Total posts: 2,049
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not going to stop the looting.
It makes sense to attack business owners. See the rioters feel threatened by cops, so that explains why it's justified to use violence against someone regarding the behavior of other people whose conduct the person has no control over.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
My point is that police officers are primarily self-interested, and when they fail to competently provide the services they get paid to provide, there is no meaningful consequence which means there's no incentive to improve the status quo.
That's why everyone should be emphatic about police reform and support activists who are pushing for positive changes and accountability. Not surprisingly, the people who claim to lament Big Government, powerful lobbies, and the exploitation of public unions are often the ones who start cumming all over themselves regarding a cop's authority and believe they should all be obeyed blindly without question, hesitation or consequence under any circumstance. Very strange.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
he police officer is far more worried about criminal activity on society than personal safety
Oh please. Look up Warren v. District of Columbia. Or DeShaney vs. Winnebago. Or Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales.
When students at the Parkland, FL school tried to sue the police department over the cop's failure to protect them, the federal judge ruled that neither the Constitution nor state law impose a general duty upon police officers to protect people from harm — even when they know the harm will occur. Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not be accountable for that. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are in custody. Like George Floyd. They have no obligation to worry about "criminal activity on society" and often don't.
So what happens when police fail to protect and serve the public? Nothing. The taxpayers will still have to pay their taxes and submit to police agencies as lawful authority. And if the police act unlawfully while carrying out their duty, it's the taxpayers who will pay for that too. I agree with what you said before that no meaningful change occurs (though I'm optimistic we will make some progress). The senior leadership positions may change, but the enormous agency budgets will remain, the government agents themselves will continue to collect generous salaries and pensions despite their infractions, and bootlickers will still champion a police officer's monopoly on the use of force.
Everyone should be emphatic about the need for police reform.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I completely agree. That's why I don't worry about NYC turning into a lawless criminal wonderland like all the fear mongers. Apparently they're unaware that public union power shows zero signs of subsiding here or in any other city.
But I have to hold bootlickers accountable as well. People who say things like "why would you run from the cops???" Well, for starters, they can't tell their glock from their taser.
Created:
The prosecution presented compelling evidence that Derek Chauvin 1) killed George Floyd by 2) using excessive force. The defense will have to cast doubt on at least one of those claims.
Chauvin's lawyer argues that Floyd "died of a cardiac arrhythmia that occurred as a result of hypertension, his coronary disease, the ingestion of methamphetamine and fentanyl, and the adrenaline flowing through his body, all of which acted to further compromise an already compromised heart." But even that does not let Chauvin off the hook, since the stress caused by his use of force plausibly contributed to the adrenaline flowing through Floyd's body and the ensuing "cardiac arrhythmia."
The fact is even if God himself came down and said Danielle is going to die on 2/22/22 at 2pm, and Derek Chauvin did to me that day at 1:59 pm what he did to George Floyd, Chauvin's still responsible for my death even if I was unhealthy, on drugs, or definitively about to die a minute later anyway. So the defense prosecuting George Floyd's body for his own death is nonsensical albeit the only thing they can really do. In fact they should have focused solely on that in my opinion. It was a big mistake to put that guy Barry Brodd on the stand. I think even the Chauvin cucks in this thread have to admit that he was objectively trash as a witness.
First of all he looked like Captain Douche McDouche, former police chief of Doucheville whose job it is to testify in every single case that a cop's use of force was justified. But more significantly he annihilated his own credibility over and over again. For instance, he refused to acknowledge that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck. He simply refused and actually tripled-down that no his knee was on Floyd's BACK. So the prosecutor literally had to draw a circle on Floyd's upper back and be like "Would you consider this his upper back? Yes? Okay and is Chauvin's knee here? No? Okay, so if I draw a circle here, would you agree this is George Floyd's neck? Yes? Okay and is this where Chauvin's knee is, correct? Okay so you agree that his knee is on Chauvin's NECK, yes" and then Brodd would be like "...in this particular clip, yes" as if it was physically painful for him to acknowledge. And the prosecution would be like "Okay and the timestamp of this clip is X, right? And you agree he stayed in the same position for another 8 minutes, yes? So is it fair to say his knee was actually on Floyd's neck for a total of 8+ minutes?" etc. (this is not verbatim testimony) and essentially the prosecution just tore him to shreds.
