Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Why do "we all pay"? If there is a child, then there is a mother and a father. The father needs to pay. If not, there needs be legal remedies.
I responding to your own OP, you said the father cannot be found. Please explain how you hold the father accountable when you do not know where he is.
And regardless of whether you find him, if he doesn't pay then he doesn't pay, throwing him in jail doesn't change that. So if not the rest of us (through government assistance), what is your idea for how the child gets their basic survival needs met? Or do you support just letting them starve to death?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
If you believe that then you don't know what evidence means.
Banning the sale of something, and going around confiscating that something from people who already have it and bought it legally are not remotely the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
We all know the purpose of this bill: to facilitate future gun confiscation.
Do you have any evidence or rational argument to back that up, or just projection?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Slainte
Thoughts?
I probably had the same initial reaction as many, it just sounded gross or unsafe, but the benefits... No longer needing to slaughter animals or take up the amount of water, plants and land to grow them is quite an inticing thought.
Water is the big one, only about 1% of the Earth's water is drinkable and we're starting to run out. That's going to cause massive displacement and poverty by the end of this century. Producing meat is one of the largest contributors because of the amount of water livestock must consume before they are ready. One pound of beef requires about 1800 gallons, so we will either run out of meat, water, or more likely both. This sounds like a viable (partial) solution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So Hunter Biden is guilty? 🤔
Yes, clearly
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When you commit the same logical fallacies over and over again, you're going to get called out on it over and over again.
That's not a reflection on me.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What if it's a recording of Biden?
That's what we would call actual evidence. Let me know when you have some.
It never ceases to amaze me what the right wing considers evidence against the BidensMany Democrats are also concerned about corruption. Don't lump all Democrats with support for a criminal please.
Being concerned about corruption and inventing reasons to assert corruption out of thin air are two different things.
There is nothing virtuous about pretending you don't understand this.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden was asked about the $5Million and said "That's a dumb question!"So that sorts that out, nothing to see here...What's your thoughts?
The document contains an allegation of bribery with no supporting evidence signed by some guy whom no one has heard from in 3 years.
It never ceases to amaze me what the right wing considers evidence against the Bidens while pretending that multiple first hand witnesses, photo evidence, and video evidence against Trump is just a political witch-hunt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The left-tribe narrative crumbles under review
It crumbles in any environment where right wingers are able to strawman and equivocate without any pushback whatsoever. Case and point...
Most people haven't a clue Biden is guilty of everything Trump is accused of (quid pro quo corruption, hoarding secret documents, sounding like an idiot with zero self-awareness, groping people).
Not one of these things is remotely the same.
We've discussed the quid pro quo ad nauseam. Your position is to hand waive away every piece of evidence showing you're wrong as part of some grand conspiracy.
Trump wasn't indicted fort having secret documents, he was indicted for refusing to give them back while lying to federal investigators
There is no example of Biden "sounding like an idiot" that compares to any one of hundreds of examples out there of Trump genuinely having no idea what the hell he's talking about.
Biden's groping is bad but no where near the level of Trump. Where is he at? 26 acusers, including a conviction and getting caught on tape admitting to sexual assault...
Strawmans and false equivalences are all the political right has.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
who pays?
We all do, because there's a child involved and the alternative is to take the child away which, cruelty aside, is far more expensive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
My statement was not about motivation, but phenomenon.
The motivation is what leads to the phenomenon, which is what makes right wing politics of today recognizable by its own standards.
The propaganda machine which continues to be the mainstream culture of the uninformed never applies the same victimhood criteria to right-tribers as it does to left-tribers.They have double standards, much like yourself. At every turn with relative probabilities the odds are ever in the favor of the left-tribe victim narrative.
Again, I never argued nor suggested that victimization is not a part of left wing politics. The difference is that victimization is not central to left wing politics.
Left wing politics is fundamentally about improving the lives of it's constituency by assuring opportunity for all. Right wing politics is all about grievances and victimization.
Trump is the victim of the hour by objective measures, but because he is right-tribe (the dangerous part of the right-tribe actually) he doesn't get to be a victim (according to what the uninformed normies see).
I can only imagine that by "objective measures" you mean things like the number of investigations, impeachments or indictments he is facing as most Trump defenders assert, which is an absurd argument. That's like arguing that revenue = profit, with no consideration for expenses.
This is the silly little game that the right lives to play, pretend that Trump being under investigation is the democrats fault and blot the fault of the person who's actions triggered said investigation. This is why if you turn on Fox News, OANN, or whoever you know what you will never see? A segment digging deep into the facts about Trump's actions. It's entirely a barrage of whataboutisms and deep state conspiracies. Because Trump, and by extension the MAGA base, are always the victim.
