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.
On August 02 2024 20:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Another Biden-Harris win: This administration recently recovered even more American hostages from Russia, which of course angered Donald Trump. Both Biden and Harris were part of the successful negotiation processes, and therefore they both deserve credit. (The first half of this video elaborates more on this topic, while the second half of the video goes into more detail about how conservatives - even Fox News correspondents - admit that "Trump sabotaged the border bill" and that when it comes to perpetuating the border crisis, many Republicans realize "that's on Donald Trump, not Democrats".) + Show Spoiler +
Pretty controversial deal and an unfortunate win for Putin imho. We threw an actual 100% guilty, lawfully convicted murderer/FSB assassin in there.
Yeah, it is kinda sad how extortionable western countries are.
We should just state "Don't go to Russia, it is a corrupt criminal country, and we will not negotiate for your release if Putin takes you as hostages". And then just stick to that.
Whoever still goes to Russia is an idiot, and we shouldn't be trading them for Russian infiltrators and assassins. As long as we reward Russia for taking hostages, they will keep on taking hostages.
The guy came from Russia to Germany to murder a russian dissident on FSB orders, did that, and got caught. And now we just release him back to Russia in exchange for some morons who thought travelling to Russia would be a good idea. Not a fan of that.
On August 02 2024 07:51 NewSunshine wrote: It's not "promoting people for their skin color", and as long as you choose not to understand the difference, then yes, there's not much to discuss.
When someone says, for example, they are going to nominate a black woman to a vacant position, then yes, skin color is quite literally a prerequisite for the promotion. You can dress it up with all the feel good buzz words like diversity and inclusivity to obfuscate that blunt reality but at the end of the day if your melanin isn't at the right level you're shit out of luck. What part of that do you disagree with?
Why is that a problem but nominating a VP candidate who has a certain cachet with religious conservatives isn’t?
You’re ultimately just nominating a candidate who plays well with certain demographics right?
Yes, you are right. Pence was chosen by in part because he is an old white man to appeal to evangelical Christians.
Kamala Harris was chosen in part because of her race and gender.
I didn’t say one was okay and the other wasn’t. I’m just stating objectively true statements. If you’re looking for a double standard you should ask why one of those objectively true statements is considered racist and sexist and the other isn’t.
I think its pretty clear than whenever someone like Elon Musk screams about DEI this and DEI that, there is an implicit (and nowadays not even implicit) impliction that anyone picked through so-called DEI initiatives is completely incompetent.
You could just be a normal person and say Biden picked Harris to be his VP to shore up support with black and female voters. Because whether you like it or not, the phrase has been so poisioned by nerds on the internet who scream those three letters the minute they see Princess Peach in pants or black men becoming airline pilots. You can't really use DEI as a phrase without everyone looking at you weird because the only people practically using these words nowadays are the same people who conducted online phrenology studies on black airline pilots on Twitter.
DEI might have a future in the garbage pile of weaponized terms. DEI would be in good company: incel, pick me girl, maga, fake news, sjw, woke... Even "racism", "feminism" and "truth" are in danger of going there.
I find it very interesting how the US political discourse is so tightly connected to the power of defining words. For some terms, their meanings change so much between different users, I think it is better to avoid them all together.
You have to remember that through the power of definitions the creators of the US were able to rally people to war behind the idea that:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
While committing genocide against Indigenous men and enslaving Black men that they (to this day, still) deny those "unalienable Rights".
On August 02 2024 22:37 NewSunshine wrote: I'm hopeful for the day when Trump isn't this big fucking orange stain on American politics anymore. Like, whether he dies at some point or whether he just goes and crawls into a golden nursing home and hops into a golden shower, I can't wait. How much toxicity is directly because of him, and people who are following his lead? What happens when those people no longer have his lead to go by? I bet a good number of them are cowards who will try to shrink back into normalcy and hope we don't remember what they did.
I know this is a bit of a non-sequitir. Carry on.
I mean, are you going to let them shrink back into normalcy or are you going to harp on them having supported Trump? Because it sounds like the latter but then 'those people' aren't going to be 'rejoining civilized society' or whatnot.
