|
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 December 09 2024 02:01 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 01:33 Vivax wrote:On December 08 2024 22:36 Magic Powers wrote:On December 08 2024 14:02 justanothertownie wrote:On December 08 2024 12:53 Magic Powers wrote:On December 08 2024 10:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:
At the end i feel we are always having the same discussion, which is whether or not it’s worth believing in liberal democracy, in the rule of law, in the very imperfect society we live in, or whether all bets are off, and we just go straight into civil war and violent revolution, where you win arguments by gunning down the baddies.
I hear that lots of us here believe that there is nothing to save in the current system. The question i have is whether any of you would be ready to face the consequences of the abandonment of every principles or societies are based upon. Because well. It’s very easy to talk Revolution on a gaming forum.
I personally still prefer to know that we are not ok with executing people in the street even when we think they are absolutely terrible. Because as Drone mentioned, many of us are probably on the kill list of someone. You took the plane too many times and ate quite a few too many steaks last year, you are destroying the planet, you gotta go. Or your girlfriend had an abortion. Or whatever some lunatic might find that makes you a criminal in their eyes.
America is super broken but honestly the first reason for it, before capitalism, corruption or corporate greed is its cult of violence. Want to make the country a better place, start by stopping to believe that murdering the bad guy is the way forward to build a better world. By letting murderous CEOs run corporations, we have already broken every principle of a functional society. We're not the ones breaking things, we're pointing out how broken things are and calling for change. You are, as usual, mistaking the symptom for the cause. You will not solve this by killing CEOs or regulating who gets to be one. A solution would be to change the bastardized health insurance system in the US. Even though that is a harder task than killing people in self-righteous anger and probably less gratifying to you. You are, as usual, mistaking the lack of tear-shedding for a mass murderer for the solution. You will not shame me by expressing no sympathy for a bloodthirsty for-profit serial killer or guilt-trip others mocking his death. You can keep your crocodile tears to yourself. There are also gun shop owners waiting for justice to be dished out. Cigarette companies. News outlets who invite imitators due to irresponsible reporting. Gotta execute em all according to society on social media. Like Batman, but with a picture of humanitarian Stalin on his chest. Or maybe society on social media is nuts. You don't have to execute all of them, just enough to let them know that people really are sick of the bullshit so they actually go and fix their shit.
Okay, Kim-Jong
|
These are 3 different jackets right?
Maybe even 3 different people?
|
If I was on a jury it would be easy to cast enough reasonable doubt that everyone in those pictures were different people.
They're going to need a lot more evidence that these guys they are looking for are the actual shooter than just these pictures if they want to actually convict them of anything.
|
On December 09 2024 02:48 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 01:02 oBlade wrote:On December 08 2024 22:49 Magic Powers wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between the CEO Brian Thompson and other CEOs who are exploiting people's labor or illegally speculating with people's money. They're not the same kinds of CEOs. They're literally not the same kinds of people.
Brian Thompson is practically the nurse who deliberately overdoses patients on a saline solution. You wouldn't shed a tear if that nurse got taken out in a crossfire by police. But for some reason you're shedding crocodile tears in the instance of Thompson-hit-the-cement who is literally equal to a serial killer nurse. Every insurance company denies claims. Thank you for admitting that the CEO was committing a lot of murders.
1) The fact that a claim is denied doesn't mean the person died without the thing that wasn't paid for.
2) The fact that a claim is denied doesn't mean the person didn't get the thing from a healthcare provider.
3) Providers in the US are legally obligated to give lifesaving care.
4) Now do all the claims they have approved and realize that as the biggest insurance provider by your ironclad logic they have saved more lives than anyone else. So you're cheering the execution of a 21st century Alexander Fleming. Whoopsie.
Ford is not murdering thousands of people, the fact that you can't come to grips with what it means to grow up and live in a free society where the government can't promise nothing bad will ever happen doesn't mean we're in a constant state of genocide, my esteemed Austrian colleague.
|
On December 09 2024 03:52 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 02:48 Magic Powers wrote:On December 09 2024 01:02 oBlade wrote:On December 08 2024 22:49 Magic Powers wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between the CEO Brian Thompson and other CEOs who are exploiting people's labor or illegally speculating with people's money. They're not the same kinds of CEOs. They're literally not the same kinds of people.
Brian Thompson is practically the nurse who deliberately overdoses patients on a saline solution. You wouldn't shed a tear if that nurse got taken out in a crossfire by police. But for some reason you're shedding crocodile tears in the instance of Thompson-hit-the-cement who is literally equal to a serial killer nurse. Every insurance company denies claims. Thank you for admitting that the CEO was committing a lot of murders. 1) The fact that a claim is denied doesn't mean the person died without the thing that wasn't paid for.2) The fact that a claim is denied doesn't mean the person didn't get the thing from a healthcare provider.3) Providers in the US are legally obligated to give lifesaving care. 4) Now do all the claims they have approved and realize that as the biggest insurance provider by your ironclad logic they have saved more lives than anyone else. So you're cheering the execution of a 21st century Alexander Fleming. Whoopsie. Ford is not murdering thousands of people, the fact that you can't come to grips with what it means to grow up and live in a free society where the government can't promise nothing bad will ever happen doesn't mean we're in a constant state of genocide, my esteemed Austrian colleague.
