|
|
|
Charges: Boogaloo Bois fired on Minneapolis police precinct, shouted 'Justice for Floyd'
In the wake of protests following the May 25 killing of George Floyd, a member of the “Boogaloo Bois” opened fire on Minneapolis Police Third Precinct with an AK-47-style gun and screamed “Justice for Floyd” as he ran away, according to a federal complaint made public Friday.
A sworn affidavit by the FBI underlying the complaint reveals new details about a far-right anti-government group’s coordinated role in the violence that roiled through civil unrest over Floyd’s death while in police custody.
Ivan Harrison Hunter, a 26-year-old from Boerne, Texas, is charged with one count of interstate travel to incite a riot for his alleged role in ramping up violence during the protests in Minneapolis on May 27 and 28. According to charges, Hunter, wearing a skull mask and tactical gear, shot 13 rounds at the south Minneapolis police headquarters while people were inside. He also looted and helped set the building ablaze, according to the complaint, which was filed Monday under seal.
https://www.startribune.com/charges-boogaloo-bois-fired-on-mpls-precinct-shouted-justice-for-floyd/572843802/
|
On October 24 2020 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs. Are you under the impression that refutes rather than supports his point? I am hypocritical because the status quo is personally comfortable to me because I have personally no stakes in US politics. That makes perfect sense. You guys need to get your ad hominem together. You forgot to call me racist by the way, I'm disappointed.
Evidently you do seem to have some stake in it by virtue of being consistently interested in chiming in with an opinion on the whole matter. Being in Norway insulates you from some of the consequences of what happens in the US, true, but so does being well-off in the US itself.
You call someone out for ignoring the situation of others unlike himself, saying that “we” have to act in their best interests, but you’re not a hypocrite because you’re similarly insulated from the negative consequences that you choose to ignore in pursuit of your own obvious self interest? GH is right, that’s exactly what hypocrisy looks like.
|
On October 24 2020 03:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Trump supporters also claim $28 billion to farmers isn't socialist.
Well, of course. Everyone knows that things are only socialist government handouts when it's given to groups you don't like. Everyone else is receiving government assistance and are hardworking Americans that are integral to society.
|
On October 24 2020 01:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden. It's almost exclusively the affluent white (/white adjacent) liberals. Speaking on their behalf (and usually over them when they disagree). Don't the numbers show the opposite. That Biden has much better support than Bernie with Black people? And that Bernie's support is mostly made of educated white people?
Correct, this is why South Carolina happened
|
On October 24 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden. It's almost exclusively the affluent white (/white adjacent) liberals. Speaking on their behalf (and usually over them when they disagree).
Gonna have to second JimmiC's comments and say that this seems like you're trying to project your desired reality to justify your stance on the issue.
Not only does Biden have much stronger minority support than Bernie or Warren did, but almost every BIPOC or LGBTQ+ individual in my social circles (which have been made very large due to the intersection of the military, three post-secondary institutions, and the national jazz dancing/music scene) are aggressively pushing people to vote for Biden in a "lesser of two evils" manner.
They're also the ones that tend to make the most personal appeals about the issue (e.g. "as an XXX person, not voting for Biden affects me personally").
|
|
|
On October 24 2020 03:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs. Are you under the impression that refutes rather than supports his point? I am hypocritical because the status quo is personally comfortable to me because I have personally no stakes in US politics. That makes perfect sense. You guys need to get your ad hominem together. You forgot to call me racist by the way, I'm disappointed. Evidently you do seem to have some stake in it by virtue of being consistently interested in chiming in with an opinion on the whole matter. Being in Norway insulates you from some of the consequences of what happens in the US, true, but so does being well-off in the US itself. You call someone out for ignoring the situation of others unlike himself, saying that “we” have to act in their best interests, but you’re not a hypocrite because you’re similarly insulated from the negative consequences that you choose to ignore in pursuit of your own obvious self interest? GH is right, that’s exactly what hypocrisy looks like.
I am interested in the conversation and in politics in general. There is no self interest at stake here. What's your point?
