Jump to content

US Politics- Roger Stoned to Death


Fury Resurrected

Recommended Posts

I hope people remember who I am.  Because this post could come across as a complete troll. :)  And its not that.  I've been here years!  Just never in the politics thread.

But this is definitely  a weird one...

So I was having a very rare political conversation with a very good friend of mine (an American citizen) who has lived in Ireland for years. And I was shocked by what she implied.

BUT, I wouldn't be the right person to debate these topics with her. I'm no expert on American politics. But, I would like to send her info. So if people have any links to info on the below topics, can they share? It can argue either side but i'd rather not have supposition and exaggeration.  The topics are...

  1. Is the Green New Deal good for America?
  2. What are Harris’ views on defunding the police?
  3. How much does the Democratic party control BLM (or vice versa)?
  4. Do police arrest violent criminals and democratic politicians let them go? (I tried to deescalate these 5 statements but there is no way of doing that for this one without losing all meaning).
  5. As a whole, how often are BLM protests violent?

Thanks for any info!  I originally planned to just google stuff myself but I would never be sure that the stuff I find isn't click-bait.

I'm not going to debate anything here.  Just take any links and run! :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Yeah, hm, seems familiar to claiming that I ever rooted against Clinton. There is literally no evidence of that. I've always said she is highly qualified and would be a fine President. I've recently said I'd happily take her over Biden. So you're kind of making shit up too. Sucks, right?

You trashed her during the primaries. There are productive and unproductive ways to differentiate candidates and policies, and you typically do the latter.

Also, why would you pick her over Biden, just out of curiosity? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Padraig said:

I hope people remember who I am.  Because this post could come across as a complete troll. :)  And its not that.  I've been here years!  Just never in the politics thread.

But this is definitely  a weird one...

So I was having a very rare political conversation with a very good friend of mine (an American citizen) who has lived in Ireland for years. And I was shocked by what she implied.

BUT, I wouldn't be the right person to debate these topics with her. I'm no expert on American politics. But, I would like to send her info. So if people have any links to info on the below topics, can they share? It can argue either side but i'd rather not have supposition and exaggeration.  The topics are...

  1. Is the Green New Deal good for America?
  2. What are Harris’ views on defunding the police?
  3. How much does the Democratic party control BLM (or vice versa)?
  4. Do police arrest violent criminals and democratic politicians let them go? (I tried to deescalate these 5 statements but there is no way of doing that for this one without losing all meaning).
  5. As a whole, how often are BLM protests violent?

Thanks for any info!  I originally planned to just google stuff myself but I would never be sure that the stuff I find isn't click-bait.

I'm not going to debate anything here.  Just take any links and run! :)

 

Pod why in the name of the old gods and the new are you hanging out with some Seppo who needs convincing that Dems don't just...let violent criminals go?

So, for #1 -- here's an opinion piece in a centrist publication by economists. Given that most legit (i.e. not ideological right-wing bullshit) concerns about the Green New Deal involve the economic side, this endorsement of the Green New Deal does a good job at showing why it's good economic policy.  

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/429652-green-new-deal-is-good-economics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Padraig said:

 

  1. Is the Green New Deal good for America?
  2. What are Harris’ views on defunding the police?
  3. How much does the Democratic party control BLM (or vice versa)?
  4. Do police arrest violent criminals and democratic politicians let them go? (I tried to deescalate these 5 statements but there is no way of doing that for this one without losing all meaning).
  5. As a whole, how often are BLM protests violent?

1. Yes

2. She is against defunding the police 

3. Very little.

4. No

5. Very rarely - most violence is caused by right-wing counter-protesters 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Padraig said:

I hope people remember who I am.  Because this post could come across as a complete troll. :)  And its not that.  I've been here years!  Just never in the politics thread.

But this is definitely  a weird one...

So I was having a very rare political conversation with a very good friend of mine (an American citizen) who has lived in Ireland for years. And I was shocked by what she implied.

BUT, I wouldn't be the right person to debate these topics with her. I'm no expert on American politics. But, I would like to send her info. So if people have any links to info on the below topics, can they share? It can argue either side but i'd rather not have supposition and exaggeration.  The topics are...

Well, if she doesn’t vote for Biden I guess we’ll just have to blame Pod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Padraig that's a laundry list of Republican propaganda. Unfortunately it's commonly believed by a lot of stupid people. I'm on a town Facebook page where some dingbat low-level Republican office-holder constantly talks about how Evil Democrats hate America and want to get us all killed by releasing violent criminals (is black and brown people) from prison and making it impossible for (white) homeowners to defend themselves by banning guns.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Pod why in the name of the old gods and the new are you hanging out with some Seppo who needs convincing that Dems don't just...let violent criminals go?

Very nice to see you back here!  

31 minutes ago, Padraig said:

I hope people remember who I am.  Because this post could come across as a complete troll. :)  And its not that.  I've been here years!  Just never in the politics thread.

But this is definitely  a weird one...

So I was having a very rare political conversation with a very good friend of mine (an American citizen) who has lived in Ireland for years. And I was shocked by what she implied.

BUT, I wouldn't be the right person to debate these topics with her. I'm no expert on American politics. But, I would like to send her info. So if people have any links to info on the below topics, can they share? It can argue either side but i'd rather not have supposition and exaggeration.  The topics are...

  1. Is the Green New Deal good for America?
  2. What are Harris’ views on defunding the police?
  3. How much does the Democratic party control BLM (or vice versa)?
  4. Do police arrest violent criminals and democratic politicians let them go? (I tried to deescalate these 5 statements but there is no way of doing that for this one without losing all meaning).
  5. As a whole, how often are BLM protests violent?

Thanks for any info!  I originally planned to just google stuff myself but I would never be sure that the stuff I find isn't click-bait.

I'm not going to debate anything here.  Just take any links and run! :)

 

1.  Yes, it will create jobs and start to tackle climate change in a meaningful way.  It's not a fox for everything, and there are a lot of specifics to hammer out, but it would be far more expensive and dangerous in the long run NOT to start implementing it asap.

2. Here's Harris explaining that herself.  

3.  The Democratic party does not control BLM, at all, and BLM certainly doesn't control the Democratic party.

4.  No, I do not know of any violent criminals being let go on the orders of democratic politicians.  The democratic party as a whole, and particularly the mainstream-estavlishment Democratic party,  isn't all that different when it comes to law and order and criminal justice than the Republicans, they may be slightly less cruel, and they at least pay lip service to the idea of systemic racism needing to be dealt with.  I mean Joe Biden wants to increase police spending, and much of the left thinks that Harris was too harsh as a prosecutor and attorney general.

5.  How often are BLM protests violent?  I'm not sure.  The cops don't seem to hesitate before getting violent with protestors, in Portland it seems like the cops were getting violent pretty much everyday, usually around nightfall.  

To my knowledge neither Biden nor Harris have even mentioned the injustice of federal agents murdering Reinhoel (sp?) in Portland.  

To this Democratic leaning voter, both Biden and Harris are much more sympathetic to the law enforcement in this country than they are to BLM.

Caveat: this is all just my interpretation of what's been happening, ymmv 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Except for Nazis and the Confederacy, I guess.

If he loses?  Nah, they'll find some other standard-bearer.

39 minutes ago, Padraig said:
  • Is the Green New Deal good for America?
  • What are Harris’ views on defunding the police?
  • How much does the Democratic party control BLM (or vice versa)?
  • Do police arrest violent criminals and democratic politicians let them go? (I tried to deescalate these 5 statements but there is no way of doing that for this one without losing all meaning).
  • As a whole, how often are BLM protests violent?

I'm too lazy to provide many links right now - maybe later - but I'll give brief answers on these.