The insurance company denies (hence the word "deny") that the treatment is actually necessary and often life-saving. If they get sued they can simply win a court battle with a better team of lawyers than the bedridden person who's also literally broke. If the company loses the battle, they'll settle outside of court and call it a minor loss that was worth the fight. In the meantime the patient has already died or suffered extreme pain for a long time.
You've proven many times that you don't have the slightest clue how the US operates, and this is once again such an instance.
|
On December 09 2024 03:46 Vindicare605 wrote:
If I was on a jury it would be easy to cast enough reasonable doubt that everyone in those pictures were different people.
They're going to need a lot more evidence that these guys they are looking for are the actual shooter than just these pictures if they want to actually convict them of anything.
I'm sure they're spending 24/7 going through every frame of every recording to catch the assassin. Whatever it takes to uphold the law when it favors the rich. Can't have the poors punch up. Punching down is the only direction allowed. The punchdowners will get their way.
|
On December 09 2024 04:03 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 03:52 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 02:48 Magic Powers wrote:On December 09 2024 01:02 oBlade wrote:On December 08 2024 22:49 Magic Powers wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between the CEO Brian Thompson and other CEOs who are exploiting people's labor or illegally speculating with people's money. They're not the same kinds of CEOs. They're literally not the same kinds of people.
Brian Thompson is practically the nurse who deliberately overdoses patients on a saline solution. You wouldn't shed a tear if that nurse got taken out in a crossfire by police. But for some reason you're shedding crocodile tears in the instance of Thompson-hit-the-cement who is literally equal to a serial killer nurse. Every insurance company denies claims. Thank you for admitting that the CEO was committing a lot of murders. 1) The fact that a claim is denied doesn't mean the person died without the thing that wasn't paid for.2) The fact that a claim is denied doesn't mean the person didn't get the thing from a healthcare provider.3) Providers in the US are legally obligated to give lifesaving care. 4) Now do all the claims they have approved and realize that as the biggest insurance provider by your ironclad logic they have saved more lives than anyone else. So you're cheering the execution of a 21st century Alexander Fleming. Whoopsie. Ford is not murdering thousands of people, the fact that you can't come to grips with what it means to grow up and live in a free society where the government can't promise nothing bad will ever happen doesn't mean we're in a constant state of genocide, my esteemed Austrian colleague. The insurance company denies (hence the word "deny") that the treatment is actually necessary and often life-saving. If they get sued they can simply win a court battle with a better team of lawyers than the bedridden person who's also literally broke. If the company loses the battle, they'll settle outside of court and call it a minor loss that was worth the fight. In the meantime the patient has already died or suffered extreme pain for a long time. You've proven many times that you don't have the slightest clue how the US operates, and this is once again such an instance.
To anyone from the same continent reading this who's not embarrassingly mentally gone:
It's not true that in the US you have to wait for the insurance company's check to clear, or even for their approval, for every single thing a healthcare provider does to you. The systems can be complicated, which is its own problem, but it's not as described above. If anyone has a study explaining how many people each insurance company or each CEO has personally "mass murdered" they would do well to post it to move us back into the realm of reality rather than unhinged emotional innuendo. Otherwise I don't need to go any further debunking brash falsehoods. Note I also have the basic decency not to barge into the European thread with my foot in my mouth telling them how going to the doctor works, which has not been reciprocated in this particular exchange.
|
On December 09 2024 04:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 04:03 Magic Powers wrote:On December 09 2024 03:52 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 02:48 Magic Powers wrote:On December 09 2024 01:02 oBlade wrote:On December 08 2024 22:49 Magic Powers wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between the CEO Brian Thompson and other CEOs who are exploiting people's labor or illegally speculating with people's money. They're not the same kinds of CEOs. They're literally not the same kinds of people.
Brian Thompson is practically the nurse who deliberately overdoses patients on a saline solution. You wouldn't shed a tear if that nurse got taken out in a crossfire by police. But for some reason you're shedding crocodile tears in the instance of Thompson-hit-the-cement who is literally equal to a serial killer nurse. Every insurance company denies claims. Thank you for admitting that the CEO was committing a lot of murders. 1) The fact that a claim is denied doesn't mean the person died without the thing that wasn't paid for.2) The fact that a claim is denied doesn't mean the person didn't get the thing from a healthcare provider.3) Providers in the US are legally obligated to give lifesaving care. 4) Now do all the claims they have approved and realize that as the biggest insurance provider by your ironclad logic they have saved more lives than anyone else. So you're cheering the execution of a 21st century Alexander Fleming. Whoopsie. Ford is not murdering thousands of people, the fact that you can't come to grips with what it means to grow up and live in a free society where the government can't promise nothing bad will ever happen doesn't mean we're in a constant state of genocide, my esteemed Austrian colleague. The insurance company denies (hence the word "deny") that the treatment is actually necessary and often life-saving. If they get sued they can simply win a court battle with a better team of lawyers than the bedridden person who's also literally broke. If the company loses the battle, they'll settle outside of court and call it a minor loss that was worth the fight. In the meantime the patient has already died or suffered extreme pain for a long time. You've proven many times that you don't have the slightest clue how the US operates, and this is once again such an instance. To anyone from the same continent reading this who's not embarrassingly mentally gone: It's not true that in the US you have to wait for the insurance company's check to clear, or even for their approval, for every single thing a healthcare provider does to you. The systems can be complicated, which is its own problem, but it's not as described above. If anyone has a study explaining how many people each insurance company or each CEO has personally "mass murdered" they would do well to post it to move us back into the realm of reality rather than unhinged emotional innuendo. Otherwise I don't need to go any further debunking brash falsehoods. Note I also have the basic decency not to barge into the European thread with my foot in my mouth telling them how going to the doctor works, which has not been reciprocated in this particular exchange.