It just makes me laugh that someone who takes constantly the moral high ground and attacks rather viciously anyone who doesn't join him there completely disregard the actual consequences of his position on actual people.
I have no problem with armchair revolutionaries and talks about the Communist Paradise that is definitely going to happen, as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. And don't pretend that you care about the environment if you refuse to chose between an administration taking very big steps in the right direction and one destroying decades of efforts. You don't.
I was a Starbuck communist myself. I stopped when I realize it is not all about me, my purity, my revolt, my ideas, but about guys somewhere, that I would never meet, who are about to lose their health insurance.
|
On October 24 2020 06:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden. It's almost exclusively the affluent white (/white adjacent) liberals. Speaking on their behalf (and usually over them when they disagree). Gonna have to second JimmiC's comments and say that this seems like you're trying to project your desired reality to justify your stance on the issue. Not only does Biden have much stronger minority support than Bernie or Warren did, but almost every BIPOC or LGBTQ+ individual in my social circles (which have been made very large due to the intersection of the military, three post-secondary institutions, and the national jazz dancing/music scene) are aggressively pushing people to vote for Biden in a "lesser of two evils" manner. They're also the ones that tend to make the most personal appeals about the issue (e.g. "as an XXX person, not voting for Biden affects me personally").
It's important to read what I said.
It's not oppressed younger Black folks trying to shame people into supporting Biden.
It wasn't about popularity?
But among the younger Black folks I was referencing (not older, Black, more conservative Dem primary voters) Bernie Sanders Is Three Times More Popular Than Joe Biden Among Young Black Voters
Starbucks communists are white btw Biff. American's know Black people get arrested for hanging out at Starbucks.
|
On October 24 2020 07:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 03:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs. Are you under the impression that refutes rather than supports his point? I am hypocritical because the status quo is personally comfortable to me because I have personally no stakes in US politics. That makes perfect sense. You guys need to get your ad hominem together. You forgot to call me racist by the way, I'm disappointed. Evidently you do seem to have some stake in it by virtue of being consistently interested in chiming in with an opinion on the whole matter. Being in Norway insulates you from some of the consequences of what happens in the US, true, but so does being well-off in the US itself. You call someone out for ignoring the situation of others unlike himself, saying that “we” have to act in their best interests, but you’re not a hypocrite because you’re similarly insulated from the negative consequences that you choose to ignore in pursuit of your own obvious self interest? GH is right, that’s exactly what hypocrisy looks like. I am interested in the conversation and in politics in general. There is no self interest at stake here. What's your point? It just makes me laugh that someone who takes constantly the moral high ground and attacks rather viciously anyone who doesn't join him there completely disregard the actual consequences of his position on actual people. I have no problem with armchair revolutionaries and talks about the Communist Paradise that is definitely going to happen, as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. And don't pretend that you care about the environment if you refuse to chose between an administration taking very big steps in the right direction and one destroying decades of efforts. You don't. I was a Starbuck communist myself. I stopped when I realize it is not all about me, my purity, my revolt, my ideas, but about guys somewhere, that I would never meet, who are about to lose their health insurance.
It's kind of impressive that communism used to appeal to someone like you, btw.
|
|
|
as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled.
Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past).
So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and for it to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny.
The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works.
|
|
|
On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started.
What exactly do you mean by this?
|
|
|
On October 24 2020 08:52 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 08:51 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress.
