|
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 July 10 2025 05:24 Razyda wrote:I dont think anything in video you linked warrants statement "It appears" Of course it is, same as pretty much anyone else. I dont think Trump realises how massive it is. He probably thought that between flood and Iran, it will get somehow overlooked. Meanwhile the simplest conclusion is that he is guilty. What I find odd, is why he didnt simply said that all was destroyed by Biden administration, on the very start of his term. That something MAGA would believe before he would be able to finish sentence. Entire show they did with files is just stupid and makes people even more suspicious.
It was massive within the cult of MAGA, many of these guys and gals are having meltdowns because they made it so big and now have jobs in the government and can't deliver on the "facts" they said they would. They made it a big show because it got them views and attention. They are lying provocateur's. Generally they just move on to the next thing and for some reason people still trust them even though they are wrong at such a high rate and when they finally get the change to "prove it" they can not. People love to give the MSM shit for not covering everything, but those rules keep them from just making shit up and treating it like fact. At some point non MSM should really be held accountable for all the shit they get wrong, which is an extremely high percentage.
|
Elon Musk needs to get his shit together, keeping all the dumbasses on X is necessary so they don't come and pollute BlueSky.
|
On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out?
It is made-up bullshit like this that causes actual political violence, like what motivated the antifa nutjobs who planned and carried out an ambush at an ICE facility in Alvarado in Texas, with one young man winning a Darwin award.
Think about the mechanics of what you are saying for at least one second. Hegseth ordered people to shoot unarmed protestors? The first question is where are the shot protestors, but you stipulated there are none. Okay, then:
1) Where are the leaks and/or resignations for such orders? I was told the military hates Trump which is why they marched weird on the Army's 250th birthday parade. Certainly we wouldn't expect the California National Guard to be Blumpf loyalist gestapo.
2) Where are the firings for failure to shoot unarmed protestors?
3) Where are the firings for filing false reports that unarmed protestors were shot per Hegseth's wishes, when in fact nobody has been shot since you admit the alleged orders haven't been carried out?
Hegseth and Slotkin do not like each other. This is visible from the clip, and it's visible from the full hearing when she tells him to "be a man" and says he has no balls, and it's evident in their history like his confirmation hearing. Normal people look at that video and see a guy who doesn't feel like playing a game of inflammatory questions. The phrase is not dignifying it with a response.
You know as a citizen it'd be kind of interesting to know the ROE and so on that Guard and Marines operate under on these deployments. For example, someone shoots at them, they can shoot back? Someone (unarmed) throws concrete, can they return nonlethal fire? Do they have nonlethal? Does Guard, but not the Marines? These are interesting questions that unfortunately aren't covered by the gotcha-operating infants populating our Senate.
|
Northern Ireland25203 Posts
On July 10 2025 05:51 LightSpectra wrote:
Elon Musk needs to get his shit together, keeping all the dumbasses on X is necessary so they don't come and pollute BlueSky.
We should combine it with the auld dead internet and just leave the crazies to all scream into the void at mostly bots, segmented from the rest of humanity
|
On July 10 2025 05:24 Razyda wrote:I dont think anything in video you linked warrants statement "It appears"
Why not? On the Trump side of things, in that video Slotkin clearly references the previous SecDef, Mark Esper... and that interview came out several years ago:
"Norah O'Donnell: What specifically was he suggesting that the U.S. military should do to these protesters?
Mark Esper: He says, "Can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something." And he's suggesting that that's what we should do, that we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters.
Norah O'Donnell: The commander in chief was suggesting that the U.S. military shoot protesters? American protesters.
Mark Esper: Yes, in the streets--
Norah O'Donnell: American protesters.
Mark Esper: --of our nation's capital. That's right. Shocking.
Norah O'Donnell: We have seen in other countries a government use their military to shoot protesters.
Mark Esper: Right.
Norah O'Donnell: What kinda governments are those?