I'm trying to remember my favorite part but there were so many gems. Brodd refusing to acknowledge Chauvin was on TOP of Floyd was another win for the prosecution after an unnecessary line of questioning. At one point the prosecutor had Brodd confirm that Chauvin's behavior constituted excessive force by Minneapolis standards (for which he had over 800 hours of training) since Brodd was trying to claim well there are different standards of force across the country. The prosecution's like "would a reasonable officer be expected to follow the policies of their own jurisdiction?" Brodd had no choice but to answer yes. He just looked so so so bad and lacking all credibility of objectivity whatsoever.
Also noteworthy from medical testimony (sorry this is random interjection but I wanted to make this point real quick) is that when one of the officer's remarked that Floyd seemed to be passing out, officer Lane suggested that Floyd should be turned from his stomach to his side and Chauvin said "leave him." And when officer Kueng reported that Floyd had no detectable pulse, the cops should have immediately begun CPR which they didn't. There were opportunities to take care of Floyd while he was in custody but the cops routinely chose to keep him in the most vulnerable state despite being handcuffed and prone. I truly believe it's going to be very hard for the defense to convince people that Floyd would have died had Chauvin not repeatedly violated the training and policies of his department, choosing instead to utilize unnecessarily excessive force.
After this weekend I will be free to come online more, though I don't think pointing out the obvious matters much to people with TDS - i.e. people who would lick peanut butter out of every single Trump orifice they could possibly find while beaming with pride and joy. But we'll see how I feel.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't hate cops. I detest the blue wall of silence and all the protections police officers get at society's expense, which allows them to get away with murder (literally) and other crimes with impunity. All the time. This is something EVERYONE should hate, especially people who claim to be wary of big government and automatic compliance with authority. But ironically those are the people who tend to wanna deepthroat the shit out of cop's boots. Very weird.
Also my contempt is starting to go down now that society is paying attention and starting to take meaningful action thanks to activists.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Am I to believe it's just a coincidence that you no longer want to have a conversation on this subject with me precisely on the day the defense started plummeting in a downward tailspin right before your very eyes? Cuz obviously I don't buy that, but I'm comfortable not directing my comments toward you and just have you read them and soak it all in without replying to me. That is helpful considering the totality of your feedback amounted to basically "lol that's not true" and "lol that is so false" and "lol no they didn't" which was never worth my time in the first place.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Bruh I am genuinely disturbed by the amount of times you were laughing at your own replies to me. I highly doubt you believe that I would be convinced your take on things is somehow any substantive than mine just because of a useless phrase like "lol" which proves nothing, so it just seems like you're making light of someone's murder and/or a potential (dare I say likely) jail sentence for someone you believe to be innocent... which kinda feels a little sick to be honest with you. Maybe you should explore that.
But anyway I was a little tense while listening to the trial these last few days (there's no way I'ma have time to fully reply until at least the 15th) though I am feeling a bit more confident after today. This witness for the defense is absolute trash. I've clarified to you that I've been listening to testimony on my phone albeit not in real time, and whatever I miss I just watch on YouTube and can read transcripts for, so... yeah. We're both watching the same thing; you just have a ridiculous political bias that is compelling you to believe Derek Chauvin shouldn't be convicted which is insane. He COULD be found innocent because society usually gets rock hard for cops on trial, but in this case it would be hard for me to see the jury buying this "justified use of force" nonsense -- especially after seeing this joke of an expert. He's horrible. I currently have his testimony paused to where the prosecutor is asking him if Chauvin's actions were likely to cause pain and he refuses to say yes. Derp. I will finish listening on the train home tonight most likely. I'm eager to get to the part where he gets to ask what about Floyd's positioning or situation would constitute an active resistance that put the officers in so much danger.