Ahh thought you were alluding to packing the courts
|
|
|
On October 24 2020 07:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 03:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2020 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs. Are you under the impression that refutes rather than supports his point? I am hypocritical because the status quo is personally comfortable to me because I have personally no stakes in US politics. That makes perfect sense. You guys need to get your ad hominem together. You forgot to call me racist by the way, I'm disappointed. Evidently you do seem to have some stake in it by virtue of being consistently interested in chiming in with an opinion on the whole matter. Being in Norway insulates you from some of the consequences of what happens in the US, true, but so does being well-off in the US itself. You call someone out for ignoring the situation of others unlike himself, saying that “we” have to act in their best interests, but you’re not a hypocrite because you’re similarly insulated from the negative consequences that you choose to ignore in pursuit of your own obvious self interest? GH is right, that’s exactly what hypocrisy looks like. I am interested in the conversation and in politics in general. There is no self interest at stake here. What's your point? It just makes me laugh that someone who takes constantly the moral high ground and attacks rather viciously anyone who doesn't join him there completely disregard the actual consequences of his position on actual people. I have no problem with armchair revolutionaries and talks about the Communist Paradise that is definitely going to happen, as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. And don't pretend that you care about the environment if you refuse to chose between an administration taking very big steps in the right direction and one destroying decades of efforts. You don't. I was a Starbuck communist myself. I stopped when I realize it is not all about me, my purity, my revolt, my ideas, but about guys somewhere, that I would never meet, who are about to lose their health insurance.
Well I'm glad that armchair faux pragmatism works better for you than armchair communism. To each their own.
My point was quite simple: that your entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. You called out Zambrah for being short-sighted for not rallying around the Democrats by virtue of their lack of commitment to meaningful change, and yet your entire argument is an exercise in short-termism that lionizes the "successes" of the Democrats and fails to highlight their failure. No, the fact that you don't live in the US doesn't change that, nor does it make it any less true that the whole line of thought aligns really conveniently well with your obvious comfort with only very minor variations on the status quo sans Trump.
From what I've seen you're not really one for perspectives contrary to your own, but let's break down a few of the things you mentioned in passing about why Democrats are so necessary:
1. Obamacare/ACA. Previously you'd said that you should support Democrats if you want universal healthcare, but that line has since been dropped since it was accurately pointed out that Democrats are the ones who killed any line of support for universal healthcare. Instead they have this system, created by conservatives and implemented as such (e.g. by Romney in Massachusetts) that maintains the worst aspects of an insurance-based system while masquerading as a solution. Sure, it expands healthcare coverage for some, but fails to improve efficiency in care, leaves many with "coverage" that will do whatever it can to weasel out of paying a dime the moment that there's an expensive emergency (I know many people who had this happen), and generally makes coverage worse for everyone who already had it with a really problematic "individual mandate" that did little more than raise the price of everyone's insurance. Well I don't agree with him on much, but you'll find a lot of people on all sides that will agree that Trump did the right thing by doing away with that.
2. Gay marriage. Well I suppose you could say the Democrats supported that. I mean, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton only did so when it became a popular position, and never when it would've been an unpopular but important idealistic choice, but I suppose that by 2016 they were on the "right side" of that issue. Maybe a couple decades from now they'll be the flag-bearer-in-hindsight of a currently unpopular group facing social injustice. GH certainly could say a thing or two on that one.
3. Abortion. GH's comment is solid on that one.
4. The environment. My post from a few months back will suffice as my commentary on that one.
Color me underwhelmed with this supposedly gigantic difference that separates the Democrats from the Republicans. All I see is an argument for short-termism masquerading as pragmatism. Hardly a position from which it's justified to call anyone else out for being short-sighted.
|
What exactly do you mean by this?
Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress.
Not sure if this is helpful, but just as an FYI, congress is made up of 2 branches, Senate and the house of representatives. So it is either Congress, or the senate and house.
Just a random aside, seeing Trudeau on tv with long messy hair has made me feel a lot better about my own. (scared to go to the barber because of corona). Probably not as important as health care, racial justice, ect, but it helped me personally so he has my support. On a more serious note, I feel he did it deliberately to show it is ok that some things are going to shit like not being able to get a haircut. Which in my mind is super cool.
|
2. Gay marriage. Well I suppose you could say the Democrats supported that. I mean, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton only did so when it became a popular position, and never when it would've been an unpopular but important idealistic choice, but I suppose that by 2016 they were on the "right side" of that issue. Maybe a couple decades from now they'll be the flag-bearer-in-hindsight of a currently unpopular group facing social injustice. GH certainly could say a thing or two on that one.
This is true, but it is better than the Republican side of opposing it despite being popular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