Mark Esper: Oh, those are banana republics, right? Or-- authoritarian regimes."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-mark-esper-sacred-oath-60-minutes-2022-05-08/
On the Hegseth side of things, it's because of his obstinate refusal to engage with the question, and his decision to change the subject entirely. The original question was a reasonable one, given the previous circumstances, yet Hegseth avoided giving an answer. It was dismissive and suspicious.
That's why "it appears" that way for both Trump and Hegseth, from my perspective.
On July 10 2025 05:54 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out? It is made-up bullshit like this that causes actual political violence
Dodge acknowledged. Ironically, your sarcastic use of "Absolute fascism" is indeed what Mark Esper sincerely thought, when he cited "authoritarian regimes". But sure, I guess it's no big deal to you; feel free to accuse the other side of political violence instead.
On July 10 2025 05:24 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out? I'm curious why you keep deciding to add "peaceful" in there when it's not even something she said. Or why you plainly state that he gave the order to shoot peaceful protestors when he didn't even answer the question. Are you unwilling or just incapable of being accurate?
Because most protesters are peaceful. And I qualified the original post with "it appears", and only dropped that qualifier after oBlade responded with a clear reply that an order from Trump or Hegseth wouldn't matter as long as it wasn't being followed. I responded that the order itself would still be a reason for concern. I think it's a problem if our leaders are morally okay with shooting peaceful, unarmed protesters, even if those protesters don't end up being shot. Do you agree?
|
On July 10 2025 07:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 05:24 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out? I'm curious why you keep deciding to add "peaceful" in there when it's not even something she said. Or why you plainly state that he gave the order to shoot peaceful protestors when he didn't even answer the question. Are you unwilling or just incapable of being accurate? Because most protesters are peaceful. And I qualified the original post with "it appears", and only dropped that qualifier after oBlade responded with a clear reply that an order from Trump or Hegseth wouldn't matter as long as it wasn't being followed. I responded that the order itself would still be a reason for concern. I think it's a problem if our leaders are morally okay with shooting peaceful, unarmed protesters, even if those protesters don't end up being shot. Do you agree?
You can't retroactively add adjectives just because those adjectives apply to most of the group. You can't say that a surgeon that orders limb amputations every now and again wants to amputate healthy limbs just because "most limbs are healthy."
But the good news is that at least 5-6 people are going to agree with this logic and tell me I'm wrong because scoring points here is more important than our shared understanding of language. Then Kwark will drop in and have some loyalty to the truth here but not without insisting that I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing.
|
On July 10 2025 11:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 07:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 05:24 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out? I'm curious why you keep deciding to add "peaceful" in there when it's not even something she said. Or why you plainly state that he gave the order to shoot peaceful protestors when he didn't even answer the question. Are you unwilling or just incapable of being accurate? Because most protesters are peaceful. And I qualified the original post with "it appears", and only dropped that qualifier after oBlade responded with a clear reply that an order from Trump or Hegseth wouldn't matter as long as it wasn't being followed. I responded that the order itself would still be a reason for concern. I think it's a problem if our leaders are morally okay with shooting peaceful, unarmed protesters, even if those protesters don't end up being shot. Do you agree? You can't retroactively add adjectives just because those adjectives apply to most of the group. You can't say that a surgeon that orders limb amputations every now and again wants to amputate healthy limbs just because "most limbs are healthy." But the good news is that at least 5-6 people are going to agree with this logic and tell me I'm wrong because scoring points here is more important than our shared understanding of language. Then Kwark will drop in and have some loyalty to the truth here but not without insisting that I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing.