I mean people in his admin who happily lied for power or people who tried to orchestrate a coup or whatever, sure, you don't have to forgive and forget there. But the 74 million people who voted for him in 2020 isn't some group you can hope to enact revenge upon, if you want society to move forward anyway.
On August 02 2024 22:37 NewSunshine wrote: I'm hopeful for the day when Trump isn't this big fucking orange stain on American politics anymore. Like, whether he dies at some point or whether he just goes and crawls into a golden nursing home and hops into a golden shower, I can't wait. How much toxicity is directly because of him, and people who are following his lead? What happens when those people no longer have his lead to go by? I bet a good number of them are cowards who will try to shrink back into normalcy and hope we don't remember what they did.
I know this is a bit of a non-sequitir. Carry on.
I mean, are you going to let them shrink back into normalcy or are you going to harp on them having supported Trump? Because it sounds like the latter but then 'those people' aren't going to be 'rejoining civilized society' or whatnot.
I mean people in his admin who happily lied for power or people who tried to orchestrate a coup or whatever, sure, you don't have to forgive and forget there. But the 74 million people who voted for him in 2020 isn't some group you can hope to enact revenge upon, if you want society to move forward anyway.
Im ok for society to move forward with his voters in 2020. Kind of hard to forgive his voters now. I still can do it though. Im not quite sure about forgiving the person several houses down who has about 40 trump flags/signs in their yard and all over their cars. Also included in the signs are not so overt threats with the second amendment and guns.
Theres also a guy on my drive to work who had a 15 foot flag up on the side of his house on a busy street that said "Trump 2024 FUCK your feelings". Hard to forgive that guy too.
On August 02 2024 22:37 NewSunshine wrote: I'm hopeful for the day when Trump isn't this big fucking orange stain on American politics anymore. Like, whether he dies at some point or whether he just goes and crawls into a golden nursing home and hops into a golden shower, I can't wait. How much toxicity is directly because of him, and people who are following his lead? What happens when those people no longer have his lead to go by? I bet a good number of them are cowards who will try to shrink back into normalcy and hope we don't remember what they did.
I know this is a bit of a non-sequitir. Carry on.
I mean, are you going to let them shrink back into normalcy or are you going to harp on them having supported Trump? Because it sounds like the latter but then 'those people' aren't going to be 'rejoining civilized society' or whatnot.
I mean people in his admin who happily lied for power or people who tried to orchestrate a coup or whatever, sure, you don't have to forgive and forget there. But the 74 million people who voted for him in 2020 isn't some group you can hope to enact revenge upon, if you want society to move forward anyway.
I'm not looking for revenge. This just needs to be something that people remember, that even in the stilted form it takes in the US, that Democracy is hanging by a thread and is under active attack. The majority of Republicans now hold Democracy in active contempt, because it's an obstacle between them and the power they seek. The only reason Trump didn't steal the 2020 election is because Mike Pence of all people stopped the plan at the final possible moment. It was that close.
But I also understand the difference between the people doing these things, and the people who vote for them. I don't get it. I don't think I ever will get voting for people who just promise hatred and division. But I get that there's a difference between being someone who watches Fox News and being someone who works for Fox News. We could eject Rupert Murdoch into space and be much better for it. But there are people I still manage to care about despite them watching Fox News.
I want the rash, which the right wing keeps agitating, to have a chance to heal. People can't always be in one war or another. If you listen to the way they talk, everything is a war. "We're outnumbered. We're being invaded. We need to save America. Your commie enemies hate America. We're being replaced. Fight the culture war." And on and on it goes. I'm sick of everything being a war because it's convenient for the people making the grab for power. It's exhausting.
I'm going to remind people when they try to forget. Revenge happens at the polls, it happens in the good faith and trust that you burn. And in the meantime, if we take notes from the British and apply the occasional milkshake to the assholes who try to take this country for a ride, I'm not gonna be mad about it.