I mean the defense in this case is garbage even though the attorney is good. It's just that there is video footage of Derek Chauvin murdering George Floyd, so Nelson has no choice but to make the ridiculously bad argument “BUT a person CAN die of natural/other causes WHILE experiencing police brutality.” Like imagine if a cop shot and killed your brother while unarmed and handcuffed, and the cop's defense was that your brother's hemophilia or anemia or diabetes or some other preexisting condition he had while he was shot dead contributed to the point that your brother was somehow to blame for his own death. 😒 The jury is basically being told "don't trust what your eyes are telling you" as they watch a man needlessly take another man's life. That’s what they tried in the Jason Van Dyke case. Fortunately that trial ended in a conviction; unfortunately his sentence was only 81 months in prison. I have no doubt a similar abortion of justice will transpire here, but at this point I still think Chauvin will be -- and definitely should be -- found guilty. I will reply to your post when I can.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ya I realized that after watching the trial itself. Something Danielle probably didn’t do.
Correct, and yet my understanding of what is happening is still so much better than yours.
You ignored my request for a quote by a witness saying that a crowd yelling obscenities justifies using more force than is warranted on a suspect who is already restrained. Because nobody actually said that, so your interpretation of the testimony was wrong. Just like your interpretation that intent was relevant to all charges was wrong. Just like Greyparrot saying that violating police policy doesn't matter is wrong. And like him thinking that Chauvin not tasering someone when he had authority to do so somehow matters is wrong.
I think I am seeing a pattern.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not trying to be a dick. But as was stated already, even if it's true that Chauvin had authority to pull his taser when he arrived on the scene, HE DIDN'T. So the fact that he had authority to do that but didn't is completely irrelevant to the charges against him. Why do you think it is relevant?
The only inquiries relevant to whether Chauvin is guilty of second degree murder are:
1) Was Chauvin and the other officers’ use of force improper (i.e., was it inconsistent with law, policy, and standard practice for the officers to kneel on a suspect's neck and chest while holding down his legs, after he was restrained and in the prone position) and/or or was Chauvin’s continued kneeling on Floyd’s neck for the full 9+ minutes improper -- which I think has been fully established as true.
2) And secondly did chauvin’s wrongful conduct cause Floyd’s death?
This is what the defense has to focus on. I really don't think anyone will come forward to say Chauvin's use of force was justified. I would be shocked. I guess we can find out pretty easily cuz the defense's witnesses are probably posted online somewhere. I'm so so busy this week and will be working really long days/nights through tax filing season so I don't have time to look it up atm. You should check to see which cops will be testifying on Chauvin's behalf. I'm honestly curious.
Created:
But suppose the defense produced a different breathing expert, that stated that a normal person would not have died from the actions of of the policeman?
They will, and the jury will have to decide if they believe Floyd would have randomly upped and died from an overdose even if nobody was kneeling on his neck and back. Of course there is video footage of him walking around and talking moments before the assault took place with him in no sign of physical distress, which is why I think the jury might get it right in a cop case for a change. But ya never know.
Created:
He had full authority at that point to pull his taser upon exiting his police cruiser and opening fire.
This is true and yet 100% irrelevant to Chauvin's guilt on the charges against him for aforementioned reasons.
Greyparrot lacks reading comprehension (or is too stubborn to acknowledge this has already been addressed).
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I am extremely busy and actually working in the field today so I can't respond to you line by line from my phone. But it's not true that the questions were tailored to George Floyd. It was a general line of questioning. The defense attorney never asked based on how THIS crowd was behaving, how a cop on scene could be distracted; he never asked based on how THIS crowd was behaving, a cop could have been fearful, and he never asked how George Floyd in particular was behaving once he was cuffed on the ground, how a cop could think that Floyd was being actively aggressive and that therefore kneeling on his neck was necessary. He didn't ask those things because he knew that the witness testimony in response would not be helpful.
Instead he cherry picked buzz words and phrases (talk about taking things out of context) and said "if someone was calling you a pussy, would that be sufficient to cause alarm" and started frantically pacing around for dramatic effect. He specifically never referenced THIS scene where someone was calling the cop a pussy, because every single cop thus far testified that none of the crowd's behavior on that particular day warranted Chauvin's response.
