literally dodged a bullet.
|
Northern Ireland27071 Posts
On July 17 2024 07:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 07:08 brian wrote:
oh, I appreciate you sharing, and my mistake, and sorry. No worries. I'm merely trying to point out the double standard here. People on the left are quick to point out that a straight line can be drawn to violence from right-wing rhetoric. Say wrongthink about COVID and you're responsible for hate crimes on Asian people. Deny that a man can get pregnant and you're encouraging violence against trans people etc. It's their favorite argument. As soon as the shoe is on the other foot and someone blatantly longs for a 2nd amendment solution to this pesky Trump and judge problem it's "oh he's not promoting any violence." We need a little consistency here.
Ah come on a little violence never hurt anyone.
I’m not gonna ‘virtue signal and pretend it would be some massive human tragedy if Donald Trump got pre-removed from this campaign’s list of eligible candidates, although probably regrettable because of the absolute shitshow that would ensue. Not that I think we’re a million miles away as is but it would likely precipitate even more hostile political dysfunction.
There are rises in violence against all sorts of groups in the aftermath of rhetoric, although yes drawing a direct line between word and subsequent deed is something impossible to 100% quantify, but folks with platforms and actual influence do have some responsibility not to stoke various fires.
I mean I’m a paid up member of Kwark’s Barmy Army and ready for his revolution, but we’re very small in number
|
On July 17 2024 07:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 07:08 brian wrote:
oh, I appreciate you sharing, and my mistake, and sorry. Say wrongthink about COVID and you're responsible for hate crimes on Asian people. Deny that a man can get pregnant and you're encouraging violence against trans people etc. It's their favorite argument.
Who is making these arguments?
The problem with saying that this is an issue with the whole left, and then using the most idiotic examples you can possibly think of, is that those examples don't describe the whole left at all, but a loud but tiny fringe.
In fact, let's test your theory:
I am saying now, without any second thoughts or doubts, that men can't get pregnant.
Right, now let's wait for 'the left' to come and tell me about violence.
|
On July 17 2024 14:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 07:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 17 2024 07:08 brian wrote:
oh, I appreciate you sharing, and my mistake, and sorry. Say wrongthink about COVID and you're responsible for hate crimes on Asian people. Deny that a man can get pregnant and you're encouraging violence against trans people etc. It's their favorite argument. Who is making these arguments? The problem with saying that this is an issue with the whole left, and then using the most idiotic examples you can possibly think of, is that those examples don't describe the whole left at all, but a loud but tiny fringe. In fact, let's test your theory: I am saying now, without any second thoughts or doubts, that men can't get pregnant.Right, now let's wait for 'the left' to come and tell me about violence.
I am here, as "the left", to inform you that some men are trans men, who may have functional ovaries and a functional uterus, and can thus get pregnant.
I assume you feel incredibly threatened by the violence i just did upon your opinion.
|
On July 17 2024 14:54 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 14:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2024 07:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 17 2024 07:08 brian wrote:
oh, I appreciate you sharing, and my mistake, and sorry. Say wrongthink about COVID and you're responsible for hate crimes on Asian people. Deny that a man can get pregnant and you're encouraging violence against trans people etc. It's their favorite argument. Who is making these arguments? The problem with saying that this is an issue with the whole left, and then using the most idiotic examples you can possibly think of, is that those examples don't describe the whole left at all, but a loud but tiny fringe. In fact, let's test your theory: I am saying now, without any second thoughts or doubts, that men can't get pregnant.Right, now let's wait for 'the left' to come and tell me about violence. I am here, as "the left", to inform you that some men are trans men, who may have functional ovaries and a functional uterus, and can thus get pregnant. I assume you feel incredibly threatened by the violence i just did upon your opinion.
This is true, and I admit, I should have made clear that I meant 'biological males or people who were born male'.
I still believe this. I genuinely believe it, and I don't think saying it has anything to do with violence against trans women, and I don't think anyone else reasonable thinks that either (unless you go to the 'full of morons who don't understand anything' part of twitter).
I guess the point I was trying to make is that it isn't always about the bottom line content of what you say, but the context you say it in.
If people here thought I was right wing its possible that they would come and make that argument against me, but I doubt it.
If, however, we were in a discussion about trans people and their rights generally and this was yet another point I've made in a disrespectful, angry speech about how trans women should be called men and all they want to do is sexually assault women then I would expect a reaction even at just saying biological males can't get pregnant.
Once people know someone is a bigot, they will attack them for being a bigot even when it isn't appropriate or smart to do so. That's just how things are.
|
On July 17 2024 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 07:13 micronesia wrote:
Kwark isn't eligible to be president by the way. One of the few Republican ideas I'm sad didn't pass. Had the The Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment been passed, we could be on our way to president Schwarzenegger in 2024, and welcoming in our glorious Demolition Man inspired future.
Demolition Man is Sylvester Stallone.
|
On July 17 2024 15:06 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 14:54 Simberto wrote:On July 17 2024 14:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2024 07:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 17 2024 07:08 brian wrote:
oh, I appreciate you sharing, and my mistake, and sorry. Say wrongthink about COVID and you're responsible for hate crimes on Asian people. Deny that a man can get pregnant and you're encouraging violence against trans people etc. It's their favorite argument. Who is making these arguments? The problem with saying that this is an issue with the whole left, and then using the most idiotic examples you can possibly think of, is that those examples don't describe the whole left at all, but a loud but tiny fringe. In fact, let's test your theory: I am saying now, without any second thoughts or doubts, that men can't get pregnant.Right, now let's wait for 'the left' to come and tell me about violence. I am here, as "the left", to inform you that some men are trans men, who may have functional ovaries and a functional uterus, and can thus get pregnant. I assume you feel incredibly threatened by the violence i just did upon your opinion. This is true, and I admit, I should have made clear that I meant 'biological males or people who were born male'.
good save
|
On July 17 2024 15:41 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2024 07:13 micronesia wrote:
Kwark isn't eligible to be president by the way. One of the few Republican ideas I'm sad didn't pass. Had the The Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment been passed, we could be on our way to president Schwarzenegger in 2024, and welcoming in our glorious Demolition Man inspired future. Demolition Man is Sylvester Stallone.
Clearly you're unfamiliar with the Schwarzenegger library.
+ Show Spoiler + Who would have thought Demolition Man was too optimistic?
|
Northern Ireland27071 Posts
On July 17 2024 14:54 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 14:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2024 07:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 17 2024 07:08 brian wrote:
oh, I appreciate you sharing, and my mistake, and sorry. Say wrongthink about COVID and you're responsible for hate crimes on Asian people. Deny that a man can get pregnant and you're encouraging violence against trans people etc. It's their favorite argument. Who is making these arguments? The problem with saying that this is an issue with the whole left, and then using the most idiotic examples you can possibly think of, is that those examples don't describe the whole left at all, but a loud but tiny fringe. In fact, let's test your theory: I am saying now, without any second thoughts or doubts, that men can't get pregnant.Right, now let's wait for 'the left' to come and tell me about violence. I am here, as "the left", to inform you that some men are trans men, who may have functional ovaries and a functional uterus, and can thus get pregnant. I assume you feel incredibly threatened by the violence i just did upon your opinion.
I feel we just lack the language here, or at least the widespread adoption of language and concepts, so we end up in various daft scenarios like ‘define a woman’ thrown out as some kinda gotcha. Oddly enough rarely ‘define a man’, for whatever reason.
On one far end of the scale no matter the evidence to the contrary some just refuse to recognise the biology/gender split, and thus the legitimacy of trans folk. On the other, people almost entirely discount the whole biological part of the equation.
One can of course add specifiers such as biological or cis/trans to better clarify.
I’m not the world’s foremost expert on the topic, I’ve read a bit around the place and some cultures have more fluid language for such things, and perhaps in a way that helps shape attitudes. Although sadly many of those cultures either don’t, or borderline don’t really exist anymore, certainly not enough to move the zeitgeist much.
|
Northern Ireland27071 Posts
As an aside, was watching ye olde regular TV news over here and Vance was getting airtime for cracking that with Labour in government the UK would be the first Islamist nuclear power.
Aside from Pakistan already having nukes, and yes Islamic/Islamist are different things, albeit conservatives seem to just use them interchangeably.
Was that just an off-the-cuff little jest he made to a certain audience, or reflective of some serious attitudes that he may hold? Like is he the type to say things like ‘Londonistan’ earnestly or what?
I know very little of the bloke so was just seeking a bit of input from some who might be more familiar. Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