Oh now you're calling me a liar.
"Young children with Type 1 diabetes are getting denied life-saving supplies and devices at an alarming rate from insurance companies."
https://www.thediabetescouncil.com/access-denied-and-what-you-can-do-when-life-saving-treatments-are-denied/
"A ProPublica and Capitol Forum investigation found that EviCore uses an algorithm backed by artificial intelligence, which some insiders call “the dial,” that it can adjust to lead to higher denials. Some contracts ensure the company makes more money the more it cuts health spending. And it issues medical guidelines that doctors have said delay and deny care for patients."
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/07/health/evi-care-insurance-company-denials-propublica/index.html
|
On December 09 2024 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 01:40 Acrofales wrote:On December 08 2024 23:29 Magic Powers wrote:On December 08 2024 23:25 justanothertownie wrote:On December 08 2024 22:49 Magic Powers wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between the CEO Brian Thompson and other CEOs who are exploiting people's labor or illegally speculating with people's money. They're not the same kinds of CEOs. They're literally not the same kinds of people.
Brian Thompson is practically the nurse who deliberately overdoses patients on a saline solution. You wouldn't shed a tear if that nurse got taken out in a crossfire by police. But for some reason you're shedding crocodile tears in the instance of Thompson-hit-the-cement who is literally equal to a serial killer nurse. I for one am certainly not shedding tears. The world might very well be a better place without him. The issue comes when you start to frame this as self-defense which just shows that you have no idea what this term means. Legally or logically. And secondly, it is as biff says. When you normalize gunning people down you might just realize that the other side is better armed, more efficient AND more ruthless than you are. For an armed conflict or a revolution you need the support of the population. For some reason I doubt you have that in a country where a majority of voters just elected Donald Trump. I know very well what self-defense means, it's a topic I've cared about for many years. If there's a direct threat to someone's life, you're allowed to kill the attacker. In this instance the government failed to uphold the law that would protect people from the attacking CEO. Thus the right extends to people to protect themselves. The CEO is the threat to people's lives, the authorities are not doing their job, and thus people are right to eliminate the threat by any means necessary. You clearly don't know what self-defense means. Or rather, you have redefined it yourself in such a way that nobody agrees with you.Self-defense is a legal justification if someone is in the act of threatening your life (or your loved ones) in a way that only immediate violence can prevent. + Show Spoiler +Shooting a CEO who is heading to a business meeting is not self-defense, it's at best vigilantism.
As I have said before, I shed no tears for the death of this piece of shit CEO. But that doesn't make it self-defense, nor does it justify murdering people.
And this isn't the first time your unhinged "morality" crops up in this thread. I urgently suggest you talk to a professional before you decide to take "self-defense" into your own hands... Israel's slaughter of 10's of thousands of women and children has done far more to redefine "self-defense" in the west than Magic ever could. Same goes for the invasion of Iraq and other examples like irrationally frightened cops. The point is that this notion that killing CEOs would be breaking some taboo about harming people out of self-interest is wrong. It'd just make CEOs more vulnerable like the rest of us to a system that is dependent on harming people out of self-interest/greed.
I don't really know what Israel has to do with it, other than your salient point that the people calling foul and crying sympathy for this shithead millionair are often the same people who look at thousands of palestinians and say that their death is justified because of October 7. But that was in another thread, and this point you're trying to make now seems a lot less salient. Israel claiming "self-defense" as justification is nothing new, but it also isn't applicable: Israel is a country. The US claimed self-defense as their casus belli against Afghanistan. It was equally nonsensical then as it is for Israel now. Hell, Russia probably claimed self-defense for the Chechen wars, and I can probably extend that sham far further back if I could be arsed to.
But that is exactly that: a casus belli, trumped up or not, is literally a cause to go to war. It isn't literal self-defense, nor does anybody understand it to be. And speaking of war, we already have a word that covers the Brian Thompson situation perfectly well: class warfare. Something you of all people should be familiar with. I would absolutely not have quibbled if MP merely claimed that Brian Thompson deserved to die, because he was a warrior waging class warfare on the proletariat, killing hundreds/thousands with the swipe of a pen, and he got what was coming for him. That's a justification I have zero issue with. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand people think that way. But personal "self defense" is just absurd bollocks, coming from someone who earlier this year was arguing extreme pacifism (in an equally absurd situation).
