|
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 08 2025 03:58 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 23:10 maybenexttime wrote:
Same LA police that beat the shit out of peaceful protesters and trampled people with horses? perhaps you did not read my comment in full or were unable to understand its implications. there will always be some bad cops. if you increase the pay rate of cops you increase the chance of finding and hiring better people.
They hire exactly the kind of people they need for the job they want them to do. Police brutality is not an unfortunate consequence of insufficient pay. It's there by design.
|
On September 08 2025 05:02 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2025 03:58 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 07 2025 23:10 maybenexttime wrote:
Same LA police that beat the shit out of peaceful protesters and trampled people with horses? perhaps you did not read my comment in full or were unable to understand its implications. there will always be some bad cops. if you increase the pay rate of cops you increase the chance of finding and hiring better people. They hire exactly the kind of people they need for the job they want them to do. Police brutality is not an unfortunate consequence of insufficient pay. It's there by design.
Lack of police doesn‘t lead to lack of brutality. It‘s just brutality from people who are good at crime then.
There‘s a golden middle somewhere.
Not in the US.
Not in Austria either tbf.
Which is why I‘m on the verge of leaving it behind because it has become hella corrupt and that‘s not the way I want my surroundings to be like. I don‘t own enough to be on the receiving end of the benefits.
|
SCOTUS said police have no obligation to keep people safe and they have no obligation to actually understand the laws they're supposed to enforce. They're mostly just a state cartel that the rich use to threaten unions and left-wing protesters.
|
On September 08 2025 05:12 LightSpectra wrote:
SCOTUS said police have no obligation to keep people safe and they have no obligation to actually understand the laws they're supposed to enforce. They're mostly just a state cartel that the rich use to threaten unions and left-wing protesters.
When the government‘s foundation rests on the welfare for their richest people and corporations that‘s what‘s kinda supposed to happen.
It‘s a worldwide thing though.
Read of the case of some Red Bull family member who ran over someone in Thailand and now lives in London.
Or what about the US regist who shot someone on stage ?
When you‘re in the ‚club‘ you can commit any crime apparently.
|
On September 08 2025 05:12 LightSpectra wrote:
SCOTUS said police have no obligation to keep people safe and they have no obligation to actually understand the laws they're supposed to enforce. They're mostly just a state cartel that the rich use to threaten unions and left-wing protesters.
That's pretty much what they've always been in the North (along with protecting rich people's property), and mostly slave catchers in the South.
Most people have no real grasp of how police function now or historically. Can thank inordinate amounts of copaganda being everywhere for that. Also, as the Chicago (continuous Democrat control for a ~century) example demonstrates (and several other Democrat controlled cities), this is a bipartisan multigenerational problem.
Abolish ICE and take the police and prisons with them imo. Or you know, people can keep bargaining with the fascists about who they're willing to throw into the concentration/prison camps as long as the fascists let those willing to bargain with them keep mocking and gawking from the outside.
|
Donald Trump delayed the men's championship match of the U.S. Open. He was also booed during that final match.
"The U.S. Open men's championship match was delayed on Sunday and thousands of seats remained empty when it finally got underway, as security checks related to President Donald Trump's attendance caused confusion and slowed entry to the iconic New York City event. ... A Secret Service spokesperson said in a statement, "We recognize that enhanced security for the President's visit to the U.S. Open may have contributed to delays for attendees. We sincerely thank every fan for their patience and understanding." ... The match start time, originally set for 2 p.m. EDT, was pushed back by 30 minutes due to security checks, U.S. Open organizers said shortly before it was set to begin."
https://www.reuters.com/sports/tennis/trump-receives-mixed-reaction-us-open-after-security-delays-frustrate-fans-2025-09-07/
"U.S. Open Crowd Booed Trump Repeatedly ... A chorus of boos and sparse clapping greeted Donald Trump when the president arrived at the U.S. Open men’s final at Arthur Ashe Stadium in New York City on Sunday. Later, the boos continued and could be heard on the national telecast during the national anthem. The crowd booed again when the president was shown on an arena screen during a set break. The U.S. Tennis Association on Saturday requested that broadcasters censor the crowd’s response to Trump and “refrain from showcasing any disruptions or reactions in response to the President’s attendance,” Bounces journalist Ben Rothenberg reported. But boos during the national anthem were audible on ESPN’s telecast of the event on ABC." ... Because of the security delays related to Trump’s appearance, the tournament pushed the final match’s start time back by thirty minutes."