Everyone thus far testified that Floyd should have been turned on his side even given the actions of this particular crowd. Not a single witness said that people verbally threatening and yelling obscenities constitutes a dangerous situation. The witnesses said that you would be conscious of the crowd and be aware of them to ensure that their behavior did not escalate. They said it would be reason for the cop to "maintain restraint" on the suspect. Floyd was restrained when he was handcuffed and lying on the floor. Maintaining restraint is not the same as having multiple people kneeling on someone's neck and back.
No one said there was any reason to be fearful of the actual crowd in question. To the contrary, each expert agreed that the crowd was concerned and upset but complying and posed no threat. That's why the defense had to desperately resort to generalities and ask things like "And isn’t it true that the safety concern might come not from the suspect himself, but from angry bystanders?" He 100% avoided talking about this particular scenario in question.
Calling names is not a threat, and the crowd stayed on the curb. In fact, when officer Thao who was facing and monitoring the crowd yelled at them to get back and stay on the curb, they complied. They always complied. Again that's why the defense attorney cherry picked things that were said but did not ask about the scenario in question as it actually played out. He asked a compound question to which Mercil said yes regarding an officer being called a bum or something, but all witnesses repeatedly said that an agitated crowd would not justify increased force on the suspect.
Also, the crowd's behavior escalated when Floyd started to or did lose consciousness. Therefore (even if such analysis were permissible or consistent with protocol) the crowd's behavior could not be used to justify Chauvin's initial decision to kneel on Floyd's neck, nor his decision to remain kneeling on the neck for over 6 minutes before consciousness was lost.
Again, being fearful of the crowd (if justified) only justifies use of force on the crowd. You cannot use the actions of a third party to justify the LEVEL of force used on a suspect. You're literally making the insanely stupid argument that if you were under arrest and that I as a witness started yelling at the cop that he was a pussy, that would somehow justify the cop beating you or killing you because I was yelling obscenities while standing on the curb. I have no idea why you think that's valid. And if you think a cop has said that it's justifiable to increase the use of force on a suspect because a crowd started name calling, please specify that quote for me because I definitely missed it. I'm listening to the testimony on my phone cuz I'm not WHF this week, but I'm fairly certain you just made that up.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I agree.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How about the cops on the defense witness list? Oh, that's right. Haven't seen those cops yet. A trial isn't a popularity contest anyway, which is why the judge probably won't allow all 400 selected cops on the prosecutor's witness list to be heard.
The jury might reach the wrong conclusion, but Chauvin's guilt is clear. He might walk given society's profound unwillingness to ever convict a cop under seemingly any circumstance, but this is the first police case where I've felt confident there could be a guilty verdict. The evidence is pretty staggering, and regardless of your feelings your legal analysis throughout this entire thread (along with Pie's) has been absolute garbage. No offense.
As far as cops testifying that Chauvin's force was justified in his defense -- I highly doubt that will happen. There may be an ex cop "expert" who might say something along those lines (doubtful), but I would bet money that no current cop comes forward and says what Chauvin did was justifiable given it goes against every single protocol and training practice. They would be stupid to testify against what is pretty straight forward policy, and the video can't even back up claims of Floyd being an alleged threat. He was handcuffed and lying prone on the ground. The officers were supposed to turn him on his side; not have three people continue kneeling on his body for nearly 10 minutes.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
All you did was cite the testimony elicited on cross, which was limited to generalities, possibilities, and what-ifs. None of it was relevant to the specific scenario at issue to which all police officers, training experts, and standards and practice experts all consistently testified that everything done by the officers from the time Floyd was cuffed in the prone position was inconsistent with training, protocols, standard practice and the law. Specifically they testified that there was no observable threat from the "crowd" which was compliant.
You can't even consider external threats when deciding the level of force to apply to a person in custody (i.e., a perceived threat from a third person yelling at you cannot be justification for using force on a suspect, continuing force on a suspect, or increasing force on a suspect). You can only consider the threat that the person in custody posed, if any. So all that matters is whether Floyd was passively resisting, actively resisting, or actively aggressive at the time the force was applied. All officers who testified said he wasn’t even passively resisting once he was prone and handcuffed on the ground.