I do admit, that I should probably just have DM'd MP rather than posting this publicly in the thread, but what's done is done.
|
As predicted, Joe Rogan has completed his transition from an apolitical conspiracy theorist to a pro-Republican, Trump-supporting shill. It may have started around the pandemic, when Rogan was signal-boosting Trump's anti-vax and "alternative covid cures" rhetoric, but recently Rogan has full-on admitted that he endorsed Donald Trump and JD Vance because Rogan thought that Tim Walz - Kamala Harris's runningmate - was lying too much. Let me repeat that: Joe Rogan looked at a Trump-Vance ticket, and then looked at a Harris-Walz ticket, and decided to pick the Trump-Vance ticket because he claimed to prioritize honesty, stating "You're telling me that you don't care if someone is a liar?" The Kool-Aid has been completely drunk, and it matters because this low-information moron is one of the most watched and listened to people in the country.
"Rogan, who hosted President-elect Donald Trump on his podcast and endorsed the Republican candidate shortly before the election, argued during the more than four-hour podcast that it would have been "nuts" to allow Walz to become vice president. ... "When that Tim Walz guy, it's so nuts that guy was going to be the vice president. You're telling me this whole thing is fake, then. You're telling me that you don't care if someone is a liar? You don't care if they lied about their military rank, where they served?" he added. "You don't care if they lie about Tiananmen Square? There's too many things, this is so crazy." ... Rogan's remarks about the governor motivating him to back Trump were met with some backlash on social media, with several critics arguing that the president-elect has a far more prolific history as a teller of "lies" than Walz. ... "Fact check: Donald Trump is the biggest liar in American history. The Washington Post reported that Donald Trump made a total of 30,573 false or misleading claims during his time in office," the Republicans Against Trump account wrote in a Tuesday post to X, formerly Twitter. "Joe Rogan saying he 'had' to endorse Trump after watching Tim Walz lie is the most damning indictment yet of Rogan's slide into the disinformation echo chamber of far-right fascism," wrote singer-songwriter Bill Madden. "Does this colossal alpha-a**hole not know that Trump is most prolific liar in American history?" "Imagine pretending you voted for Trump because you were bothered by *checks notes* dishonesty.""
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-reveals-tim-walz-made-him-jump-presidential-election-1995202
|
On December 09 2024 04:51 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2024 01:40 Acrofales wrote:On December 08 2024 23:29 Magic Powers wrote:On December 08 2024 23:25 justanothertownie wrote:On December 08 2024 22:49 Magic Powers wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between the CEO Brian Thompson and other CEOs who are exploiting people's labor or illegally speculating with people's money. They're not the same kinds of CEOs. They're literally not the same kinds of people.
Brian Thompson is practically the nurse who deliberately overdoses patients on a saline solution. You wouldn't shed a tear if that nurse got taken out in a crossfire by police. But for some reason you're shedding crocodile tears in the instance of Thompson-hit-the-cement who is literally equal to a serial killer nurse. I for one am certainly not shedding tears. The world might very well be a better place without him. The issue comes when you start to frame this as self-defense which just shows that you have no idea what this term means. Legally or logically. And secondly, it is as biff says. When you normalize gunning people down you might just realize that the other side is better armed, more efficient AND more ruthless than you are. For an armed conflict or a revolution you need the support of the population. For some reason I doubt you have that in a country where a majority of voters just elected Donald Trump. I know very well what self-defense means, it's a topic I've cared about for many years. If there's a direct threat to someone's life, you're allowed to kill the attacker. In this instance the government failed to uphold the law that would protect people from the attacking CEO. Thus the right extends to people to protect themselves. The CEO is the threat to people's lives, the authorities are not doing their job, and thus people are right to eliminate the threat by any means necessary. You clearly don't know what self-defense means. Or rather, you have redefined it yourself in such a way that nobody agrees with you.Self-defense is a legal justification if someone is in the act of threatening your life (or your loved ones) in a way that only immediate violence can prevent. + Show Spoiler +Shooting a CEO who is heading to a business meeting is not self-defense, it's at best vigilantism.
As I have said before, I shed no tears for the death of this piece of shit CEO. But that doesn't make it self-defense, nor does it justify murdering people.