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-loudly-booed-us-open-1235422786
|
Northern Ireland25564 Posts
On September 08 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2025 05:12 LightSpectra wrote:
SCOTUS said police have no obligation to keep people safe and they have no obligation to actually understand the laws they're supposed to enforce. They're mostly just a state cartel that the rich use to threaten unions and left-wing protesters. That's pretty much what they've always been in the North (along with protecting rich people's property), and mostly slave catchers in the South. Most people have no real grasp of how police function now or historically. Can thank inordinate amounts of copaganda being everywhere for that. Also, as the Chicago (continuous Democrat control for a ~century) example demonstrates (and several other Democrat controlled cities), this is a bipartisan multigenerational problem. Abolish ICE and take the police and prisons with them imo. Or you know, people can keep bargaining with the fascists about who they're willing to throw into the concentration/prison camps as long as the fascists let those willing to bargain with them keep mocking and gawking from the outside.
Abolish the police and prisons and replace them with what exactly? Or are you talking about a radical reform where those institutions as they exist are dissolved, but replaced with some kind of replacement that fulfils the same function?
Happy cake day by the way!
|
Northern Ireland25564 Posts
On September 08 2025 08:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Donald Trump delayed the men's championship match of the U.S. Open. He was also booed during that final match. "The U.S. Open men's championship match was delayed on Sunday and thousands of seats remained empty when it finally got underway, as security checks related to President Donald Trump's attendance caused confusion and slowed entry to the iconic New York City event. ... A Secret Service spokesperson said in a statement, "We recognize that enhanced security for the President's visit to the U.S. Open may have contributed to delays for attendees. We sincerely thank every fan for their patience and understanding." ... The match start time, originally set for 2 p.m. EDT, was pushed back by 30 minutes due to security checks, U.S. Open organizers said shortly before it was set to begin." https://www.reuters.com/sports/tennis/trump-receives-mixed-reaction-us-open-after-security-delays-frustrate-fans-2025-09-07/ "U.S. Open Crowd Booed Trump Repeatedly ... A chorus of boos and sparse clapping greeted Donald Trump when the president arrived at the U.S. Open men’s final at Arthur Ashe Stadium in New York City on Sunday. Later, the boos continued and could be heard on the national telecast during the national anthem. The crowd booed again when the president was shown on an arena screen during a set break. The U.S. Tennis Association on Saturday requested that broadcasters censor the crowd’s response to Trump and “refrain from showcasing any disruptions or reactions in response to the President’s attendance,” Bounces journalist Ben Rothenberg reported. But boos during the national anthem were audible on ESPN’s telecast of the event on ABC." ... Because of the security delays related to Trump’s appearance, the tournament pushed the final match’s start time back by thirty minutes." https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-loudly-booed-us-open-1235422786
They were saying ‘boo-urns’
I guess I can understand the US Tennis Association’s request, to paraphrase Michael Jordan, Republicans buy tennis rackets too. Still feels a bit fucking icky
|
It doesn't matter how much you pay people to do police work when the job will turn you into a bastard. The level of legitimate mental and emotional damage taken in the line of duty will tear apart people until they become bastards, or they'll be lucky enough to leave early. Its also a matter of public perception, if you see police only on your worst days you will associate police with your worst days.
Police either need much more training to prepare them for the job or they need specialists to take off the duties that cause the issues that gives you such shitty policing. Police are already paid insanely well with insanely good benefits from their insanely powerful unions.