On August 02 2024 20:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Another Biden-Harris win: This administration recently recovered even more American hostages from Russia, which of course angered Donald Trump. Both Biden and Harris were part of the successful negotiation processes, and therefore they both deserve credit. (The first half of this video elaborates more on this topic, while the second half of the video goes into more detail about how conservatives - even Fox News correspondents - admit that "Trump sabotaged the border bill" and that when it comes to perpetuating the border crisis, many Republicans realize "that's on Donald Trump, not Democrats".)
But they had to give up a known Russian spy/ murderer for it. Trump surely finds a way to turn that around
Yeah, the goalposts will always be moved. Trump went from "Biden and Harris could never do this" to "Okay they did this, but I toooootally could have done it better!" It's the usual unfalsifiable pivot.
He could have done it better. But he didn't. He was President for 4 years while a bunch of these were in prison and he didn't.
I find this factually lacking. Of the 16 prisoners, of whom 3 were Americans, to the best of my knowledge nobody other than Whelan was detained before the Biden administration. Many of them are other European nationals convicted ostensibly at least for espionage stuff related to the war. This makes Biden's beautiful mic drop moment at the beginning look like little more than a dementia misfiring reactionary comeback that's leftover in his head from his debate prep - not physically possible for Drumpf to have freed people who weren't prisoners when he was president. In a fitting context it would have been a great line. I could be wrong if I have misread or missed a couple, please let me know as there weren't direct sources on this question besides doing the research ourselves, but not to the degree we could say a majority or really even "bunch" were in prison I think.
Drumpf's own statements, which you can find here, rather than Brian Tyler Cohen's attempted psychic soul-reading of what he wants people to believe Drumpf thinks, are as usual nuanced and balanced if you actually read them:
We got somebody back so I'm never going to be challenging that
This deal that was made today, I think it's wonderful that Evan's coming back, I think it's great.
He goes on to say the details are still coming out, it was a bad deal because Putin got some "real killers" back, it was a phenomenal deal from Putin's perspective, it never would have been needed to begin with if he was President, he would have gotten them back without having to pay anything, Biden paid too much, it sets a bad precedent for future negotiations.
On August 02 2024 22:37 NewSunshine wrote: I'm hopeful for the day when Trump isn't this big fucking orange stain on American politics anymore. Like, whether he dies at some point or whether he just goes and crawls into a golden nursing home and hops into a golden shower, I can't wait. How much toxicity is directly because of him, and people who are following his lead? What happens when those people no longer have his lead to go by? I bet a good number of them are cowards who will try to shrink back into normalcy and hope we don't remember what they did.
I know this is a bit of a non-sequitir. Carry on.
I mean, are you going to let them shrink back into normalcy or are you going to harp on them having supported Trump? Because it sounds like the latter but then 'those people' aren't going to be 'rejoining civilized society' or whatnot.
I mean people in his admin who happily lied for power or people who tried to orchestrate a coup or whatever, sure, you don't have to forgive and forget there. But the 74 million people who voted for him in 2020 isn't some group you can hope to enact revenge upon, if you want society to move forward anyway.
Worth noting that the question of whether and how to exact vengeance upon the half of the country that did an awful thing is a long standing historic trend in the US. One could say its lack of resolution post-Civil War is a big part of how the US got to where it is today.
The guy who killed another guy in Berlin is more like the dudes who press the buttons on the predator-drone controls to launch a missle to kill some dude(s) in some country.
Zelimkhan Sultanovich Khangoshvili - the guy who was shot - wasn't granted asylum in german for his ties to islamic terrorists... the very same connections which made the western intelligence community finding interest with Khangoshvili and use him as possible agent/source to stir/get info on unrest within russian federation
In a sense of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" this was "our" guy.. yet german government severely fumbled his protection and maybe even got him killed.
Anyway, the russian agent who shot him.. may be a cold blooded murderer.. but so are the guys who shot BinLaden in his compound in pakistan. It was their job, and there wasn't a judge, or trial.. just PEW PEW.
Is shooting terrorists okay?..seems to depend on who is the one allowed to name what a terrorist is.
I am rather happy with the exchange... you got 16 people for 10.. and the guys leaving russia aren't actual murderers.