What is your greater point here? Is it that they only suggested killing miss behaving protesters? Does that make it acceptable to you or... ?
|
On July 10 2025 11:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 07:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 05:24 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out? I'm curious why you keep deciding to add "peaceful" in there when it's not even something she said. Or why you plainly state that he gave the order to shoot peaceful protestors when he didn't even answer the question. Are you unwilling or just incapable of being accurate? Because most protesters are peaceful. And I qualified the original post with "it appears", and only dropped that qualifier after oBlade responded with a clear reply that an order from Trump or Hegseth wouldn't matter as long as it wasn't being followed. I responded that the order itself would still be a reason for concern. I think it's a problem if our leaders are morally okay with shooting peaceful, unarmed protesters, even if those protesters don't end up being shot. Do you agree? You can't retroactively add adjectives just because those adjectives apply to most of the group. You can't say that a surgeon that orders limb amputations every now and again wants to amputate healthy limbs just because "most limbs are healthy." But the good news is that at least 5-6 people are going to agree with this logic and tell me I'm wrong because scoring points here is more important than our shared understanding of language. Then Kwark will drop in and have some loyalty to the truth here but not without insisting that I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing.
These two posts of yours make it clear to me that you're not interested in having a good-faith dialogue right now. Take care.
|
On July 10 2025 11:20 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 11:14 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 07:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 05:24 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out? I'm curious why you keep deciding to add "peaceful" in there when it's not even something she said. Or why you plainly state that he gave the order to shoot peaceful protestors when he didn't even answer the question. Are you unwilling or just incapable of being accurate? Because most protesters are peaceful. And I qualified the original post with "it appears", and only dropped that qualifier after oBlade responded with a clear reply that an order from Trump or Hegseth wouldn't matter as long as it wasn't being followed. I responded that the order itself would still be a reason for concern. I think it's a problem if our leaders are morally okay with shooting peaceful, unarmed protesters, even if those protesters don't end up being shot. Do you agree? You can't retroactively add adjectives just because those adjectives apply to most of the group. You can't say that a surgeon that orders limb amputations every now and again wants to amputate healthy limbs just because "most limbs are healthy." But the good news is that at least 5-6 people are going to agree with this logic and tell me I'm wrong because scoring points here is more important than our shared understanding of language. Then Kwark will drop in and have some loyalty to the truth here but not without insisting that I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing. What is your greater point here? Is it that they only suggested killing miss behaving protesters? Does that make it acceptable to you or... ?
They can kill a few. As a treat
|
On July 10 2025 11:20 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 11:14 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 07:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 05:24 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out? I'm curious why you keep deciding to add "peaceful" in there when it's not even something she said. Or why you plainly state that he gave the order to shoot peaceful protestors when he didn't even answer the question. Are you unwilling or just incapable of being accurate? Because most protesters are peaceful. And I qualified the original post with "it appears", and only dropped that qualifier after oBlade responded with a clear reply that an order from Trump or Hegseth wouldn't matter as long as it wasn't being followed. I responded that the order itself would still be a reason for concern. I think it's a problem if our leaders are morally okay with shooting peaceful, unarmed protesters, even if those protesters don't end up being shot. Do you agree? You can't retroactively add adjectives just because those adjectives apply to most of the group. You can't say that a surgeon that orders limb amputations every now and again wants to amputate healthy limbs just because "most limbs are healthy." But the good news is that at least 5-6 people are going to agree with this logic and tell me I'm wrong because scoring points here is more important than our shared understanding of language. Then Kwark will drop in and have some loyalty to the truth here but not without insisting that I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing. What is your greater point here? Is it that they only suggested killing miss behaving protesters? Does that make it acceptable to you or... ?
The same point I've made repeatedly. By being incapable of speaking accurately you're doing a disservice to your own credibility and any legitimate criticism becomes dismissed as hyperventilating over Trump.
We've seen this nonsense repeatedly. E.g. "Trump says he wants Liz Cheney executed by firing squad" or "Trump threatens to use the military against anyone that opposes his candidacy on election night." (Mind you, Biden would still be commander-in-chief on election night and for another 2 months after).