The solutions to lowering crime are very clear, have been tried susessfully many times, and isn't expensive compared to what police take up in public budgets. Conservatives just love cruelty and slaves make a lot of money still.
|
On September 08 2025 08:34 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2025 05:12 LightSpectra wrote:
SCOTUS said police have no obligation to keep people safe and they have no obligation to actually understand the laws they're supposed to enforce. They're mostly just a state cartel that the rich use to threaten unions and left-wing protesters. That's pretty much what they've always been in the North (along with protecting rich people's property), and mostly slave catchers in the South. Most people have no real grasp of how police function now or historically. Can thank inordinate amounts of copaganda being everywhere for that. Also, as the Chicago (continuous Democrat control for a ~century) example demonstrates (and several other Democrat controlled cities), this is a bipartisan multigenerational problem. Abolish ICE and take the police and prisons with them imo. Or you know, people can keep bargaining with the fascists about who they're willing to throw into the concentration/prison camps as long as the fascists let those willing to bargain with them keep mocking and gawking from the outside. Abolish the police and prisons and replace them with what exactly? Or are you talking about a radical reform where those institutions as they exist are dissolved, but replaced with some kind of replacement that fulfils the same function? Happy cake day by the way!
Thank you!
A variety of investments, services, and institutions that would fulfil the functions people actually want/need, as opposed to what police and prisons currently perform. Which again, are and always have been about protecting wealthy people and "their" stuff from the workers they extract it from through intimidation and violence.
Police and prison have never been intended or designed to address crime/violence in the ways copaganda and people's imaginations have credited to them. If people really comprehended how bad cops/prisons are at the things they imagine they are needed for, they'd immediately realize what an incomprehensible waste of resources they are.
|
In theory social workers could do a much better job in many cases.
But they don‘t rake in money like prison labour does and would be exposed to the risk of armed nutjobs reacting violently.
The US would rather legalize murder before admitting that they have a cultural problem.
Doesn‘t take a genius to realize it has become an unstable rumbling keg of gunpowder hiding its face behind cheap entertainment.
|
On September 07 2025 23:48 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 13:47 Introvert wrote:On September 06 2025 23:44 Billyboy wrote:On September 05 2025 11:40 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2025 04:19 Billyboy wrote:On September 04 2025 13:40 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2025 10:47 Billyboy wrote:
People should use the rule when it comes to democracy, do I think the other side should be able to do this when they are in power, or do I think they should have to follow rule X Y Z. That alone would make US politics so much more sensible instead of this speed run to the bottom. This idea is funny because the saying I've quoted before is still true, "Republicans act like they will never have power and Democrats act like they will never lose it." I remember in younger days Dems didn't pretend to have so much reverence for the Constitution, in ye olden days they were justifying why Obama had to do X Y Z with his "pen and his phone" because Republicans wouldn't work him. Democrats control the actual machinery of the state at the personnel level. it's why "Dear Colleague letters" never got a hyperventilating reaction when Democrat administrations use them. Because all the dems on power agree with them. Your rule is one I've advocated for quite often , but don't pretend this attitude started with Trump. Trump is a reaction, an escalation. Gee, I wonder where he learned things like using the law to go after his opponents? A real mystery. And now we are here, because one side refused to give up their monopoly on the way government works and the other side stopped caring. I have far more contempt for the people who had the power and refused to let democracy take it from them. There is only one thing that will change where we are. A crisis of some sort, when everything hangs in the balance and compromises must be made. More and more I think it has to get worse before it gets better. Congress will have to be where things change, but they won't do it willingly. When did I do this? But also lets not keep with the false equivalence. I'm going to use golf as an analogy because people lose their perspective when we talk about policy. Trump often complained about Obamas golfing how he shouldn't have time and the cost. Now Trump golfs 25x as often, and he does at his own courses and the staff stay at his hotels, so he is massively profiting personally from Tax payer dollars. So well it is technically true that both Obama and Trump golfed during their presidency, the frequency, personal benefits and costs to the american people are not at all equal. The same is true with how Trump is running his presidency, and I guess you like that. But will you like it when president AOC stacks the supreme court and does whatever she damn well pleases completely ignoring what little rules, checks and balances your system apparently has? Because the door is now open. What I'm asking is that all Americans no matter what team you were born on and have supported no matter how stupid or awful they are, start thinking, hmmm do I want the other side to be able to do this? All of you really need to take a stern look at the rules and concentrate on making them actually sensible and fair. If you think the other side can't have their own maniac populist who ignores all the norms and fucks up your democracy and country you are very