Your emphasis on care is misplaced, though I suppose the fact that you’re focused on it suggests the prosecution is doing a good job. It is obvious that the testimony on this point was only brought forth for its emotional impact, insofar that it highlights the inhumanity and indecency of the officers. The only inquiries relevant to whether Chauvin is guilty of second degree murder are:
1) Was Chauvin and the other officers’ use of force improper (i.e., was it inconsistent with law, policy, and standard practice for the officers to kneel on a suspect's neck and chest while holding down his legs, after he was restrained and in the prone position) and/or or was Chauvin’s continued kneeling on Floyd’s neck for the full 9+ minutes improper
2) Did chauvin’s wrongful conduct cause Floyd’s death
I maintain issue #1 is pretty cut and dry, so the only way the defense can win is if they somehow convince a jury member(s) that Floyd was going to overdose regardless. I doubt that will happen.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Wait, how old are you? lol
I rescind until I find out more.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
How much you wanna bet he walks or there’s a hung jury?
$250. My partner and I have an agreement that we won't spend more than that without discussing it with the other first since I'm saving to extend my maternity leave. Otherwise I would probably bet more. I honestly believe he will be convicted of at least third degree murder.
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
I think the case for second degree murder is strong too. It really just comes down to the causation argument for all charges, and I can't see anyone disregarding what we all see with our own eyes when we watch that footage. Unlike every other cop trial, ALL THE COPS TESTIFYING agree that Chauvin was 100% wrong. You never see that happen. I would be surprised if he walks. If you're serious I will legitimately bet you $250.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
First of all, whether or not Derek Chauvin had intent to kill when he was called to the scene or before he kneeled on Floyd's neck is irrelevant. I have no idea why you think it is relevant, but feel free to explain.
To prove second degree murder, the prosecution has to prove that Chauvin recklessly endangered George Floyd's life knowing that his conduct could have killed him. So they don't have to prove intent; they only have to prove that a reasonable person would have known that kneeling on someone's neck that was prone on the ground for a certain length of time, with a knee (or multiple knees) pressed into them could be fatal. Derek Chauvin's police chief, lieutenant, and every single other colleague that was called to the stand all testified that Derek Chauvin would have indeed known that was inappropriate, and contrary to both the police policy and police training that Chauvin received.
The policy is clear: an officer may use kneeling techniques and body weight to gain compliance if someone is resisting arrest, and yes may even use a taser or pepper spray to gain compliance. However once someone is cuffed, you are not allowed to continue kneeling; you have to put the suspect on their side. It is a clear-cut policy, so the defense has no shot in saying the amount of force Chauvin used was correct and appropriate. The ONLY way they can win is by convincing at least one single juror that George Floyd died solely from a drug overdose.
Cops, including Chauvin, receive training that instructs on the dangers of lying someone in the prone position. The training says that once you handcuff someone and they are prone, you have to immediately turn them on side into recovery position. The reason you must do this is because even if you do not put body weight on the person, their body's natural reaction from being in that position could put them into shock and cause death regardless of what else is going on. Despite Greyparrot insisting it doesn't matter that Chauvin broke police protocols, it absolutely does matter because it proves he acted in a way that he was trained could cause serious bodily harm if not fatal injury. That is what matters in proving second degree murder, the highest charge against Chauvin (and the only one that's really relevant).
And tbh I'm kinda shocked ya'll are so confident that he will walk. The only reason I worry he will is that is people are such cucks for cops. But your interpretation of what's happening is just so ridiculously bad and off base lol. Saying Nelson "destroyed" state witnesses? What the hell are you even talking about? All he had the cop admit to is that Chauvin didn't use more force than he did, which is completely irrelevant because no one is claiming otherwise.
The first question is whether Derek Chauvin acted wrongfully, i.e. inconsistent with police training, standard practice, and decent humanity. The prosecution has proven that to be true. The second question is whether Chauvin or a reasonable person would have known that his behavior could potentially fatally injure this person. In the same fashion (policy explanations) the prosecution has proven that to be true. The third question is causation, whether or not Chauvin's behavior DID cause fatal injury. That is the only thing the defense can dispute at this point, i.e. saying Chauvin did nothing wrong and Floyd would have died of a drug overdose even if Chauvin hadn't done what he did.