Edit:
Trump's team caused a delay in the NABJ event, not letting trump on stage without NABJ agreeing to not have any fact checking on stage or afterwards.
As they prepared to cancel the interview, trump suddenly took the stage.. blaming NABJ for technical problems with sound equipment.
On August 03 2024 06:23 KT_Elwood wrote: Outside view:
The guy who killed another guy in Berlin is more like the dudes who press the buttons on the predator-drone controls to launch a missle to kill some dude(s) in some country.
Zelimkhan Sultanovich Khangoshvili - the guy who was shot - wasn't granted asylum in german for his ties to islamic terrorists... the very same connections which made the western intelligence community finding interest with Khangoshvili and use him as possible agent/source to stir/get info on unrest within russian federation
In a sense of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" this was "our" guy.. yet german government severely fumbled his protection and maybe even got him killed.
Anyway, the russian agent who shot him.. may be a cold blooded murderer.. but so are the guys who shot BinLaden in his compound in pakistan. It was their job, and there wasn't a judge, or trial.. just PEW PEW.
Is shooting terrorists okay?..seems to depend on who is the one allowed to name what a terrorist is.
I am rather happy with the exchange... you got 16 people for 10.. and the guys leaving russia aren't actual murderers.
I think the point is that western countries should very, very much not like it when Russia decides that someone in their country should be killed. I think it is less about who names the person a terrorist, and more about where the killing happens. States should have a monopoly on violence, or a lot of stuff doesn't work very well anymore. Foreign states assassinating people in your country is very bad news for the believability of that monopoly on violence. It also means that you are a lot less believable when trying to convince Russian agents to defect in the future, or when promising asylum to Russians who don't want to be part of a criminal war.
However, I also don't really trust Russias decision on who is a terrorist and who is not.
Edit:
Trump's team caused a delay in the NABJ event, not letting trump on stage without NABJ agreeing to not have any fact checking on stage or afterwards.
As they prepared to cancel the interview, trump suddenly took the stage.. blaming NABJ for technical problems with sound equipment.
Lol. Of course, this could be stated to be a "he said, she said" thing, but since Trump and his whole group of people have basically negative credibility due to the constant lying and bullshitting...
I also like how angry Trump seems to be about live fact checking. So that seems to be working, and should be a prerequisite for any sane TV channel hosting Trump. And by all means, do the same to democrats/Harris too. Though i guess that would be less problematic.
On August 03 2024 06:23 KT_Elwood wrote: Outside view:
The guy who killed another guy in Berlin is more like the dudes who press the buttons on the predator-drone controls to launch a missle to kill some dude(s) in some country.
Zelimkhan Sultanovich Khangoshvili - the guy who was shot - wasn't granted asylum in german for his ties to islamic terrorists... the very same connections which made the western intelligence community finding interest with Khangoshvili and use him as possible agent/source to stir/get info on unrest within russian federation
In a sense of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" this was "our" guy.. yet german government severely fumbled his protection and maybe even got him killed.
Anyway, the russian agent who shot him.. may be a cold blooded murderer.. but so are the guys who shot BinLaden in his compound in pakistan. It was their job, and there wasn't a judge, or trial.. just PEW PEW.
Is shooting terrorists okay?..seems to depend on who is the one allowed to name what a terrorist is.
I am rather happy with the exchange... you got 16 people for 10.. and the guys leaving russia aren't actual murderers.
I think the point is that western countries should very, very much not like it when Russia decides that someone in their country should be killed. I think it is less about who names the person a terrorist, and more about where the killing happens. States should have a monopoly on violence, or a lot of stuff doesn't work very well anymore. Foreign states assassinating people in your country is very bad news for the believability of that monopoly on violence. It also means that you are a lot less believable when trying to convince Russian agents to defect in the future, or when promising asylum to Russians who don't want to be part of a criminal war.
However, I also don't really trust Russias decision on who is a terrorist and who is not.
Lol. Of course, this could be stated to be a "he said, she said" thing, but since Trump and his whole group of people have basically negative credibility due to the constant lying and bullshitting...
I also like how angry Trump seems to be about live fact checking. So that seems to be working, and should be a prerequisite for any sane TV channel hosting Trump. And by all means, do the same to democrats/Harris too. Though i guess that would be less problematic.
I'm sure folks are prepping a rationalization as we speak, as to why it's actually a good thing Trump refused to have fact checkers.
On August 03 2024 06:23 KT_Elwood wrote: Outside view:
The guy who killed another guy in Berlin is more like the dudes who press the buttons on the predator-drone controls to launch a missle to kill some dude(s) in some country.
Zelimkhan Sultanovich Khangoshvili - the guy who was shot - wasn't granted asylum in german for his ties to islamic terrorists... the very same connections which made the western intelligence community finding interest with Khangoshvili and use him as possible agent/source to stir/get info on unrest within russian federation
In a sense of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" this was "our" guy.. yet german government severely fumbled his protection and maybe even got him killed.
Anyway, the russian agent who shot him.. may be a cold blooded murderer.. but so are the guys who shot BinLaden in his compound in pakistan. It was their job, and there wasn't a judge, or trial.. just PEW PEW.
Is shooting terrorists okay?..seems to depend on who is the one allowed to name what a terrorist is.
I am rather happy with the exchange... you got 16 people for 10.. and the guys leaving russia aren't actual murderers.
I think the point is that western countries should very, very much not like it when Russia decides that someone in their country should be killed. I think it is less about who names the person a terrorist, and more about where the killing happens. States should have a monopoly on violence, or a lot of stuff doesn't work very well anymore. Foreign states assassinating people in your country is very bad news for the believability of that monopoly on violence. It also means that you are a lot less believable when trying to convince Russian agents to defect in the future, or when promising asylum to Russians who don't want to be part of a criminal war.
However, I also don't really trust Russias decision on who is a terrorist and who is not.
Edit:
Trump's team caused a delay in the NABJ event, not letting trump on stage without NABJ agreeing to not have any fact checking on stage or afterwards.
As they prepared to cancel the interview, trump suddenly took the stage.. blaming NABJ for technical problems with sound equipment.
Lol. Of course, this could be stated to be a "he said, she said" thing, but since Trump and his whole group of people have basically negative credibility due to the constant lying and bullshitting...
I also like how angry Trump seems to be about live fact checking. So that seems to be working, and should be a prerequisite for any sane TV channel hosting Trump. And by all means, do the same to democrats/Harris too. Though i guess that would be less problematic.
I'm sure folks are prepping a rationalization as we speak, as to why it's actually a good thing Trump refused to have fact checkers.
That’s an easy one; if the fact checkers aren’t vetted by Trump’s team in advance, they obviously have an agenda and are liars.
On August 02 2024 14:01 oBlade wrote: There's an issue conflating what people vote for here. Kamala was not voted to be running mate, nor was she voted to be vice president.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you cast your vote in a presidential election, aren't you voting for both the president and vice president?
No, you are voting for the combination, 99% of what matters actually being just the president. My mistake, I should have cleared up this confusion in the very next sentences or something before you asked it. For example, if you ask people to vote for soccer teams, and people vote for FC Barcelona, it doesn't mean Messi "got the same number of votes" as his teammate John Doe in any meaningful sense. Neither of them got any votes themselves, to be exact. The team got votes. But if one of them were to be considered the overwhelming motivator of votes, it wouldn't be John Doe. It would be Messi. Obviously.
On August 02 2024 14:01 oBlade wrote: I have never in my life seen an unironic DEI identity politicker say "we need more Christians."
Don't they? Didn't Trump explicitly say that he wanted to stop people coming from shithole countries and that we needed more immigrants from Norway?
I wouldn't consider Drumpf a DEI focused leader. That's already a non-starter. Nor would I consider immigrants from Norway like our dear own beloved Drone - presumably you're implying they're Christians? - coming to a majority Christian country, the US, to be more diverse than immigrants from shithole countries.
On August 02 2024 14:01 oBlade wrote: Nor did I see Drumpf's 2016 VP list saying "I've narrowed it down to 4 Evangelical Christians."
Didn't he? He stated that he needed to lock-in the evangelical vote because Trump's evangelical credentials were not good.