It's one thing if you're in the media and revenues are falling and you need to give embellishing clickbait just to stay in business. But doing it for no reason on a rather small gaming forum politics thread is rather silly.
|
On July 10 2025 12:10 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 11:20 Billyboy wrote:On July 10 2025 11:14 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 07:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 05:24 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out? I'm curious why you keep deciding to add "peaceful" in there when it's not even something she said. Or why you plainly state that he gave the order to shoot peaceful protestors when he didn't even answer the question. Are you unwilling or just incapable of being accurate? Because most protesters are peaceful. And I qualified the original post with "it appears", and only dropped that qualifier after oBlade responded with a clear reply that an order from Trump or Hegseth wouldn't matter as long as it wasn't being followed. I responded that the order itself would still be a reason for concern. I think it's a problem if our leaders are morally okay with shooting peaceful, unarmed protesters, even if those protesters don't end up being shot. Do you agree? You can't retroactively add adjectives just because those adjectives apply to most of the group. You can't say that a surgeon that orders limb amputations every now and again wants to amputate healthy limbs just because "most limbs are healthy." But the good news is that at least 5-6 people are going to agree with this logic and tell me I'm wrong because scoring points here is more important than our shared understanding of language. Then Kwark will drop in and have some loyalty to the truth here but not without insisting that I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing. What is your greater point here? Is it that they only suggested killing miss behaving protesters? Does that make it acceptable to you or... ? The same point I've made repeatedly. By being incapable of speaking accurately you're doing a disservice to your own credibility and any legitimate criticism becomes dismissed as hyperventilating over Trump. We've seen this nonsense repeatedly. E.g. "Trump says he wants Liz Cheney executed by firing squad" or "Trump threatens to use the military against anyone that opposes his candidacy on election night." (Mind you, Biden would still be commander-in-chief on election night and for another 2 months after). It's one thing if you're in the media and revenues are falling and you need to give embellishing clickbait just to stay in business. But doing it for no reason on a rather small gaming forum politics thread is rather silly.
Often these cases are matched with reciepts and not just opinionated headlines. You personally thinking shit like 'dictator for a day' isn't problematic language isn't that compelling an argument. Further, Trump himself is pretty strong evidence that speaking accurately is not terribly important.
|
On July 10 2025 07:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 05:54 oBlade wrote:On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out? It is made-up bullshit like this that causes actual political violence Dodge acknowledged. Ironically, your sarcastic use of "Absolute fascism" is indeed what Mark Esper sincerely thought, when he cited "authoritarian regimes". But sure, I guess it's no big deal to you; feel free to accuse the other side of political violence instead.
"Dodge?" That would be you ignore every basic question I pose challenging you to where all the evidence you would expect other than shot unarmed people is, even assuming orders were given and just not followed. Let's try and for once in your life get past the first sentence, how about it? I get it, the cognitive dissonance is strong after you're dug in. It's hard to just say "hmm I didn't think about that." Better to just cut the first sentence and then ignore everything.
Mark Esper's bookselling of painting himself as a Vindmanesque anti-Blumpf hero 5 years ago is not the Hegseth LA troop deployment. Whether you think Esper's credible on that or not, it's a different situation.
I am not accusing a "side." The antifa people in Texas shot a police officer in the neck last week. He wasn't even a federal agent who their main targets were. That's not an accusation, it happened, I'm sure you saw the news.
Are you physically incapable of understanding the lack of shot protestors should lead you to doubt your conclusion that there was an order to shoot protestors that you have no evidence for? I am not saying orders for the military to shoot unarmed people are okay if they're not followed. I'm saying if you have no shot unarmed people and none of the second order things you would expect to have if orders to shoot unarmed people had been given but unarmed people not shot, it takes conspiratorial thinking to explain that web of garbage instead of taking the default position that the order doesn't fucking exist.
In any other context, leftists are able to understand, and in fact doggedly vigilant, about the fact that someone not answering is not to be construed as an affirmative answer. That someone's not saying anything isn't assumed to be agreement or assent. But not politics. If a self-righteous soundbite Senator pollutes a hearing with childish insults and preposterous "hey did you order mass murder" questions and the man posed the question laughs instead of denying it, it's proof he must be guilty. Similarly, if Trump went to a steakhouse and forgot to tip, if you didn't file your official press release denouncing it with the correct posters, you are literally a cultist.
|
On July 10 2025 12:10 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 11:20 Billyboy wrote:On July 10 2025 11:14 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 07:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 05:24 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out? I'm curious why you keep deciding to add "peaceful" in there when it's not even something she said. Or why you plainly state that he gave the order to shoot peaceful protestors when he didn't even answer the question. Are you unwilling or just incapable of being accurate? Because most protesters are peaceful. And I qualified the original post with "it appears", and only dropped that qualifier after oBlade responded with a clear reply that an order from Trump or Hegseth wouldn't matter as long as it wasn't being followed. I responded that the order itself would still be a reason for concern. I think it's a problem if our leaders are morally okay with shooting peaceful, unarmed protesters, even if those protesters don't end up being shot. Do you agree? You can't retroactively add adjectives just because those adjectives apply to most of the group. You can't say that a surgeon that orders limb amputations every now and again wants to amputate healthy limbs just because "most limbs are healthy." But the good news is that at least 5-6 people are going to agree with this logic and tell me I'm wrong because scoring points here is more important than our shared understanding of language. Then Kwark will drop in and have some loyalty to the truth here but not without insisting that I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing. What is your greater point here? Is it that they only suggested killing miss behaving protesters? Does that make it acceptable to you or... ? The same point I've made repeatedly. By being incapable of speaking accurately you're doing a disservice to your own credibility and any legitimate criticism becomes dismissed as hyperventilating over Trump. We've seen this nonsense repeatedly. E.g. "Trump says he wants Liz Cheney executed by firing squad" or "Trump threatens to use the military against anyone that opposes his candidacy on election night." (Mind you, Biden would still be commander-in-chief on election night and for another 2 months after). It's one thing if you're in the media and revenues are falling and you need to give embellishing clickbait just to stay in business. But doing it for no reason on a rather small gaming forum politics thread is rather silly.
I'm with Kwark on this one. I don't think you disagree with DPB in spirit, i.e. the fact that trump thinks it's okay to shoot some protesters is problematic, which is the point that he is making.
The rest is nitpicking.
|
While it's on brand to allude to other posters behavior is why someone was killed you're far off base to what you're arguing.
The logic doesn't track that you need absolute faith that the government is only doing the thing if the thing has happened, and that if the thing hasn't happened the government couldn't have done thing. Bitching and moaning about the government messaging to secure stocks of ppe during covid being the worst thing ever and then fighting tooth and nail for Trump to be able to be vague about the orders he's giving the soldiers he's deploying to us streets. You know the forces in full battle gear and armored vehicles. Are you under the impression that the government is doing its upmost to assure the public that the national guard is not bringing in loaded firearms and that the people have no reason to fear that they will open fire if they feel threatened like we've seen from police in the recent past?
Trump couldn't find it in himself to make a phone call when politicians are being assassinated by his supporters and you're looking for people to give him the default position of not ordering people to be shot if the troops feel like it?
What do you think the soldiers fully kitted out in armor with their service weapons are there for? What are they suppose to do other than shoot protestors if they feel like it?
|
|
|
On July 10 2025 11:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 11:14 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 07:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 05:24 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out? I'm curious why you keep deciding to add "peaceful" in there when it's not even something she said. Or why you plainly state that he gave the order to shoot peaceful protestors when he didn't even answer the question. Are you unwilling or just incapable of being accurate? Because most protesters are peaceful. And I qualified the original post with "it appears", and only dropped that qualifier after oBlade responded with a clear reply that an order from Trump or Hegseth wouldn't matter as long as it wasn't being followed. I responded that the order itself would still be a reason for concern. I think it's a problem if our leaders are morally okay with shooting peaceful, unarmed protesters, even if those protesters don't end up being shot. Do you agree? You can't retroactively add adjectives just because those adjectives apply to most of the group. You can't say that a surgeon that orders limb amputations every now and again wants to amputate healthy limbs just because "most limbs are healthy." But the good news is that at least 5-6 people are going to agree with this logic and tell me I'm wrong because scoring points here is more important than our shared understanding of language. Then Kwark will drop in and have some loyalty to the truth here but not without insisting that I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing. These two posts of yours make it clear to me that you're not interested in having a good-faith dialogue right now. Take care.
He never was. BJ knows very well that a 99% peaceful group should be considered peaceful, and that Trump's statements are either about the 99%, or if they were about the 1% then Trump didn't make it clear and therefore it should be assumed that he meant the 99%.
BJ doesn't like to admit this because it would make it impossible for him to have an argument, seeing that he's fully committed to the right-wing cause as well as the cause of supporting Trump's fascism.
I'll say it again, the foundation of the right-wing strategy is the tactic of making an elephant out of a mouse and then crying about it.
Here BJ lazer focuses on 1% and argues about the 1%, even though the original point can reasonably only be about the 99%, then he denies that it was about the 99% because that'd be an "assumption". And then he draws a false comparison to surgeons (surgeons! In an equivalency to defend Trump, fucking hilarious. Give me a fucking break).
Mouse into elephant. The go-to tactic of every right-winger.
Know your enemy.
On July 10 2025 14:57 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 12:10 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 11:20 Billyboy wrote:On July 10 2025 11:14 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 07:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 05:24 BlackJack wrote:On July 10 2025 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2025 04:18 oBlade wrote:Absolute fascism. How many total unarmed peaceful protestors have been shot in the at least 3 weeks since the alleged order was given (since that video was posted)? You don't think it's problematic that Trump and Hegseth ordered the military to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters? Only if the orders are actually carried out? I'm curious why you keep deciding to add "peaceful" in there when it's not even something she said. Or why you plainly state that he gave the order to shoot peaceful protestors when he didn't even answer the question. Are you unwilling or just incapable of being accurate? Because most protesters are peaceful. And I qualified the original post with "it appears", and only dropped that qualifier after oBlade responded with a clear reply that an order from Trump or Hegseth wouldn't matter as long as it wasn't being followed. I responded that the order itself would still be a reason for concern. I think it's a problem if our leaders are morally okay with shooting peaceful, unarmed protesters, even if those protesters don't end up being shot. Do you agree? You can't retroactively add adjectives just because those adjectives apply to most of the group. You can't say that a surgeon that orders limb amputations every now and again wants to amputate healthy limbs just because "most limbs are healthy." But the good news is that at least 5-6 people are going to agree with this logic and tell me I'm wrong because scoring points here is more important than our shared understanding of language. Then Kwark will drop in and have some loyalty to the truth here but not without insisting that I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing. What is your greater point here? Is it that they only suggested killing miss behaving protesters? Does that make it acceptable to you or... ? The same point I've made repeatedly. By being incapable of speaking accurately you're doing a disservice to your own credibility and any legitimate criticism becomes dismissed as hyperventilating over Trump. We've seen this nonsense repeatedly. E.g. "Trump says he wants Liz Cheney executed by firing squad" or "Trump threatens to use the military against anyone that opposes his candidacy on election night." (Mind you, Biden would still be commander-in-chief on election night and for another 2 months after). It's one thing if you're in the media and revenues are falling and you need to give embellishing clickbait just to stay in business. But doing it for no reason on a rather small gaming forum politics thread is rather silly. I'm with Kwark on this one. I don't think you disagree with DPB in spirit, i.e. the fact that trump thinks it's okay to shoot some protesters is problematic, which is the point that he is making. The rest is nitpicking.