The defense has to convince the jury that Floyd would have died all on his own. The fact that Floyd was on drugs and had coronavirus (thereby making him even more susceptible to things like cardiac arrest or asphyxiation) was not only known by all the officers, which isn't a good look for the amount of force they used on him against all their training for 9+ minutes, but also cannot be used as a defense for Chauvin per the eggshell plaintiff doctrine. So I really don't see how Chauvin gets off here but stranger things have happened.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
Talk about lack of intent
Completely irrelevant.
Murder is now off the table.
100% wrong.
Ya'll are literally making up the most incorrect and uninformed analysis as you go along with NO SHAME lol. I'm almost impressed.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This thread is full of non-claims and walkbacks... lol!
Of course because that's your M.O. But I never said anything about George Floyd's neck or manner of death, so I have no idea why you think I should be burdened with citing evidence that has anything to do with either of those things lol. Very strange.
What I actually said and have not walked back at all is that you've offered no indication it's true that there are "hundreds and hundreds of hours of body cam footage" of cops violating police policy and kneeling on the neck of someone who is handcuffed and showing no signs of consciousness.
Then I said the primary defense will be that Floyd overdosed. I didn't say anything about blunt force, wounds or trauma but okurrrr.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
My parents had to get certain vaccines when they traveled to South Africa and Kenya, both trips they recommended I take someday. I'm not really a big animal lover though. Only dogs. I think a lot of the vaccines might just be recommended as well (not mandated) though I would take every single one lol. I shudder just thinking about those big ass bugs.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So what? Chauvin isn't on trial for violating police policy.
I never said he was on trial for violating police policy. You said there are "hundreds and hundreds of hours of body cam footage" of the cops violating police policy in the same exact manner -- a claim for which you have offered no evidence whatsoever -- and then suggested that this alleged footage vindicates the defendant which is just something you made up in conjunction with other trash legal analysis. Not sure why.
How about you point to me in the autopsy report the evidence that Floyd's neck sustained trauma that contributed to his death since HB can't seem to find it either.
Yeah, imposing burdens of proof on myself for claims I never made is not really something I have time for. You can find the autopsies labeling Floyd's death a homicide pretty readily though. The county autopsy said he died from cardiopulmonary arrest and the Floyd family's independent autopsy said he died from asphyxia. As I said this will come down to competing medical testimony; of course the defense will be able to find experts to testify that Floyd "would have died anyway." I don't think the jury will buy it though. I really think this could be the first time a cop is held accountable in a major case for their unquestionably unjustifiable behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I was responding to your post about how "companies wouldn't be doing this [promoting leftist values or policy] if they didn't have government protecting them from free competition."
Even if you were mistaken about the reasons Coke promoted leftist values or policies as you responded, that doesn't answer how the government protects Coke from competition like you claimed earlier.
It doesn't seem the government actively protects Coke from their competition (such as PepsiCo, Nestle, Keurig Doctor Pepper, Tropicana and Red Bull to name a few). So I think it's fair to say that so far it hasn't been proven that companies only reject right-wing values or policy when the government helps them.
What's interesting is that you'd think big corporations would be on the side of the party that routinely advocates to cut their taxes, but they're not in the instance of Coca Cola and other companies speaking out against the new voter legislation in Georgia. I think their comments are too little too late, but at least they publicly acknowledged how egregious it is for whatever that's worth.
Created:
Posted in:
Re: vaccine passports, so many right-wingers seem awfully agitated by the prospect of not having their freedom of movement respected. It seems a lil weird to me (though I do understand the concern) given the vaccine requirements that have always existed for certain places, and that every country already requires passports for travel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Not my fault King Cuomo like illegals more than actual Americans 🤷♂️
That's cool, I never said anything was your fault lol. I was responding to your quip about how "the feds can try" by agreeing their efforts have often been historically futile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, stop. Why would you double down on your mistake? That's just embarrassing.
You said "Trump exposed [theocratic Republicans] for being DC parasites."
I said nobody in the elected GOP Establishment went against Trump during his presidential tenure except for maybe Paul Ryan and John McCain who didn't last long, and Mitt Romney whose votes had no impact. The rest all seemed happy to deepthroat Trump's orange dick for their own political gain and that's exactly what they did.