How would you imagine you'd go about locking in the evangelical vote if you are divorced, regularly cheat on your wives, etc.?
Where and when did he state that?
None of those are political issues any more than being black is a "credential" to get votes in Michigan. If I were a politician, I would do things that help the evangelicals or indeed anyvangelicals, on the assumption that they have to vote for somebody anyway, by simply being better than my opponent, and if they chose not to vote at all they could go fuck themselves because running a country should never be and hopefully still isn't a "vote for yourself" contest, or democracy is over.
You have pigeonholed how and why evangelicals vote, based on a meme characterization, I believe, as you probably aren't evangelical yourself. Maybe you or other groups you assume vote based on meaningless shit that doesn't matter like that, so you assume these nebulous "evangelicals" must do it also.
My understanding is Pence brought deeper social and basically bona fide conservatism, experience in government esp. Congress meaning he could help execute the president's agenda as president of the Senate. I don't think there was a significant group of people saying "I'm not gonna vote for this orange fucker unless there's at least one person on the ticket who hasn't been divorced." If you find someone who believes that, you can ask them about it yourself.
On August 02 2024 14:01 oBlade wrote: Many people keep throwing around this black box word "qualified." Thousands or millions of people are paper "qualified," but most of them are shit, and in fact voters repeatedly choose ones that are shit, even when they're purely trying to choose the best one per se, let alone when they're trying to pick one including reasons other than them not being shit. So they don't seem to need any help moving towards shit candidates.
Being qualified just means you meet a set of criteria which are deemed to be the bare minimum, i.e. essential, to carry out a particular job. This is relatively straightforward with something like 'chemistry laboratory technician' -- if they've finished their chemistry degree (or equivalent), they're 'qualified'.
It is harder with politicians. What would you say are the essential criteria for the job of 'president of the United States'?
If by essential you mean indispensable but basic, it would be something like one of either experience/familiarity managing large organization(s), familiarity/career in law, government, diplomacy, or other negotiation/business, or outstanding communication/leadership/charisma/intellect, or a unicorn like Harry Truman. Any of those would probably be sufficient to merit consideration.
But as you say and I agree with, this qualification business is obviously a moot point, this only lets you sort the first resumes, you then have to figure out who will be successful anyway. So if "look, qualified" isn't sufficient probably "look, qualified AND has an ethnicity" isn't sufficient either because the predicate goes without saying.
Thanks for responding.
The VP point: In that context, then nobody ever votes for the VP? I think I just didn't get your point here.
About Pence: It's a very fine distinction. Pences' convictions are never going to change, it's part of who he is -- so immutable for all intents and purposes. But I take your point, he could potentially have an experience that makes him question everything he ever believed in, but if almost getting murdered by your own supporters didn't do it, I'm not sure what would.
DEI: I'd argue that Trump is a very DEI-centered candidate. He is just aiming to reduce it rather than expand it.
Evangelicals: This is a population for whom morals and family are a core part of their Identity. Do you expect voters to put aside their core beliefs when voting for president? I mean, I don't see GH voting for any candidates that 'aid and abet genocide'.
Glad we agree the qualifications thing was just a red herring
On August 03 2024 12:05 Husyelt wrote: VP is Shapiro ffs no
Signs are pointing that way, though I don't think there's been an official announcement yet.
He's the best chance of beating Trump, as he locks in PA, even if I don't personally agree with him on everything he's done or all his political positions. Remember, the goal is to win the election.
The best part of the "Trump's runningmate, J.D. Vance, has sex with couches and other pieces of furniture" meme is all the clever puns that have emerged. From various sources:
1. J.D. Vance is anti-LGBTQ+, so people are calling him a "homo-sectional"; 2. "We asked J.D. Vance to comment about his favorite piece of furniture to have sex with, but he reclined to answer"; 3. "He's not just a one nightstand kind of guy"; 4. "Vance grabs 'em by the cushions"; 5. "When you find loose change in your couch, it's because J.D. Vance always leaves a tip"; 6. "Loose change in between the sofa cushions is J.D. Vance's hush money".
EPT