And this isn't the first time your unhinged "morality" crops up in this thread. I urgently suggest you talk to a professional before you decide to take "self-defense" into your own hands... Israel's slaughter of 10's of thousands of women and children has done far more to redefine "self-defense" in the west than Magic ever could. Same goes for the invasion of Iraq and other examples like irrationally frightened cops. The point is that this notion that killing CEOs would be breaking some taboo about harming people out of self-interest is wrong. It'd just make CEOs more vulnerable like the rest of us to a system that is dependent on harming people out of self-interest/greed. I don't really know what Israel has to do with it, other than your salient point that the people calling foul and crying sympathy for this shithead millionair are often the same people who look at thousands of palestinians and say that their death is justified because of October 7. But that was in another thread, and this point you're trying to make now seems a lot less salient. Israel claiming "self-defense" as justification is nothing new, but it also isn't applicable: Israel is a country. The US claimed self-defense as their casus belli against Afghanistan. It was equally nonsensical then as it is for Israel now. Hell, Russia probably claimed self-defense for the Chechen wars, and I can probably extend that sham far further back if I could be arsed to. But that is exactly that: a casus belli, trumped up or not, is literally a cause to go to war. It isn't literal self-defense, nor does anybody understand it to be. And speaking of war, we already have a word that covers the Brian Thompson situation perfectly well: class warfare. Something you of all people should be familiar with. I would absolutely not have quibbled if MP merely claimed that Brian Thompson deserved to die, because he was a warrior waging class warfare on the proletariat, killing hundreds/thousands with the swipe of a pen, and he got what was coming for him. That's a justification I have zero issue with. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand people think that way. But personal "self defense" is just absurd bollocks, coming from someone who earlier this year was arguing extreme pacifism (in an equally absurd situation). I do admit, that I should probably just have DM'd MP rather than posting this publicly in the thread, but what's done is done.
I never spouted pacifism. You didn't understand the argument back then, and you still don't. You never listened to what I said and called me an extremist.
Also, you still have the same opportunity as before to simply DM me so you can learn about my views instead of fabricating some nonsense that I never said.
|
On December 09 2024 04:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:As predicted, Joe Rogan has completed his transition from an apolitical conspiracy theorist to a pro-Republican, Trump-supporting shill. It may have started around the pandemic, when Rogan was signal-boosting Trump's anti-vax and "alternative covid cures" rhetoric, but recently Rogan has full-on admitted that he endorsed Donald Trump and JD Vance because Rogan thought that Tim Walz - Kamala Harris's runningmate - was lying too much. Let me repeat that: Joe Rogan looked at a Trump-Vance ticket, and then looked at a Harris-Walz ticket, and decided to pick the Trump-Vance ticket because he claimed to prioritize honesty, stating "You're telling me that you don't care if someone is a liar?" The Kool-Aid has been completely drunk, and it matters because this low-information moron is one of the most watched and listened to people in the country. "Rogan, who hosted President-elect Donald Trump on his podcast and endorsed the Republican candidate shortly before the election, argued during the more than four-hour podcast that it would have been "nuts" to allow Walz to become vice president. ... "When that Tim Walz guy, it's so nuts that guy was going to be the vice president. You're telling me this whole thing is fake, then. You're telling me that you don't care if someone is a liar? You don't care if they lied about their military rank, where they served?" he added. "You don't care if they lie about Tiananmen Square? There's too many things, this is so crazy." ... Rogan's remarks about the governor motivating him to back Trump were met with some backlash on social media, with several critics arguing that the president-elect has a far more prolific history as a teller of "lies" than Walz. ... "Fact check: Donald Trump is the biggest liar in American history. The Washington Post reported that Donald Trump made a total of 30,573 false or misleading claims during his time in office," the Republicans Against Trump account wrote in a Tuesday post to X, formerly Twitter. "Joe Rogan saying he 'had' to endorse Trump after watching Tim Walz lie is the most damning indictment yet of Rogan's slide into the disinformation echo chamber of far-right fascism," wrote singer-songwriter Bill Madden. "Does this colossal alpha-a**hole not know that Trump is most prolific liar in American history?" "Imagine pretending you voted for Trump because you were bothered by *checks notes* dishonesty."" https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-reveals-tim-walz-made-him-jump-presidential-election-1995202
I've seen Rogan make that claim about Walz. Wasn't that a few weeks ago? I can't remember the exact date, but he was indeed arguing that he can't possibly support a liar such as Walz. I just chuckled because it was obvious that he supports Trump. But I didn't post this because I didn't think he's particularly important. But hey, maybe he has more influence over the American people than I'm aware of.
|
On December 09 2024 05:17 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 04:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:As predicted, Joe Rogan has completed his transition from an apolitical conspiracy theorist to a pro-Republican, Trump-supporting shill. It may have started around the pandemic, when Rogan was signal-boosting Trump's anti-vax and "alternative covid cures" rhetoric, but recently Rogan has full-on admitted that he endorsed Donald Trump and JD Vance because Rogan thought that Tim Walz - Kamala Harris's runningmate - was lying too much. Let me repeat that: Joe Rogan looked at a Trump-Vance ticket, and then looked at a Harris-Walz ticket, and decided to pick the Trump-Vance ticket because he claimed to prioritize honesty, stating "You're telling me that you don't care if someone is a liar?" The Kool-Aid has been completely drunk, and it matters because this low-information moron is one of the most watched and listened to people in the country. "Rogan, who hosted President-elect Donald Trump on his podcast and endorsed the Republican candidate shortly before the election, argued during the more than four-hour podcast that it would have been "nuts" to allow Walz to become vice president. ... "When that Tim Walz guy, it's so nuts that guy was going to be the vice president. You're telling me this whole thing is fake, then. You're telling me that you don't care if someone is a liar? You don't care if they lied about their military rank, where they served?" he added. "You don't care if they lie about Tiananmen Square? There's too many things, this is so crazy." ... Rogan's remarks about the governor motivating him to back Trump were met with some backlash on social media, with several critics arguing that the president-elect has a far more prolific history as a teller of "lies" than Walz. ... "Fact check: Donald Trump is the biggest liar in American history. The Washington Post reported that Donald Trump made a total of 30,573 false or misleading claims during his time in office," the Republicans Against Trump account wrote in a Tuesday post to X, formerly Twitter. "Joe Rogan saying he 'had' to endorse Trump after watching Tim Walz lie is the most damning indictment yet of Rogan's slide into the disinformation echo chamber of far-right fascism," wrote singer-songwriter Bill Madden. "Does this colossal alpha-a**hole not know that Trump is most prolific liar in American history?" "Imagine pretending you voted for Trump because you were bothered by *checks notes* dishonesty."" https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-reveals-tim-walz-made-him-jump-presidential-election-1995202 I've seen Rogan make that claim about Walz. Wasn't that a few weeks ago? I can't remember the exact date, but he was indeed arguing that he can't possibly support a liar such as Walz. I just chuckled because it was obvious that he supports Trump. But I didn't post this because I didn't think he's particularly important. But hey, maybe he has more influence over the American people than I'm aware of.
Unfortunately, he does have a lot of influence, given the enormous size of his audience.
|
On December 09 2024 05:09 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 04:51 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2024 01:40 Acrofales wrote:On December 08 2024 23:29 Magic Powers wrote:On December 08 2024 23:25 justanothertownie wrote:On December 08 2024 22:49 Magic Powers wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between the CEO Brian Thompson and other CEOs who are exploiting people's labor or illegally speculating with people's money. They're not the same kinds of CEOs. They're literally not the same kinds of people.
Brian Thompson is practically the nurse who deliberately overdoses patients on a saline solution. You wouldn't shed a tear if that nurse got taken out in a crossfire by police. But for some reason you're shedding crocodile tears in the instance of Thompson-hit-the-cement who is literally equal to a serial killer nurse. I for one am certainly not shedding tears. The world might very well be a better place without him. The issue comes when you start to frame this as self-defense which just shows that you have no idea what this term means. Legally or logically. And secondly, it is as biff says. When you normalize gunning people down you might just realize that the other side is better armed, more efficient AND more ruthless than you are. For an armed conflict or a revolution you need the support of the population. For some reason I doubt you have that in a country where a majority of voters just elected Donald Trump. I know very well what self-defense means, it's a topic I've cared about for many years. If there's a direct threat to someone's life, you're allowed to kill the attacker. In this instance the government failed to uphold the law that would protect people from the attacking CEO. Thus the right extends to people to protect themselves. The CEO is the threat to people's lives, the authorities are not doing their job, and thus people are right to eliminate the threat by any means necessary. You clearly don't know what self-defense means. Or rather, you have redefined it yourself in such a way that nobody agrees with you.Self-defense is a legal justification if someone is in the act of threatening your life (or your loved ones) in a way that only immediate violence can prevent. + Show Spoiler +Shooting a CEO who is heading to a business meeting is not self-defense, it's at best vigilantism.
As I have said before, I shed no tears for the death of this piece of shit CEO. But that doesn't make it self-defense, nor does it justify murdering people.
And this isn't the first time your unhinged "morality" crops up in this thread. I urgently suggest you talk to a professional before you decide to take "self-defense" into your own hands... Israel's slaughter of 10's of thousands of women and children has done far more to redefine "self-defense" in the west than Magic ever could. Same goes for the invasion of Iraq and other examples like irrationally frightened cops. The point is that this notion that killing CEOs would be breaking some taboo about harming people out of self-interest is wrong. It'd just make CEOs more vulnerable like the rest of us to a system that is dependent on harming people out of self-interest/greed. I don't really know what Israel has to do with it, other than your salient point that the people calling foul and crying sympathy for this shithead millionair are often the same people who look at thousands of palestinians and say that their death is justified because of October 7. But that was in another thread, and this point you're trying to make now seems a lot less salient. Israel claiming "self-defense" as justification is nothing new, but it also isn't applicable: Israel is a country. The US claimed self-defense as their casus belli against Afghanistan. It was equally nonsensical then as it is for Israel now. Hell, Russia probably claimed self-defense for the Chechen wars, and I can probably extend that sham far further back if I could be arsed to. But that is exactly that: a casus belli, trumped up or not, is literally a cause to go to war. It isn't literal self-defense, nor does anybody understand it to be. And speaking of war, we already have a word that covers the Brian Thompson situation perfectly well: class warfare. Something you of all people should be familiar with. I would absolutely not have quibbled if MP merely claimed that Brian Thompson deserved to die, because he was a warrior waging class warfare on the proletariat, killing hundreds/thousands with the swipe of a pen, and he got what was coming for him. That's a justification I have zero issue with. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand people think that way. But personal "self defense" is just absurd bollocks, coming from someone who earlier this year was arguing extreme pacifism (in an equally absurd situation). I do admit, that I should probably just have DM'd MP rather than posting this publicly in the thread, but what's done is done. I never spouted pacifism. You didn't understand the argument back then, and you still don't. You never listened to what I said and called me an extremist. Also, you still have the same opportunity as before to simply DM me so you can learn about my views instead of fabricating some nonsense that I never said.
We don‘t use the p-word here. Watch that mouth.
I was just leaving.
While I support the fight against massive inequality, I don‘t really see why one has to write an essay on why it‘s not okay to just execute people you don‘t like.
Protesting enough can do the trick.
|
Northern Ireland23313 Posts
On December 09 2024 02:01 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 01:33 Vivax wrote:On December 08 2024 22:36 Magic Powers wrote:On December 08 2024 14:02 justanothertownie wrote:On December 08 2024 12:53 Magic Powers wrote:On December 08 2024 10:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:
At the end i feel we are always having the same discussion, which is whether or not it’s worth believing in liberal democracy, in the rule of law, in the very imperfect society we live in, or whether all bets are off, and we just go straight into civil war and violent revolution, where you win arguments by gunning down the baddies.
I hear that lots of us here believe that there is nothing to save in the current system. The question i have is whether any of you would be ready to face the consequences of the abandonment of every principles or societies are based upon. Because well. It’s very easy to talk Revolution on a gaming forum.
I personally still prefer to know that we are not ok with executing people in the street even when we think they are absolutely terrible. Because as Drone mentioned, many of us are probably on the kill list of someone. You took the plane too many times and ate quite a few too many steaks last year, you are destroying the planet, you gotta go. Or your girlfriend had an abortion. Or whatever some lunatic might find that makes you a criminal in their eyes.
America is super broken but honestly the first reason for it, before capitalism, corruption or corporate greed is its cult of violence. Want to make the country a better place, start by stopping to believe that murdering the bad guy is the way forward to build a better world. By letting murderous CEOs run corporations, we have already broken every principle of a functional society. We're not the ones breaking things, we're pointing out how broken things are and calling for change. You are, as usual, mistaking the symptom for the cause. You will not solve this by killing CEOs or regulating who gets to be one. A solution would be to change the bastardized health insurance system in the US. Even though that is a harder task than killing people in self-righteous anger and probably less gratifying to you. You are, as usual, mistaking the lack of tear-shedding for a mass murderer for the solution. You will not shame me by expressing no sympathy for a bloodthirsty for-profit serial killer or guilt-trip others mocking his death. You can keep your crocodile tears to yourself. There are also gun shop owners waiting for justice to be dished out. Cigarette companies. News outlets who invite imitators due to irresponsible reporting. Gotta execute em all according to society on social media. Like Batman, but with a picture of humanitarian Stalin on his chest. Or maybe society on social media is nuts. You don't have to execute all of them, just enough to let them know that people really are sick of the bullshit so they actually go and fix their shit.
Many of the structures we take for granted today only came about because of the classic ‘fix this shit or we will potentially kill you’ gambit.
It’s pretty effective. We’ve done it for thousands of years. Our particular epoch isn’t especially unique. Push our systems hard enough towards inequity and injustice and you’ll get violence.
Even people if you point out innumerable examples of historic injustice where violence was a part in reshaping social structures, who may concede ‘ok in all those times it was fine’ will often consider it completely illegitimate today.
We’re not (I very much hope anyway) at some final form of human societal evolution where we’ve transcended the need for violence to be on the table, and our political, legal and cultural structures can deal with all issues.
Obviously I’d like us to, but not via this particularly amoral and avaricious form of neoliberal capitalism. There’s still some kinks to be worked out
Hey what that looks like, your mileage may vary quite considerably. But I do think, even if people struggle to articulate it in these terms, there’s a definite sense that the power of capital is outstripping that of democratic power and people’s ability to feel that they can influence the overall machine. And while prescriptions may vary rather a lot, this sentiment spreads pretty far and wide between left and right wings.
That’s a big fucking problem for a system ostensibly built on equality under the law and democratic enfranchisement.
Look at the ‘AI’ explosion for one. Truly unparalleled levels of copyright infringement, tools built from said infringement to replicate the kind of work that they infringed. Will any of that be meaningfully clamped down on? I highly doubt it. We can have a global financial crisis in 2008 but apparently there won’t be repercussions for those who caused that one.
Not to draw a direct parallel with this latest incident, but these are things that a regular Joe or Jane will get fined or jailed for doing, but scale it up and you see those potential sanctions become rarer and rarer
|
i don’t know a single person outside this thread who didn’t think Rogan wasn’t already a republican shill.