  1. The GND is aspirational, most of it is unlikely to get passed anytime soon.  Still, aspirational policy on the greatest challenge this world faces in the longterm future is generally good for America.
  2. Harris does not support the "defund movement."  See here:  "Most recently, in a June 10 interview with The New York Times, Harris differentiated between defunding police and reinvesting in communities. 'No, we’re not going to get rid of the police,' she said. 'We all have to be practical. But let’s separate out these discussions.'"
  3. The BLM lobbies the Democratic party for influence.  To what extent?  Minimal.  The Democratic party definitely does not control BLM.
  4. No, that notion is Willy Horton-esque horseshit.
  5. According to a recent study, about 93% of racial justice protests are non-violent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, yes. All of that is accurate @tzanth and @DanteGabriel. And personally I don't think questions 3 thru 5 are worth putting any effort in, because as you say those are blinkered beliefs that no amount of well-researched, well-reported, and well-written analysis is ever going to punch through. 

But at least #1 and #2 are easy to tackle. 

@DMC -- that article about more than 9 out of 10 BLM protests being nonviolent is a good find. Thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed at how much respect DMC seems to have for the rule of law in the United States. Every time someone proposes some hypothetical scenario about Trump doing something extreme (from packing the SC to seizing ballots at gunpoint), DMC's response seems to be "no one would let him get away with him breaking the law like that!". Yet we consistently see Trump pushing the boundaries of the law and getting away with it. Every day we see more evidence that the right-wing in the US has pretty much given up on the law - if anything they see the law with disdain.  Every day we also see more examples of political violence, from shootings at protests to armed road blockades in Oregon. I'm worried that we are at the point where most people on the right do just see laws as norms, and in many cases they see norms that they would like to break. I think we are near the point where Trump could ignore most US laws, the SC, Congress, or just about anyone else and half the country would fully support him. At that point its really just the US military that has any real check on his power, and the thought of that is pretty terrifying.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, tzanth said:

I'm amazed at how much respect DMC seems to have for the rule of law in the United States.

Uh, I don't.  Trump's constraints have little to do with the "rule of law."  They have to do with the competing interests of other officials - including in his own party.  Trump wanted to abolish the filibuster, McConnell didn't let him.  He could have tried to pack the courts his first two years, but he didn't.  Seizing ballots at gunpoint?  Uh, no, that ain't gonna to fly because it would become public immediately, and nobody serious is going to acquiesce to that, c'mon.  I'm not saying Trump and the right doesn't continue to push the envelope to democracy-threatening degrees.  But a lot of the things that are thrown out around here are decidedly fantastical, and yeah, I'm gonna say so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, I don't.  Trump's constraints have little to do with the "rule of law."  They have to do with the competing interests of other officials - including in his own party.  Trump wanted to abolish the filibuster, McConnell didn't let him.  He could have tried to pack the courts his first two years, but he didn't.  Seizing ballots at gunpoint?  Uh, no, that ain't gonna to fly because it would become public immediately, and nobody serious is going to acquiesce to that, c'mon.  I'm not saying Trump and the right doesn't continue to push the envelope to democracy-threatening degrees.  But a lot of the things that are thrown out around here are decidedly fantastical, and yeah, I'm gonna say so.

Just out of curiosity, in a hypothetical where that was widespread tampering with ballots, both in person and by mail, what happens? Would it be state by state since elections are still local or is there some federal law that would kick in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

But a lot of the things that are thrown out around here are decidedly fantastical, and yeah, I'm gonna say so.

I hope you are right, but every day we read about things that even just a few months ago I also would have thought were fantastical. Today it was armed gangs manning roadblocks in Oregon and demanding IDs from drivers. A few weeks ago it was Rittenhouse shooting up a protest in Wisconsin. Whats going to be next? The fantastical and terrifying sadly seems increasingly normal and the tempo at which things become more absurd and more violent is speeding up every week. The US is rapidly running down the rabbit hole and I don't think we can reject hypotheticals anymore just because they seem fantastical or absurd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

You trashed her during the primaries. There are productive and unproductive ways to differentiate candidates and policies, and you typically do the latter.

Also, why would you pick her over Biden, just out of curiosity? 

I did not plus you're changing the argument from me hoping she loses. Double strike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Would it be state by state since elections are still local or is there some federal law that would kick in?

Not a lawyer, but I'd assume the immediate response would be from local law enforcement, yes.  And while the SC gutted an important aspect of the VRA, I assume there'd be some federal violations as well, yeah.

8 minutes ago, tzanth said:

Today it was armed gangs manning roadblocks in Oregon and demanding IDs from drivers. A few weeks ago it was Rittenhouse shooting up a protest in Wisconsin.

My focus is on what Trump can or could get away with.  Neither of those examples were organized by him or his staff - although to be clear I'm absolutely not arguing he caused them.  There's a difference.  Rittenhouse is still being prosecuted.  Is it likely he'll be let off or at best be given a slap on the wrist?  Yeah, but that speaks to a broken justice system that frankly precedes Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

My focus is on what Trump can or could get away with.  Neither of those examples were organized by him or his staff - although to be clear I'm absolutely not arguing he caused them.  There's a difference.  Rittenhouse is still being prosecuted.  Is it likely he'll be let off or at best be given a slap on the wrist?  Yeah, but that speaks to a broken justice system that frankly precedes Trump.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter, and poitn of fact him encouraging stochastic terrorism is more of an indication of his power and lack of abilities to stop him, not less.

So can he order federal troops to seize ballot boxes? I mean, he can but he probably will be discouraged from that.

BUT...Will off-duty officers do that based on him saying how some people in Pennsylvania saw some antifa? That seems more reasonable.

Can he order police to beat the shit out of voters? Again, he can, but it probably won't happen.

BUT...Can he tweet that police need to beat the shit out of some voters at certain precincts and some people (police and non-police) follow up on that? Probably!

Can he order with absolute certainty that the Pennsylvania state legislature certify falsely the count of votes? Well, no he doesn't have the authority.

BUT...Can he say that in a tweet that it should happen and they just 'happen' to go along with it? Seems not too unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

BUT...Will off-duty officers do that based on him saying how some people in Pennsylvania saw some antifa? That seems more reasonable.

Will off-duty officers seize ballots by gunpoint?  No.  Will off-duty officers seize ballots at all?  Not likely, particularly in states and districts run by Democrats, which constitutes the vast majority of places you'd be worried about.  So, yes, this is fantastical.

7 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

BUT...Can he tweet that police need to beat the shit out of some voters at certain precincts and some people (police and non-police) follow up on that? Probably!

Are police going to violently attack voters at precincts?  No, they aren't that stupid.  It will be caught on camera.  Will police and non-police do everything to intimate voters without looking like the aggressors, or try to provoke protesters into looking like the aggressors?  You bet.  So, yes, your idea is fantastical, or at least unrefined.

8 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

BUT...Can he say that in a tweet that it should happen and they just 'happen' to go along with it? Seems not too unlikely.

Who gives a shit what the state legislature does?  We've already had this conversation.  This only matters if the election is very close.  In which case, for the thousandth time, I agree with you Trump will probably prevail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Will off-duty officers seize ballots by gunpoint?  No.  Will off-duty officers seize ballots at all?  Not likely, particularly in states and districts run by Democrats, which constitutes the vast majority of places you'd be worried about.  So, yes, this is fantastical.

Yes, because Portland being run by Democrats has definitely stopped police from teaming up with Patriot Prayer and other militia groups.

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Are police going to violently attack voters at precincts?  No, they aren't that stupid.  It will be caught on camera.  Will police and non-police do everything to intimate voters without looking like the aggressors, or try to provoke protesters into looking like the aggressors?  You bet.  So, yes, your idea is fantastical, or at least unrefined. 

Are non-police going to attack people at precincts while police stand by, like they have in a whole lot of demonstrations this year?

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Who gives a shit what the state legislature does?  We've already had this conversation.  This only matters if the election is very close.  In which case, for the thousandth time, I agree with you Trump will probably prevail.

It kind of matters for causing random chaos and violence. This isn't just about whether or not Trump will actively prevail. 

Mostly, this is pointing out how Trump doesn't have to specifically command people to do his bidding directly with some stupid executive order. A guy fucking shot up a pizza place based on Alex Jones - think people aren't going to do a lot more if Trump ramps it up? 

5 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I see AG Barr now wants protestors charged with sedition.

Well that's good and not at all a sign of the above being an issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...