After years of right-wing denialism, I think it's fair to say BJ does in fact not agree with DPB in spirit. He's done everything other than make overtly clear that he supports Trump's cause and has been consistently flirting with the far-right. The sum of his actions (anti-left propaganda while staying silent on right-wing scandals) leads to this fairly obvious conclusion.
|
On July 10 2025 16:37 MJG wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c784ee81y4zoIt's not surprising to see Trump sticking his neck out for Bolsonaro. It seems the difference between Brazil and the United States is that Brazil prosecutes former leaders who attempt a coup.
The sad truth is that - from an exclusively legal viewpoint - Trump skirted the line perfectly on Jan 6. His inaction spoke much louder than his actions, but he can't be prosecuted for inaction. He also told his supporters to "go home", so it seems impossible to pin him down on this in a court. And that even though in the same breath he also repeatedly lied about the election being stolen.
His inaction (such as refusing to explicitly denounce the attack on the capitol) and his lies about the election, that behavior should've strictly disqualified him from a second term. But inaction is... well, that's the trick, right? It creates room for interpretation. It's a simple trick that lets radicals like Trump get away with shit. Legally he's in the clear.
Now, he's still a felon. And America voted for a felon. So take it with a grain of salt when I say that America (and especially right-wingers) cares about the law in any meaningful capacity.
|
On July 10 2025 17:17 Magic Powers wrote:
After years of right-wing denialism, I think it's fair to say BJ does in fact not agree with DPB in spirit. He's done everything other than make overtly clear that he supports Trump's cause and has been consistently flirting with the far-right. The sum of his actions (anti-left propaganda while staying silent on right-wing scandals) leads to this fairly obvious conclusion.
I think this is fundamentally misreading BJ's posts. He likes to nitpick and will die on any hill where he's technically correct. If you can get past his adversarial style, he brings in a different perspective on things that I find interesting.
I honestly doubt that he would disagree with the statement "It is problematic that Trump thinks it's okay to shoot protestors". But if you frame it differently, e.g. "Trump is ordering the national guard to shoot peaceful protesters", you will find yourself in an infinite loop of disagreement.
|
On July 10 2025 17:57 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2025 17:17 Magic Powers wrote:
After years of right-wing denialism, I think it's fair to say BJ does in fact not agree with DPB in spirit. He's done everything other than make overtly clear that he supports Trump's cause and has been consistently flirting with the far-right. The sum of his actions (anti-left propaganda while staying silent on right-wing scandals) leads to this fairly obvious conclusion. I think this is fundamentally misreading BJ's posts. He likes to nitpick and will die on any hill where he's technically correct. If you can get past his adversarial style, he brings in a different perspective on things that I find interesting. I honestly doubt that he would disagree with the statement "It is problematic that Trump thinks it's okay to shoot protestors". But if you frame it differently, e.g. "Trump is ordering the national guard to shoot peaceful protesters", you will find yourself in an infinite loop of disagreement.
I used to think exactly the same as you. I used to think BJ is just nitpicking and trying too hard to be precise about things that don't require precision to be understood. I also thought he just generally has an aversion to authority, which would explain his views on things such as vaccines and lockdowns and whatnot.
But I've also come to notice a clear right-wing pattern in his political commentary. At this point his partisanship seems undeniable in my book. Because he always defends right-wing information while attacking left-wing information. This pattern is like 80/20 at the very least, but I get the impression it's closer to 95/5.
|
On July 10 2025 17:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Here BJ lazer focuses on 1% and argues about the 1%, even though the original point can reasonably only be about the 99%, then he denies that it was about the 99% because that'd be an "assumption". And then he draws a false comparison to surgeons (surgeons! In an equivalency to defend Trump, fucking hilarious. Give me a fucking break).
If you don’t understand how analogies work you could just ask and someone would be happy to explain it, I’m sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