In response you presented a link that did not contradict that statement in any way, shape, or form.
Not even a little bit.
It was a link where the Establishment GOP met with Trump to discuss how to implement Trump's agenda. The article highlighted Trump praising Mitch McConnell and strategizing how to work together, which they did throughout Trump's time in office. You don't have a source from Trump's tenure showing McConnell actively working against Trump because it didn't happen. The two needed each other and they knew it. That's why Trump talked a big game about "draining the swamp" but didn't actually accomplish that one iota.
The Republicans’ 2017 tax bill is a case in point: it rewarded the Party’s biggest donors by giving more than 80% of its breaks to the wealthiest 1% by cutting corporate tax rates, and by preserving the carried-interest loophole which is exploited by private-equity firms and hedge funds (something Trump said he would get rid of but didn't... lol... just like he said he would get rid of lobbying bans, but then reinstated them... lol... yeah ya boy is so anti elite... lol). The tax bill was unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans, so the Republican Party had to form a coalition between corporatists and populists who were galvanized by Trump’s ultimately useless rhetoric. This hybrid strategy has been called Plutocratic Populism. And indeed it has worked with Trump supporters still thinking he was "fighting for them" while actively doing nothing in practice to change the status quo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Predictably, none of your response comes close to answering my question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
LOL did you even bother to read the article? (I'm surprised I did given how routinely useless your links are.) This proved to be no exception given it's an article about how Donald Trump called Mitch McConnell "mean as a snake" IN A GOOD WAY. The article is literally about Donald Trump praising Mitch McConnell, but based on the headline alone, you probably thought it was about Mitch going against the president lol. I can't. Thanks for proving McConnell was one of many GOP cucks for Trump as virtually all of them were.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolute bullshit. Companies wouldn't be doing this if they didn't have the government protecting them from free competition.
How are entities like Coca Cola and MLB being protected by government? I know the government subsidizes them through food stamps and by forcing tax payers to foot the bill for stadiums, but how are they being protected from competition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
Everything you've said in this thread is correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
the traditional theocratic Republican party died when Trump exposed them for being DC parasites.
Please. Nobody in the elected GOP Establishment went against Trump during his presidential tenure except for maybe Paul Ryan and John McCain who didn't last long, and Mitt Romney whose votes had no impact. The rest all seemed happy to deepthroat Trump's orange dick for their own political gain and that's exactly what they did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
We sure as hell aren’t going to enforce the passports. Feds can come and guard every state border if they want. Good luck to them
That's how sanctuary cities and counties responded to Trump's immigration policies :)
Not only did the feds make little to no dent in the amount of undocumented people here, but now New York lawmakers want to give billions of dollars to undocumented immigrants including former inmates that have been excluded from federal aid packages lol. Unreal.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The chief and other officers testified that kneeling on someone's neck when they are handcuffed on the ground was “in no way, shape or form” part of department policy or training -- but you think there are hundreds and hundreds of hours of body cam footage of them doing precisely that lol. Why are you complaining about CNN and the media not acknowledging this alleged footage when the DEFENSE hasn't either? Obviously that's an idiotic take they very likely can't prove, which is why they have not and will not be making that argument.
Their first argument (the tense crowd) is failing miserably so they will be relying on the argument that Floyd overdosed. Of course an expert will testify to that because they're getting paid to do so. And then other experts will testify he would not have gone into cardiac arrest or whatever (if that's what even happened) had someone not been kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes, including for almost 5 minutes after showing no signs of consciousness.
Fortunately an incompetent killer cop is likely to be found guilty for a change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Unfortunately I can still only commit to playing this game within a 40 hour per week window.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Technically the third time he called her president elect. I hate you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So you think Joe Biden shows signs of mental decline because he has twice said "President Harris" as opposed to Vice President Harris. Keep in mind he has a stutter which makes public speaking more difficult for him.