naïve. Do you really want to bet your democracy on "your" side winning? And when that has happened in countries has that ever worked out well for the people? Left or right? That sentence was not directed at you explicitly, although you do go on to match it. You are being far too narrow and ignoring how we got here. In progressive land, we have a sudden reverence for constitutional norms or aversion to executive power that they've been living by. But of course this isn't true. First, recall what I said about the actual machinery of the state. Dems are just fine with a powerful coercive government, because most of the time they either control all of it or at least part of it. Who do you think argued for an expansive view of the civil rights laws this administration is now using to go after places like Harvard? Or my favorite example: DACA. I remember arguing multiple times over the years about DACA with people here who insisted that it was ok and even good! because it was A) the "right thing to do" and B) that since Republicans wouldn't work with Obama on giving them citizenship, that it was ok for him to implement that program. I don't want to hear a single word about the Constitution or abusing norms from people who gave Obama a pass on DACA, who thought Biden trying to wipe out hundreds of billions of dollars of student loan debt with his pen was ok, or the people who cheered when a local NYC prosecutor went after Trump for paperwork that he claimed would change the election when it was impossible for it to have done so. Or when a president exercises the other great power he has: to not enforce the law. Like Biden did with the border for years. Now, Trump comes in to undo the first lawless action and once again everyone lights their hair in fire. Just like with the Dobbs decision, what most Democrats mean by "Democracy" and "norms" is "we win" and facism is just when they lose. The different agencies of the federal government should have considered what they were doing when they try to impede Republican presidents from lawfully implementing their agendas. The thing is, slippery slopes are...slippery. Trump wins a nailbiter in 2016 and so many people are spun up into hysterics. How was that for the national temperature? Biden is elected by a similarly slim electoral college win and everyone, including Biden himself, thinks he was elected to re-make the world in his image. How did that work out? I agree with you, we should all abide by the maxim that we should never take more power than we would give our enemies. Problem is, Democrats don't actually believe their enemies should ever be allowed to have power. And thus we are here. If one side wins by the rules but doesn't get to govern within them, then maybe next time they win they'll just ignore them all together? Sorry, I don't take this argument sincerely when it's only applied to Trump, when the same people yelping now spent the last 15 years arguing that the Constitution was a hopelessly flawed document tainted from the beginning by evil and thus should be given as little reference or reverence as possible. Again, I have far more disdain for the people who thought that the power was theirs by right of being right. But unfortunately, the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. I guess I wasn't clear, I thought I was, I don't think the Dems never did this. What is new with Trump is the magnitude, frequency and so on. Did any president before Trump have this many court challenges, and losing them by his own parties judges, in this short of time? Of course not. Trump is trying to blow wide open the loop holes that other presidents snuck a couple things past. You are never going to return, and really you shouldn't want to. You need to close the loop holes for everyone. Because well you feel really cool at sticking it to the libs right now, it is not going to feel great when it comes back. Progressive's are going to get their own populist version of Trump. And at some point during the back and forth the president is going to have all the power and then you will be fucked. And it won't much matter which team wins, because all the people lose in dictatorships 100% of the time, no matter their branding. The final paragraph is exactly the thing I've been trying to tell people for years, it's part of what I as saying arguing about DACA all that time ago. I'm telling you that your warning, seemingly convenient now that it's a Republican pushing the boundaries, is falling on deaf ears because A) it's inconsistently applied, and B) there is the belief that when you win you get to govern. Is it ignoring the rules when playing Monopoly when one player has to pay double price for all properties? There is a deep imbalance within the government itself that Trump is now trying to blow up. There's a similar problem in the judiciary right now. People have to be allowed to govern when they win. Democrats don't have any problem with that, and when they get legislative pushback (i.e. immigration during Obama's term) or cheering from the media (high student loan forgiveness) they are supported in their novel uses of executive power. I'm just saying that maybe rather just looking forward with your new found insight you should apply it backwards as well and try to figure out how we got here. When that happens maybe your "hey guys maybe we should think about this" will be taken more seriously. You are totally missing my point because you are so excited that now your team is getting them back but even harder. And you don't seem to realize that the next guy is going to do the same thing back, and then again. Until you no longer have a democracy. And people like you on both sides are going to be cheering and celebrating their guy the whole way. This should be a bi partisan issue, the initiative is on the Republicans because they have the power. I'll be saying this to the Dems if they regain power. But like you they will likely want their pound of flesh and not notice the obvious to everyone outside the country derogation of democracy and open corruption.
No, I get it perfectly well. I think it's actually you and others who are now complaining who don't get it. I think this because the complaining is always one sided. If a Democrat here or elsewhere complained about a Democratic president's overreach ever it would be the first time. It should be a bipartisan issue. You don't need me to list all of Trump's boundary pushing, but there is not even a hint of disconcertion going the other way. That's why I'm focusing on this the way I am.
I'll be saying this to the Dems if they regain power.
See, I doubt this. It would be completely out of character for Dems. I can't remember it ever happening here, even once. I am worried, but I am not going to play this game. I will not assume good faith on the part of Democrats wrt this issue. It has not been earned.
|
If a Democrat here or elsewhere complained about a Democratic president's overreach ever it would be the first time.
Obama, NSA PRISM leaks. Widespread outcry from Democrats about the illegality and ethical violations of mass surveillance. Ring a bell?
|
On September 08 2025 12:42 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +If a Democrat here or elsewhere complained about a Democratic president's overreach ever it would be the first time. Obama, NSA PRISM leaks. Widespread outcry from Democrats about the illegality and ethical violations of mass surveillance. Ring a bell?
I have been trying to keep replies limited since I don't want to get too bogged down atm but since you provided a specific example...
I recall criticism of him being pretty muted and more directed at the program itself and the law that purportedly authorized it. I certainly don't recall it being a story of executive overreach but perhaps *government overreach*. At best I recall Obama getting a little flack for not *ending* it. But if you would like that as your example go ahead. I'm not talking here about criticism of Democratic presidents at all, though it's always more muted. I'm talking about a particular category. Prism didn't even start in the Obama admin. But I'll take your example for what it's worth.
|
On September 08 2025 11:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 23:48 Billyboy wrote:On September 07 2025 13:47 Introvert wrote:On September 06 2025 23:44 Billyboy wrote:On September 05 2025 11:40 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2025 04:19 Billyboy wrote:On September 04 2025 13:40 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2025 10:47 Billyboy wrote:
People should use the rule when it comes to democracy, do I think the other side should be able to do this when they are in power, or do I think they should have to follow rule X Y Z. That alone would make US politics so much more sensible instead of this speed run to the bottom. This idea is funny because the saying I've quoted before is still true, "Republicans act like they will never have power and Democrats act like they will never lose it." I remember in younger days Dems didn't pretend to have so much reverence for the Constitution, in ye olden days they were justifying why Obama had to do X Y Z with his "pen and his phone" because Republicans wouldn't work him. Democrats control the actual machinery of the state at the personnel level. it's why "Dear Colleague letters" never got a hyperventilating reaction when Democrat administrations use them. Because all the dems on power agree with them. Your rule is one I've advocated for quite often , but don't pretend this attitude started with Trump. Trump is a reaction, an escalation. Gee, I wonder where he learned things like using the law to go after his opponents? A real mystery. And now we are here, because one side refused to give up their monopoly on the way government works and the other side stopped caring. I have far more contempt for the people who had the power and refused to let democracy take it from them. There is only one thing that will change where we are. A crisis of some sort, when everything hangs in the balance and compromises must be made. More and more I think it has to get worse before it gets better. Congress will have to be where things change, but they won't do it willingly. When did I do this? But also lets not keep with the false equivalence. I'm going to use golf as an analogy because people lose their perspective when we talk about policy. Trump often complained about Obamas golfing how he shouldn't have time and the cost. Now Trump golfs 25x as often, and he does at his own courses and the staff stay at his hotels, so he is massively profiting personally from Tax payer dollars. So well it is technically true that both Obama and Trump golfed during their presidency, the frequency, personal benefits and costs to the american people are not at all equal. The same is true with how Trump is running his presidency, and I guess you like that. But will you like it when president AOC stacks the supreme court and does whatever she damn well pleases completely ignoring what little rules, checks and balances your system apparently has? Because the door is now open. What I'm asking is that all Americans no matter what team you were born on and have supported no matter how stupid or awful they are, start thinking, hmmm do I want the other side to be able to do this? All of you really need to take a stern look at the rules and concentrate on making them actually sensible and fair. If you think the other side can't have their own maniac populist who ignores all the norms and fucks up your democracy and country you are very naïve. Do you really want to bet your democracy on "your" side winning? And when that has happened in countries has that ever worked out well for the people? Left or right? That sentence was not directed at you explicitly, although you do go on to match it. You are being far too narrow and ignoring how we got here. In progressive land, we have a sudden reverence for constitutional norms or aversion to executive power that they've been living by. But of course this isn't true. First, recall what I said about the actual machinery of the state. Dems are just fine with a powerful coercive government, because most of the time they either control all of it or at least part of it. Who do you think argued for an expansive view of the civil rights laws this administration is now using to go after places like Harvard? Or my favorite example: DACA. I remember arguing multiple times over the years about DACA with people here who insisted that it was ok and even good! because it was A) the "right thing to do" and B) that since Republicans wouldn't work with Obama on giving them citizenship, that it was ok for him to implement that program. I don't want to hear a single word about the Constitution or abusing norms from people who gave Obama a pass on DACA, who thought Biden trying to wipe out hundreds of billions of dollars of student loan debt with his pen was ok, or the people who cheered when a local NYC prosecutor went after Trump for paperwork that he claimed would change the election when it was impossible for it to have done so. Or when a president exercises the other great power he has: to not enforce the law. Like Biden did with the border for years. Now, Trump comes in to undo the first lawless action and once again everyone lights their hair in fire. Just like with the Dobbs decision, what most Democrats mean by "Democracy" and "norms" is "we win" and facism is just when they lose. The different agencies of the federal government should have considered what they were doing when they try to impede Republican presidents from lawfully implementing their agendas. The thing is, slippery slopes are...slippery. Trump wins a nailbiter in 2016 and so many people are spun up into hysterics. How was that for the national temperature? Biden is elected by a similarly slim electoral college win and everyone, including Biden himself, thinks he was elected to re-make the world in his image. How did that work out? I agree with you, we should all abide by the maxim that we should never take more power than we would give our enemies. Problem is, Democrats don't actually believe their enemies should ever be allowed to have power. And thus we are here. If one side wins by the rules but doesn't get to govern within them, then maybe next time they win they'll just ignore them all together? Sorry, I don't take this argument sincerely when it's only applied to Trump, when the same people yelping now spent the last 15 years arguing that the Constitution was a hopelessly flawed document tainted from the beginning by evil and thus should be given as little reference or reverence as possible. Again, I have far more disdain for the people who thought that the power was theirs by right of being right. But unfortunately, the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. I guess I wasn't clear, I thought I was, I don't think the Dems never did this. What is new with Trump is the magnitude, frequency and so on. Did any president before Trump have this many court challenges, and losing them by his own parties judges, in this short of time? Of course not. Trump is trying to blow wide open the loop holes that other presidents snuck a couple things past. You are never going to return, and really you shouldn't want to. You need to close the loop holes for everyone. Because well you feel really cool at sticking it to the libs right now, it is not going to feel great when it comes back. Progressive's are going to get their own populist version of Trump. And at some point during the back and forth the president is going to have all the power and then you will be fucked. And it won't much matter which team wins, because all the people lose in dictatorships 100% of the time, no matter their branding. The final paragraph is exactly the thing I've been trying to tell people for years, it's part of what I as saying arguing about DACA all that time ago. I'm telling you that your warning, seemingly convenient now that it's a Republican pushing the boundaries, is falling on deaf ears because A) it's inconsistently applied, and B) there is the belief that when you win you get to govern. Is it ignoring the rules when playing Monopoly when one player has to pay double price for all properties? There is a deep imbalance within the government itself that Trump is now trying to blow up. There's a similar problem in the judiciary right now. People have to be allowed to govern when they win. Democrats don't have any problem with that, and when they get legislative pushback (i.e. immigration during Obama's term) or cheering from the media (high student loan forgiveness) they are supported in their novel uses of executive power. I'm just saying that maybe rather just looking forward with your new found insight you should apply it backwards as well and try to figure out how we got here. When that happens maybe your "hey guys maybe we should think about this" will be taken more seriously. You are totally missing my point because you are so excited that now your team is getting them back but even harder. And you don't seem to realize that the next guy is going to do the same thing back, and then again. Until you no longer have a democracy. And people like you on both sides are going to be cheering and celebrating their guy the whole way. This should be a bi partisan issue, the initiative is on the Republicans because they have the power. I'll be saying this to the Dems if they regain power. But like you they will likely want their pound of flesh and not notice the obvious to everyone outside the country derogation of democracy and open corruption. No, I get it perfectly well. I think it's actually you and others who are now complaining who don't get it. I think this because the complaining is always one sided. If a Democrat here or elsewhere complained about a Democratic president's overreach ever it would be the first time. It should be a bipartisan issue. You don't need me to list all of Trump's boundary pushing, but there is not even a hint of disconcertion going the other way. That's why I'm focusing on this the way I am. See, I doubt this. It would be completely out of character for Dems. I can't remember it ever happening here, even once. I am worried, but I am not going to play this game. I will not assume good faith on the part of Democrats wrt this issue. It has not been earned.
a party wholly in the grasp of one of the greatest grifter families that ever lived, basically neutered by removing internal critics - every day until they get expelled - asking for bona fides. the Clintons are amateurs in comparison, the Bidens close to sainthood.
reciprocality is the key word here. trust is earned and you build a balance over time, however limited in a business as dirty as politics.
and your party is deep in the red. your unwillingness in recognizing or rather facing... it basically cements your fate and(maybe your country's) as Trump's to do as he pleases. in all likelihood abuse greater than any Democrat ever could.
you and your party need to get a reality check the coming midterms to get shaken out of your misplaced loyalty/partisanship stupor.
that's if it will even be possible once they are done concocting crises out of thin air and other schemes to avoid accountability at the polls. and what Trump has done all his life is to avoid accountability at any price.
|
On September 08 2025 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2025 08:34 WombaT wrote:On September 08 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2025 05:12 LightSpectra wrote:
SCOTUS said police have no obligation to keep people safe and they have no obligation to actually understand the laws they're supposed to enforce. They're mostly just a state cartel that the rich use to threaten unions and left-wing protesters. That's pretty much what they've always been in the North (along with protecting rich people's property), and mostly slave catchers in the South. Most people have no real grasp of how police function now or historically. Can thank inordinate amounts of copaganda being everywhere for that. Also, as the Chicago (continuous Democrat control for a ~century) example demonstrates (and several other Democrat controlled cities), this is a bipartisan multigenerational problem. Abolish ICE and take the police and prisons with them imo. Or you know, people can keep bargaining with the fascists about who they're willing to throw into the concentration/prison camps as long as the fascists let those willing to bargain with them keep mocking and gawking from the outside. Abolish the police and prisons and replace them with what exactly? Or are you talking about a radical reform where those institutions as they exist are dissolved, but replaced with some kind of replacement that fulfils the same function? Happy cake day by the way! Thank you! A variety of investments, services, and institutions that would fulfil the functions people actually want/need, as opposed to what police and prisons currently perform. Which again, are and always have been about protecting wealthy people and "their" stuff from the workers they extract it from through intimidation and violence. Police and prison have never been intended or designed to address crime/violence in the ways copaganda and people's imaginations have credited to them. If people really comprehended how bad cops/prisons are at the things they imagine they are needed for, they'd immediately realize what an incomprehensible waste of resources they are.
I'm of the opinion that many American prisons do exactly what they're intended to do: punish. Many Americans have a strong tendency to prefer punishment over justice. What do people think is the reason that the death penalty still exists while Western Europe has abandoned the practice? It's punishment, not justice. That becomes even more clear when you look at the cases that receive the death penalty. It is also estimated that a non-negligible fraction of people on death row are innocent, still. This is in part because of an over-reliance on evidence presented in court (which is not foolproof), but also, and more importantly, a desire to permanently get rid of undesirables as a form of punishment. America doesn't kill them in silence and behind curtains, the death row inmates are presented to an audience during the injection process. It's unbelievably cruel, and it's being justified as a form of revenge, not as justice.
|
On September 08 2025 13:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2025 12:42 LightSpectra wrote:If a Democrat here or elsewhere complained about a Democratic president's overreach ever it would be the first time. Obama, NSA PRISM leaks. Widespread outcry from Democrats about the illegality and ethical violations of mass surveillance. Ring a bell? I have been trying to keep replies limited since I don't want to get too bogged down atm but since you provided a specific example... I recall criticism of him being pretty muted and more directed at the program itself and the law that purportedly authorized it. I certainly don't recall it being a story of executive overreach but perhaps *government overreach*. At best I recall Obama getting a little flack for not *ending* it. But if you would like that as your example go ahead. I'm not talking here about criticism of Democratic presidents at all, though it's always more muted. I'm talking about a particular category. Prism didn't even start in the Obama admin. But I'll take your example for what it's worth.
Obama was derided as "the Drone king" by large segments of the left. He faced a ton of criticism over his handling of the Crimea, he had a ton o push-back and actually asked congress to go in to Syria, who do you think was doing this pressure?
Durbin, Pelosi and Schumer all expressed their push-back on DACA not by opposing its goals, but by relentlessly demanding a permanent legislative solution. They used their positions and political tactics to pressure Congress to pass a law that would offer a real, lasting fix, rather than relying on an executive action that could be so easily undone.
You are so unbelievably partisan that you are using something where Obama had resistance from party leadership to attack him...
None of that is happening with Trump, but just like your partisanship makes you remember DACA differently you have no problems with Trump killing people in Venezuela and JD Vance saying he doesn't give a shit, signing 200 executive orders and a whole slew of other insane shit like calling troops to cities "because Democrats".
Yuck.
|
On September 08 2025 12:42 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +If a Democrat here or elsewhere complained about a Democratic president's overreach ever it would be the first time. Obama, NSA PRISM leaks. Widespread outcry from Democrats about the illegality and ethical violations of mass surveillance. Ring a bell?
Obama was also widely criticized (all across the board, not just on the right) for being the Deporter-In-Chief:
"President Barack Obama has lost the nation’s largest Latino advocacy organization. The National Council of La Raza is set to declare Obama “the deporter-in-chief” and demand that he take unilateral action to stop deportations. NCLR, the nation’s largest Latino advocacy organization, had been the last significant progressive grass-roots immigration-reform organization publicly defending the White House immigration stance. NCLR President Janet Murguía will on Tuesday night demand Obama put a halt to his administration’s deportations. “For the president, I think his legacy is at stake here,” Murguía said in an interview in advance of NCLR’s annual Capital Awards dinner, where she will deliver a speech lambasting Obama’s deportation policy. “We consider him the deportation president, or the deporter-in-chief.”"
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/national-council-of-la-raza-janet-murguia-barack-obama-deporter-in-chief-immigration-104217
|
On September 08 2025 13:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2025 12:42 LightSpectra wrote:If a Democrat here or elsewhere complained about a Democratic president's overreach ever it would be the first time. Obama, NSA PRISM leaks. Widespread outcry from Democrats about the illegality and ethical violations of mass surveillance. Ring a bell? I recall criticism of him being pretty muted and more directed at the program itself and the law that purportedly authorized it.
How convenient for your memory to fail you when you can easily Google something that debunks your entire thesis.
|
On September 08 2025 21:34 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2025 13:10 Introvert wrote:On September 08 2025 12:42 LightSpectra wrote:If a Democrat here or elsewhere complained about a Democratic president's overreach ever it would be the first time. Obama, NSA PRISM leaks. Widespread outcry from Democrats about the illegality and ethical violations of mass surveillance. Ring a bell? I recall criticism of him being pretty muted and more directed at the program itself and the law that purportedly authorized it. How convenient for your memory to fail you when you can easily Google something that debunks your entire thesis.
Fox news was probably too busy shouting about Dijon Moustard or the color of Obamas clothes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