including my loud and proud (republican) relatives
|
On December 09 2024 03:28 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2024 21:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 08 2024 15:41 Zambrah wrote:Once you have normalized that we can kill each other if we have a really good reason, I dont see how this isn't what the US healthcare system isnt already doing. Why is systematized death so much more tolerable? Its entirely normalized in the US that US healthcare companies can cause you to suffer and die for the really goodest reason in capitalism, money. To answer the second part, when political action is broken, you fight to restore the power of political action. It’s slow, it’s frustrating, it’s despairingly difficult. It needs to be done at every level, from complete grassroot to the top of the political apparatus. It means a lot of convincing. And the result is not guaranteed. How do you restore the power of poltiical action within a system coopted by the rich and powerful? Do you think that the rich and powerful will give up their money without the threat of violence? This is the same problem the police as an institution have, even if you get some good cops they get squeezed out or turned into bad cops by the institutionalized power of all of the bad cops. You can elect politicians that say they want to do things you want, but the system is setup to make sure that those things you want that conflict with what the rich and powerful want do not happen. Sorry, but societally, violence has to be an option. If Elon Musk bought Wizards of the Coast and basically gave himself ultimate power in Dungeons and Dragons then nothing you do can force him to rescind his ultimate power so you can enjoy the game without either, A. abandoning Dungeons and Dragons B. beating his ass up until he changes it back. It would be nice not to have to be in this place, but we are in that place. Take it up with billionaires and all of the other awful scumbags who have systematically hurt and killed so many people for green paper, because at this point theyre the only ones with any meaningful ability to affect systematic change. EDIT: None of this even begins to approach the problem of the unbelievable human suffering and death that we just have to accept while whatever concept you have for a long and hard road plays out. There is no path here that is not drenched with blood, I just personally prefer the one with the blood of the people responsible for this situation instead of droves of ostensible innocents. If you don’t see the difference between what is happening in the US with healthcare acting like douches and what i am talking about, mate, there is nothing to talk about. I am talking about people being thrown alive from planes. At some point i am powerless to make a point if you don’t at the very least make a little effort. At the end it’s always there limits of this thread. The complete incapacity of just getting out of your little, narrow, priviledged American perspective and realize that, yeah, the US absolutely suck, but it’s worse when death squads come and disappear your whole family because someone once participated in a demonstration. That’s what happened in Argentina and it started with good left wing folks innocently murdering the really bad rich CEOs in the street. And no, a death ain’t equal a death. Someone dying because he got denied his medicine is horrible, but a couple of 23 years olds getting arrested, taken to a military building, tortured for weeks, then have the dude thrown from a plane from 2000 metres while the military waits for the wife to give birth in order to steal her baby and give it to infertile officers before throwing her into the sea also is really, really, really, really worse. Can’t you see it? Or is it “what the US system is already doing?” So that’s what a civil war looks like. Do you want that. Honestly, i am absolutely on the same side than you, but you make me angry, and so, i am out if there. Show nested quote +And no, a death ain’t equal a death. Someone dying because he got denied his medicine is horrible, but a couple of 23 years olds getting arrested, taken to a military building, tortured for weeks, then have the dude thrown from a plane from 2000 metres while the military waits for the wife to give birth in order to steal her baby and give it to infertile officers before throwing her into the sea also is really, really, really, really worse. Can’t you see it? Or is it “what the US system is already doing?” I had an extremely negative reaction to chemo, I was in extreme pain for like four days before I got oxys to dull it, it felt like someone was driving an ice pick deep into the my jaw and up into my temple, it was some of the absolute worst pain I have ever felt in my life, and if it had gone on another day or two I would've bought a gun and blown my fucking brains out. I got relief, eventually, other people often don't, they're left in limbo while their insurance decides if they feel like approving their claim for meds or surgery or whatever procedure they need to not be in agony. Some of them die before it happens. So no, I really don't think the things we're talking about are so incomparable, but hey, if you're fine with death and intense suffering so long as its not cinematic or whatever thats on you, but don't pretend like theres some grand difference between someone being tortured in a hospital bed and someone being tortured in a dark room. They're both torture. Capitalism may make it seem like one is better because its been so normalized, because its more passive, but its still suffering and death and its preventable, but capitalism doesnt want to prevent it, capitalism dictates that letting these people suffer and die is actually the right thing to do. Show nested quote +If you don’t see the difference between what is happening in the US with healthcare acting like douches and what i am talking about, mate, there is nothing to talk about. I am talking about people being thrown alive from planes.
At some point i am powerless to make a point if you don’t at the very least make a little effort. Yeah I'm the one not making any effort here. Come back when you're willing to stop accepting unnecessary suffering and death just because its not compatible with a scene in an action movie.
Do you care to respond to my previous post where I explained your example of the guy who was denied his prescribed drug would also not have had access to it under Canada's version of socialized medicine because it's simply too expensive to cover? Is that a better system? It's obviously a much more equitable system. Instead of some people being denied this drug nobody gets the drug. Pretty fair for sure. There's also the many thousands of people that die every year while on waitlists for life-saving or quality of life improving surgeries. A lot of death and suffering there for sure. I'm not trying to make an argument over which healthcare system is better or defend health insurance CEOs that deny patient's access to healthcare to boost their profit margins. My point is that posts like yours are offered with a refusal to acknowledge that death and suffering is always necessary in a system with finite resources (aka all of them). The guy getting both Entyvio and Remicade infusions at doses that exceed FDA guidelines might be the only person in the world with such a treatment plan. It's odd to use an example of a guy that's getting better healthcare than 99.9999% of people to ever exist to make your point that capitalism sucks and we need to blow it up.
|
I dont have conversations with weird right wing types, thanks
|
So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it.
So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one.
But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen.
|
On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendmentShow nested quote +
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen.
I have very little faith in the Supreme Court or Congress saying No to Trump, if he truly pushes to do something unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