I wonder how we should diagnose Trump given his tortured teleprompter moments, one time saying parents "sacrifice for the furniture and the future of their children." He called Tim Cook Tim Apple, but to be fair he was constantly mixing up the names of his own staff. At least "Mike Pounce" was close. There was one press conference where he forgot the name of Justice Kennedy all together ("Justice... Anthony... you know who I'm talking about"). He butchered the song lyrics to God Bless America, a song we all learned in elementary school. Lots of typos on twitter. Can't pronounce the word "anonymous." Called Thailand "thighland." Said oranges instead of origins. He referenced the Continental Army taking over airports in the year 1775 lol. He slurred his words in a speech about Jerusalem (and another one I can't recall offhand). He said he met with the president of the Virgin Islands; he meant to say governor. There was that time he claimed he meant to say the exact opposite of what he said about Russian interference in the election, claiming he misspoke.
I mean if Joe Biden ever bellowed "HELLO ST. LOUIS!" to a crowd in Kansas City the way Trump did, there would be memes all over the internet saying this gaffe definitively proves his dementia. Yet for some reason Trump's innumerable mistakes are just... mistakes. Funny how that works.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's true. I'm actually a 39 year old Russian named Vlad, but I really do live in Brooklyn. I just pretend to be a canny blonde woman on the internet. Started as a joke back when we still had chat rooms and here we are 20 years later. #AndTheOscarGoesTo
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I won't. I used to think you were trolling me but then I realized that's just you <3
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol you know that when you respond with off-topic links I don't watch them, but thanks. China's feelings on BLM mean nothing given their rampant human rights abuses. You know, good ol SUPERIOR CHINA!
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
That is very admirable of you and definitely a Christ-like approach to helping needy people. I suspect most would have a hard time doing manual labor or volunteer work for someone who was not grateful, and I wonder if donating money alone makes it easier to ignore the ingratitude (it doesn't for me).
Historically I have had a hard time feeling generous toward people I don't like, or those who express hatred or negativity toward people and things I care about. For instance it grinds my gears that I have to pay a ton of taxes to help subsidize all the Jim Bobs and Peggy Sues who routinely voted against things like gay marriage. But lately what I feel most for these people is pity. I've noticed that in the last few months I'm just feeling sorry for people that I would usually have contempt for.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Only the most simple of simpletons would assume I am a radical leftist. Meanwhile you routinely rant and rave about free trade (WAAAAH CHINA) yet cherry pick quotes advocating for free trade when you think you might kinda sorta maybe like the outcome (I know that's not a real quote). If a nuclear energy company bought anything from overseas, you would immediately start talking about how we need regulations and reject or ignore everything these free market capitalists say on the matter. Clearly you're at peace with that and I just find it amusing.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You do realize that Friedman, Sowell, etc. do not share your views on markets, correct? They champion free trade; you seem to despise it.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If I can get welfare, why wouldn’t I? GP is on welfare and he sure as hell doesn’t need it.
Is he grateful that he meets welfare eligibility despite not needing it? If he isn't grateful, should it be taken away?
If the safety net didn’t exist people would be more conscious about spending their money on proper items rather than drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol lol.
That's not how addiction works but anyways
If I can not work and chill, why would I ever work.
Well there are many people who don't have to work but choose to do so. Technically I am one of them. But this doesn't really answer the question about whether or not gratitude should be a prerequisite to receiving charity or welfare.
Created:
Oh, I would be grateful if they cancelled my student loans (though I do not support that policy).
It would be interesting how things changed or didn't change if you were only eligible for benefits you voted for.
Created:
Hmm, I suppose it's possible to be grateful for something you don't like. That's kinda how I feel about sperm. I can't think of many other examples off the dome.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Lol okay but the question is do ungrateful people deserve welfare. Considering the deep south routinely votes against social programs, it's interesting that those states are the biggest welfare whores of all (using that term to make a point). Maybe they should forfeit all their food stamps, government healthcare and unemployment benefits since those are Big Government socialist policies .
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
That's nice though the deep south generally refers to places like Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If a person receiving welfare felt ungrateful then he’s just retarded and should die 🤷♂️🤡
Hey that's not nice to say about your comrades in the Deep South.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
That's odd considering Joe Biden has been against assault weapons and attacking the gun lobby for like 30 years.
Created: