|
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 |
On September 25 2024 19:37 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 18:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 16:44 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 15:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 15:05 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 08:08 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2024 07:50 BlackJack wrote:
The problem isn’t the messaging, it’s the messengers. Trump is the next Hitler. Trump is going to declare martial law and round people up. Trump is going to start executing journalists. Trump is going to start world war 3. Blah blah blah. The same things were said in 2016 too and none of it panned out. It doesn’t work to say after the fact “ok I know Trump isn’t actually as bad as Hitler but Jan 6 was pretty fucked up, am I right?” If they didn’t cry wolf in the most hyperbolic hysterical fashion then they might get more people to take them seriously this one time. But it literally did pan out. In 2016 they asked Trump if he'd accept the results of the election. He said "if I win". Then in 2020 he didn't accept the results of an election and attempted a literal coup. Even after that failed he did huge and continuing damage to the social fabric of the country by undermining the basic principle of the democratic system we all live under. The only thing that keeps political violence at bay is the belief that the system is fair. If we really did live in a one party state that was secretly controlled by a Chinese/Venezuelan alliance then bombing Federal buildings is a pretty reasonable and sane response. The people crying wolf in 2016 were right. There was a fucking wolf. We all saw it. Then he started eating people. And then dumbasses like you go "this is more of the same crying wolf shit we heard in 2016" like you didn't see him eat people on live tv. Fuck right off. He ordered election officials in Georgia to find him the extra votes required and told them that if they didn't comply then very angry people would hold them personally responsible for the election result. You’re missing the sentiment of my post. Denying elections is pretty small potatoes compared to being Hitler, building the camps, nuclear holocaust, starting world war 3 and other things that were said about him. Your response reads “but we were right about the election denying.” The point is the message would be better received if 8 years weren’t spent saying a bunch of other things that weren’t right. Isn't Trump promising to deport millions of people to clean up the blood of the nation? I know he didn't literally say it like that, before you nit pick me, but he did say that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our nation" and that he will deport tens of millions. That sounds a bit hitlery to me. I mean, how is that going to go? They are going to have to forcefully remove people from their homes, right? Considering how trigger-happy police are, how many are just going to get flat out killed for resisting? If ICE finds a lot of resistance, and Trump gets a bill authorizing them to shoot to kill any immigrant that resists, do you think he would not sign it? No matter how you dress it up, it's still systematic ethnic cleansing. Implying that if Trump gets reelected ICE might go around shooting immigrants only adds to my point. Is your point that Trump actually doing all the things he has said he'll do would be very very bad, but we have to trust him not to do all the things he says he'll do because he's just saying them to get elected? Because that's a pretty bad point to be making... Has Trump said he would sign a bill authorizing ICE to shoot immigrants that resist deportation? Are ICE police? Do police shoot people that resist arrest? Like conservatives like to say, I'm just asking questions. No, police don’t shoot people that resist arrest We have had literal pages in this thread about police shootings. If you can't even concede that police do indeed carry guns and they use them for the function the guns were designed for, then there isn't much we can discuss here.
I can find some instances of immigrants raping/murdering people to add to the thread. Does that mean you’d defend Trumps rhetoric on immigrants as being basically true? Or do you just pick and choose how you apply these things?
|
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them?
|
On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them?
I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest.
BJ, were you being serious?
|
On September 25 2024 19:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 19:37 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 18:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 16:44 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 15:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 15:05 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 08:08 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
But it literally did pan out.
In 2016 they asked Trump if he'd accept the results of the election. He said "if I win". Then in 2020 he didn't accept the results of an election and attempted a literal coup. Even after that failed he did huge and continuing damage to the social fabric of the country by undermining the basic principle of the democratic system we all live under. The only thing that keeps political violence at bay is the belief that the system is fair. If we really did live in a one party state that was secretly controlled by a Chinese/Venezuelan alliance then bombing Federal buildings is a pretty reasonable and sane response.
The people crying wolf in 2016 were right. There was a fucking wolf. We all saw it. Then he started eating people. And then dumbasses like you go "this is more of the same crying wolf shit we heard in 2016" like you didn't see him eat people on live tv. Fuck right off.
He ordered election officials in Georgia to find him the extra votes required and told them that if they didn't comply then very angry people would hold them personally responsible for the election result. You’re missing the sentiment of my post. Denying elections is pretty small potatoes compared to being Hitler, building the camps, nuclear holocaust, starting world war 3 and other things that were said about him. Your response reads “but we were right about the election denying.” The point is the message would be better received if 8 years weren’t spent saying a bunch of other things that weren’t right. Isn't Trump promising to deport millions of people to clean up the blood of the nation? I know he didn't literally say it like that, before you nit pick me, but he did say that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our nation" and that he will deport tens of millions. That sounds a bit hitlery to me. I mean, how is that going to go? They are going to have to forcefully remove people from their homes, right? Considering how trigger-happy police are, how many are just going to get flat out killed for resisting? If ICE finds a lot of resistance, and Trump gets a bill authorizing them to shoot to kill any immigrant that resists, do you think he would not sign it? No matter how you dress it up, it's still systematic ethnic cleansing. Implying that if Trump gets reelected ICE might go around shooting immigrants only adds to my point. Is your point that Trump actually doing all the things he has said he'll do would be very very bad, but we have to trust him not to do all the things he says he'll do because he's just saying them to get elected? Because that's a pretty bad point to be making... Has Trump said he would sign a bill authorizing ICE to shoot immigrants that resist deportation? Are ICE police? Do police shoot people that resist arrest? Like conservatives like to say, I'm just asking questions. No, police don’t shoot people that resist arrest We have had literal pages in this thread about police shootings. If you can't even concede that police do indeed carry guns and they use them for the function the guns were designed for, then there isn't much we can discuss here. I can find some instances of immigrants raping/murdering people to add to the thread. Does that mean you’d defend Trumps rhetoric on immigrants as being basically true? Or do you just pick and choose how you apply these things?
I will happily concede, because it's true, that a (very small) subsection of immigrants are indeed criminals. That fact was never in dispute?
|
On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious?
I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest.
The number of times people are shot per police interaction is near zero. You just hear about the bad encounters in the media.
However i vehemently disagree with BJ's assertion that people overreact and Trump isnt so bad. I agree with Kwarks post. He already tried to overturn and cheat an election once. Its not far off to put anything past him or his weird team now.
|
On September 25 2024 20:15 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 19:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 19:37 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 18:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 16:44 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 15:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 15:05 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
You’re missing the sentiment of my post. Denying elections is pretty small potatoes compared to being Hitler, building the camps, nuclear holocaust, starting world war 3 and other things that were said about him. Your response reads “but we were right about the election denying.” The point is the message would be better received if 8 years weren’t spent saying a bunch of other things that weren’t right.
Isn't Trump promising to deport millions of people to clean up the blood of the nation? I know he didn't literally say it like that, before you nit pick me, but he did say that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our nation" and that he will deport tens of millions. That sounds a bit hitlery to me. I mean, how is that going to go? They are going to have to forcefully remove people from their homes, right? Considering how trigger-happy police are, how many are just going to get flat out killed for resisting? If ICE finds a lot of resistance, and Trump gets a bill authorizing them to shoot to kill any immigrant that resists, do you think he would not sign it? No matter how you dress it up, it's still systematic ethnic cleansing. Implying that if Trump gets reelected ICE might go around shooting immigrants only adds to my point. Is your point that Trump actually doing all the things he has said he'll do would be very very bad, but we have to trust him not to do all the things he says he'll do because he's just saying them to get elected? Because that's a pretty bad point to be making... Has Trump said he would sign a bill authorizing ICE to shoot immigrants that resist deportation? Are ICE police? Do police shoot people that resist arrest? Like conservatives like to say, I'm just asking questions. No, police don’t shoot people that resist arrest We have had literal pages in this thread about police shootings. If you can't even concede that police do indeed carry guns and they use them for the function the guns were designed for, then there isn't much we can discuss here. I can find some instances of immigrants raping/murdering people to add to the thread. Does that mean you’d defend Trumps rhetoric on immigrants as being basically true? Or do you just pick and choose how you apply these things? I will happily concede, because it's true, that a (very small) subsection of immigrants are indeed criminals. That fact was never in dispute?
Ok and I’ll concede a small subsection of police sometimes use deadly force on people resisting arrest. Your question as asked seemed like a bad faith gotcha as if I asked “Are Mexicans rapists?” And badgered you with examples if you said no.
|
On September 25 2024 20:27 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious? I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest. The number of times people are shot per police interaction is near zero. You just hear about the bad encounters in the media. However i vehemently disagree with BJ's assertion that people overreact and Trump isnt so bad. I agree with Kwarks post. He already tried to overturn and cheat an election once. Its not far off to put anything past him or his weird team now.
Actually he tried it twice, it's just that he somehow won against Hillary... He was allready talking about the election being fake/stolen before the results were in.
|
On September 25 2024 20:27 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious? I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest. The number of times people are shot per police interaction is near zero. You just hear about the bad encounters in the media. However i vehemently disagree with BJ's assertion that people overreact and Trump isnt so bad. I agree with Kwarks post. He already tried to overturn and cheat an election once. Its not far off to put anything past him or his weird team now.
My main assertion was really that there’s enough bad things to say about Trump that you don’t have to invent more shit to add onto it. The fact that we’re now debating ICE death squads being a thing pretty much proves my point. By inventing death squads and concentration camps they are muddying their own waters and then complaining that people don’t see it clearly.
|
Northern Ireland25405 Posts
On September 25 2024 20:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 20:27 Sadist wrote:On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious? I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest. The number of times people are shot per police interaction is near zero. You just hear about the bad encounters in the media. However i vehemently disagree with BJ's assertion that people overreact and Trump isnt so bad. I agree with Kwarks post. He already tried to overturn and cheat an election once. Its not far off to put anything past him or his weird team now. My main assertion was really that there’s enough bad things to say about Trump that you don’t have to invent more shit to add onto it. The fact that we’re now debating ICE death squads being a thing pretty much proves my point. By inventing death squads and concentration camps they are muddying their own waters and then complaining that people don’t see it clearly.
Are we debating that?
|
On September 25 2024 20:27 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious? I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest.
I agree with your rephrasing, but BlackJack did not add those crucial qualifiers.
Anyways, it just looks like BlackJack is doing BlackJack things - trying to ruffle feathers by being semantically contrarian and asserting "both sides..." when in reality one side is 99% to blame.
|
On September 25 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 18:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 16:44 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 15:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 15:05 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 08:08 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2024 07:50 BlackJack wrote:
The problem isn’t the messaging, it’s the messengers. Trump is the next Hitler. Trump is going to declare martial law and round people up. Trump is going to start executing journalists. Trump is going to start world war 3. Blah blah blah. The same things were said in 2016 too and none of it panned out. It doesn’t work to say after the fact “ok I know Trump isn’t actually as bad as Hitler but Jan 6 was pretty fucked up, am I right?” If they didn’t cry wolf in the most hyperbolic hysterical fashion then they might get more people to take them seriously this one time. But it literally did pan out. In 2016 they asked Trump if he'd accept the results of the election. He said "if I win". Then in 2020 he didn't accept the results of an election and attempted a literal coup. Even after that failed he did huge and continuing damage to the social fabric of the country by undermining the basic principle of the democratic system we all live under. The only thing that keeps political violence at bay is the belief that the system is fair. If we really did live in a one party state that was secretly controlled by a Chinese/Venezuelan alliance then bombing Federal buildings is a pretty reasonable and sane response. The people crying wolf in 2016 were right. There was a fucking wolf. We all saw it. Then he started eating people. And then dumbasses like you go "this is more of the same crying wolf shit we heard in 2016" like you didn't see him eat people on live tv. Fuck right off. He ordered election officials in Georgia to find him the extra votes required and told them that if they didn't comply then very angry people would hold them personally responsible for the election result. You’re missing the sentiment of my post. Denying elections is pretty small potatoes compared to being Hitler, building the camps, nuclear holocaust, starting world war 3 and other things that were said about him. Your response reads “but we were right about the election denying.” The point is the message would be better received if 8 years weren’t spent saying a bunch of other things that weren’t right. Isn't Trump promising to deport millions of people to clean up the blood of the nation? I know he didn't literally say it like that, before you nit pick me, but he did say that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our nation" and that he will deport tens of millions. That sounds a bit hitlery to me. I mean, how is that going to go? They are going to have to forcefully remove people from their homes, right? Considering how trigger-happy police are, how many are just going to get flat out killed for resisting? If ICE finds a lot of resistance, and Trump gets a bill authorizing them to shoot to kill any immigrant that resists, do you think he would not sign it? No matter how you dress it up, it's still systematic ethnic cleansing. Implying that if Trump gets reelected ICE might go around shooting immigrants only adds to my point. Is your point that Trump actually doing all the things he has said he'll do would be very very bad, but we have to trust him not to do all the things he says he'll do because he's just saying them to get elected? Because that's a pretty bad point to be making... Has Trump said he would sign a bill authorizing ICE to shoot immigrants that resist deportation? Are ICE police? Do police shoot people that resist arrest? Like conservatives like to say, I'm just asking questions. No, police don’t shoot people that resist arrest
They do. Does absolutely everybody who resists arrest get shot? No. It's more a criticism of the police than an accomplishment that the victims of police shootings aren't all people who violently resist arrest, but include people who are innocent bystanders, don't resist arrest or resist non-violently. In an ideal world, nobody would get shot, but seeing as sometimes people do shoot at the police, and they may sometimes need to shoot back, we may accept some number of people being shot by the police if they are violently resisting arrest.
That aside, aside, stop being dense and moving the goalpost. Your original point was that the hyperbole from the left was problematic:
The problem isn’t the messaging, it’s the messengers. Trump is the next Hitler. Trump is going to declare martial law and round people up. Trump is going to start executing journalists. Trump is going to start world war 3. Blah blah blah. The same things were said in 2016 too and none of it panned out. It doesn’t work to say after the fact “ok I know Trump isn’t actually as bad as Hitler but Jan 6 was pretty fucked up, am I right?” If they didn’t cry wolf in the most hyperbolic hysterical fashion then they might get more people to take them seriously this one time.
Trump is the next Hitler. Fine, maybe he should stop taking pages out of his playbook then. But it's not just the left who thinks this. His own running mate did, as has been mentioned ad nauseam, but have a source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/jd-vance-trump-messages/
Trump is going to declare martial law and round people up. You're right. He may not need to declare martial law to do it, and has not explicitly said he'd declare martial law (just use the military) The actual plan (he keeps disavowing Project 2025 and then quoting bits of it literally at his campaign rallies): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/11/us/politics/trump-2025-immigration-agenda.html
Trump is going to start executing journalists. Execute is hyperbole, but I don't think anybody here claimed that. So let's not strawman too much. Prosecute? That's his plan. Persecute? That's his rhetoric. But yes, execute is a step too far.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/06/politics/kash-patel-trump-administration/index.html
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-rally-man-attacks-journalists
https://rsf.org/en/usa-reporters-without-borders-rsf-condemns-trump-s-threats-imprison-journalists-during-potential
Trump is going to start world war 3. Who said that? This looks like a right-wing talking point that you are confusing. It's not that Trump will start world war 3. It's that he claims he's the one who will stop it (in other words: Biden/Harris will cause it):
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-issues-world-war-iii-warning-isnt-president-1931064
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-warns-us-approaching-world-war-iii-territory-under-biden-harris-admin-clowns
The actual criticism regarding war and Trump is that he will let Russia walk all over Ukraine, which seems to be his policy proposal, from his own words.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-praises-russias-military-record-argument-stop-funding-114048372
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/17/whats-donald-trumps-plan-to-end-russias-war-on-ukraine
The most I see regarding Trump causing WW3 is Zelenskyy's take on it. While I personally sympathize with that latter more than with Trump's own take, I wouldn't call Zelenskyy representative of "the left", let alone the people in this thread.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/zelenskyy-warns-vances-plan-ukrainian-lands-seized-russia-result-global-showdown
Blah blah blah.
Indeed.
|
On September 25 2024 20:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 20:27 Sadist wrote:On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious? I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest. The number of times people are shot per police interaction is near zero. You just hear about the bad encounters in the media. However i vehemently disagree with BJ's assertion that people overreact and Trump isnt so bad. I agree with Kwarks post. He already tried to overturn and cheat an election once. Its not far off to put anything past him or his weird team now. My main assertion was really that there’s enough bad things to say about Trump that you don’t have to invent more shit to add onto it. The fact that we’re now debating ICE death squads being a thing pretty much proves my point. By inventing death squads and concentration camps they are muddying their own waters and then complaining that people don’t see it clearly.
Is it them muddying the waters? Or you? Pretty sure that the one steering this conversation was you. From your original point to selective quoting of the replies.
|
On September 25 2024 20:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 20:27 Sadist wrote:On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious? I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest. The number of times people are shot per police interaction is near zero. You just hear about the bad encounters in the media. However i vehemently disagree with BJ's assertion that people overreact and Trump isnt so bad. I agree with Kwarks post. He already tried to overturn and cheat an election once. Its not far off to put anything past him or his weird team now. My main assertion was really that there’s enough bad things to say about Trump that you don’t have to invent more shit to add onto it. The fact that we’re now debating ICE death squads being a thing pretty much proves my point. By inventing death squads and concentration camps they are muddying their own waters and then complaining that people don’t see it clearly. We don't have to invent camps.
Trump was displaying children in cages in camps at the border.
|
On September 25 2024 20:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 20:35 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 20:27 Sadist wrote:On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious? I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest. The number of times people are shot per police interaction is near zero. You just hear about the bad encounters in the media. However i vehemently disagree with BJ's assertion that people overreact and Trump isnt so bad. I agree with Kwarks post. He already tried to overturn and cheat an election once. Its not far off to put anything past him or his weird team now. My main assertion was really that there’s enough bad things to say about Trump that you don’t have to invent more shit to add onto it. The fact that we’re now debating ICE death squads being a thing pretty much proves my point. By inventing death squads and concentration camps they are muddying their own waters and then complaining that people don’t see it clearly. We don't have to invent camps. Trump was displaying children in cages in camps at the border.
Does a country have the right to hold people in custody who transgress or not?
If the US border were a concentration camp people wouldn't be flocking to it.
|
On September 25 2024 20:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 20:27 Sadist wrote:On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious? I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest. The number of times people are shot per police interaction is near zero. You just hear about the bad encounters in the media. However i vehemently disagree with BJ's assertion that people overreact and Trump isnt so bad. I agree with Kwarks post. He already tried to overturn and cheat an election once. Its not far off to put anything past him or his weird team now. My main assertion was really that there’s enough bad things to say about Trump that you don’t have to invent more shit to add onto it. The fact that we’re now debating ICE death squads being a thing pretty much proves my point. By inventing death squads and concentration camps they are muddying their own waters and then complaining that people don’t see it clearly.
I wasn't arguing that there would be ICE death squads. I was simply arguing that if you are going to conduct millions of raids (which would be required to deport millions of people), a small fraction of those will turn violent. The problem is that a small fraction of millions is still a hell of a lot of people -- even if it's only 0.1% of the time, that's still 10's of thousands of people getting shot at for the horrible crime of trying to live their lives in the US.
|
On September 25 2024 20:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 20:27 Sadist wrote:On September 25 2024 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 25 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:
Dude, you said "No, police don't shoot people that resist arrest"... This is pretty much "the" main cause for the police shooting people and it is also a legitimate one depending on how someone resists arrest.
WTF do you think Police has guns for, to shoot people that cooperate/don't resist them? I thought BlackJack was kidding / being sarcastic when he said that police don't shoot people who resist arrest. BJ, were you being serious? I think the point is they dont always or even often shoot people resisting arrest. The number of times people are shot per police interaction is near zero. You just hear about the bad encounters in the media. However i vehemently disagree with BJ's assertion that people overreact and Trump isnt so bad. I agree with Kwarks post. He already tried to overturn and cheat an election once. Its not far off to put anything past him or his weird team now. My main assertion was really that there’s enough bad things to say about Trump that you don’t have to invent more shit to add onto it. The fact that we’re now debating ICE death squads being a thing pretty much proves my point. By inventing death squads and concentration camps they are muddying their own waters and then complaining that people don’t see it clearly.
I get the impulse to summarize people’s assertions with pithy hyperboles like “ICE death squads” but it really sucks to put hyperboles in other people’s mouths when your overall point is “look how hyperbolic you all are being.”
Anyway I think it’s worth talking more about Trump’s deportation promises. As I recall he’s promised to deport millions of people within a few days of taking office; if anybody wants to supply an exact quote I’d appreciate it. But I don’t know why we’d need an analogy to 1944 Germany when 1954 US is right there.
Overall, there were 1,074,277 "returns", defined as "confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal" in the first year of Operation Wetback.[36] This included many workers without papers who fled to Mexico fearing arrest; over half a million from Texas alone.[37] The total number of sweeps fell to just 242,608 in 1955, and continuously declined each year until 1962, when there was a slight rise in apprehended workers.[38] Despite the decline in sweeps, the total number of Border Patrol agents more than doubled to 1,692 by 1962, and an additional plane was added to the force.[38] Wikipedia
When the generation that stormed the beaches of Normandy decided they wanted to get rid of immigrants and didn’t care much about due process, they put together a task force and managed to deport about a million people in a year. Trump wants to deport 10million+ in a matter of days. I’m not overly focusing on the deaths (although to be certain, there were deaths caused by Operation Wetback) but with an operation of that scale and speed it’s simply not possible to have any real respect for due process. They deported legal migrants and US citizens just because they were brown. They didn’t give people a chance to retrieve their possessions or even talk to their families about what was happening. It’s total lawlessness, essentially a race riot carried out by the government instead of a mob. I see no reason to think Trump’s program here would be any better, and every reason to think it would be even more cruel and unburdened by conscience.
Tell me, are my concerns hyperbolic? Because I’d really love to hear where specifically I’m failing to understand why this would be less awful than it seems. If you can’t give me that, I’d really rather not hear that I’m fabricating “ICE death squads” or failing to appeal to “Joe Schmoe.”
|
Addressing BJ's hyperbole point. I don't think Trump is the second coming of Hitler, and that is obvious hyperbole -- for starters that would require actual competence and a lot of effort and dedication, which Trump simply does not have in him. The only thing he is competent about and dedicated to is protecting his interests and enriching himself and his family at any cost (to others).
I do think he does have "hitler-y" aspirations, however, and it is fair game to point these out.
I mean, he famously insisted during the BLM protests to get law enforcement and the National Guard to just shoot the protesters (linky) , for instance.
He is not particularly burdened by ethics or consequences. What happens when there isn't someone there to stand up to him? Why do you find our concerns so easy to dismiss?
|
It is hard to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he uses terms like "reimigration", which only exist in white nationalist and other racists groups vernacular. No one who is not full of hate uses it, most wouldn't even know what it means without looking it up.
|
On September 25 2024 23:06 EnDeR_ wrote:Addressing BJ's hyperbole point. I don't think Trump is the second coming of Hitler, and that is obvious hyperbole -- for starters that would require actual competence and a lot of effort and dedication, which Trump simply does not have in him. The only thing he is competent about and dedicated to is protecting his interests and enriching himself and his family at any cost (to others). I do think he does have "hitler-y" aspirations, however, and it is fair game to point these out. I mean, he famously insisted during the BLM protests to get law enforcement and the National Guard to just shoot the protesters ( linky) , for instance. He is not particularly burdened by ethics or consequences. What happens when there isn't someone there to stand up to him? Why do you find our concerns so easy to dismiss?
You‘re right Hitler didn‘t encourage furries dressed as buffalos to attack the parliament, fail and get another chance for some reason.
Hitler landed in jail after trying something like that in Munich.
Then he won by election.
All I see with Trump is a lot of martyrdom messaging.
If he got jailed and wrote ‚mein Ivank‘ he might have won./s
They secretly worship his methods that‘s for sure.
But the lack of consequences suggests the government doesn‘t really give a damn as long as it keeps the population from rebelling against the oligarchy. It‘s entertainment.
Hate on politicians so you don‘t hate on what‘s consuming your future through wasteful spending and absurd levels of luxury.
|
On September 25 2024 23:30 Billyboy wrote:
It is hard to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he uses terms like "reimigration", which only exist in white nationalist and other racists groups vernacular. No one who is not full of hate uses it, most wouldn't even know what it means without looking it up.
Anyone familiar with English immediately knows and understands the concepts and distinctions covered by the words migration, emigration, immigration, and remigration. Same with expatriation and repatriation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