Uninitiated people do not know the details that lead a right-triber to perceive the injustice because the left-tribe dominates not only their own internal discourse but also the national discourse.
That's because most people live in the real world. Conspiracy theories and empty political slogans tend to only appeal to those who have a vested interest in them, which is generally not the case to anyone who is not wrapped up in right wing politics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"Dangerous misinformation" was a term the corporate media made up to justify censorship of talk that threatened their stock prices.
It's also a term used to describe misinformation... That is dangerous. Like the idea that COVID vaccines were a global hoax meant to control us by microchipping us, or something. Or the idea that the election was stolen.
There is such a thing as reality. I support legitimate efforts to keep society living within it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
because right-tribers are not privileged enough to be the victim of the hour.Is that a joke? Today's right wing politics is entirely based on victimhood.You're confusing two different quantities.
No, I'm calling you out for making an absurd statement. I didn't argue that there is no victimization in left wing politics, I am responding to you claiming right tribers are not "privileged enough" to assert such nonsense while ignoring that victimization is the core motivator of right wing politics.
If you want an example of this look no further than the response to the leading candidate for the republican nomination getting indicted on federal charges. In a sane world this would have ended his political career, but to the political right it's all a deep state conspiracy against conservatives, so instead his poll numbers go up.
Everything on the right is like this. A bunch of right wing extremists get banned on Twitter for violent rhetoric and the narrative is that conservatives are being silenced. A bunch of right wing extremists get arrested and charged for breaking into the US capitol and the narrative is that they are being persecuted. A bunch of gays hold up a flag showing pride and right wingers think it's all a plot to corrupt their children.
There is a reason they keep repeating the ridiculous line that "if they can do this to Trump they will come after you next", because it works. Fear and victimization are the core tenants of right wing politics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The only criteria for heaven, is to be without sin.
And who determines what qualifies as sin?
And God didn't make these criteria, it just makes sense. God is perfect and cannot allow non-perfect people into a perfect place, because then he wouldn't be perfect, and that place wouldn't be perfect.
If God is our creator and there are imperfect people, you can no longer claim God is perfect.
Moreover, there is no reason why heaven must be a perfect place. That was a choice God made.
And even if God decided he wanted to send all the perfect people to a perfect place, why create a place of torment and torture for everyone else? Whatever the reason, that was still his decision as was the criteria that those of us who don't believe go there.
He's the almighty creator of everything. Why dig yourself into such logical holes to absolve him from responsibility for the system he created?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
i know a lot of liberals on here support twitter banning conservatives.
I don't know if any. No liberal I know of supports banning anyone because they're conservative, they support banning people who incite violence and/or spread dangerous misinformation. It just so happens that the people who commit such offenses are overwhelmingly right wing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
How hilarious that you provide Joe Biden's politifact page to support the notion that he's worse or even as bad as Trump. If you zoom out to his profile you'll see that 56% of Biden's statements were ranked at least half true, for Trump that number is 23%. Meanwhile Biden's pants on fire rating is 2% while Trump's is 18%.
All politicians lie and Biden is no different. Trump is in a world of his own. Trump lies about things that are so blatantly and easily provably false and he does it much of the time for no reason. He couldn't even tell the truth about the crowd size or weather at his inauguration. No one else who's ever came close to the oval office compares.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Quite sure you're not calling Joe Biden a pathological liar while defending Donald Trump.
Trump meanwhile, stored classified documents on a stage in his country club while he was holding events there. But that's the guy you think took extra measures to ensure his documents were secured.
Reality be damned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Funny, Joe Biden also could have taken plenty of measures to ensure the documents he had were safer than we know, I don't see you rushing to assume that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well not entirely, there's also a lot of bigotry mixed in
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
because right-tribers are not privileged enough to be the victim of the hour.
Is that a joke? Today's right wing politics is entirely based on victimhood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not my talking point, but it's a meaningful tidbit because it demonstrates the rush to defend Trump at all costs while chucking critical thinking out the window.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This week, he accused Biden of stealing classified documents from a secure facility, and he said that Trump’s handling of documents (piled in a bathroom) was superior to Biden’s (in a garage) because “a bathroom door locks.”
What's hilarious about this latest talking point is that bathroom doors only lock from the inside, so unless the documents were protecting their own privacy the doors were not in fact locked.
Garage doors meanwhile, do actually "lock".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
^^^
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
The illegal actions were holding it on a private server.
James Comey's speech:
Not one line in his speech suggests that she illegally disseminated classified information.
They haven't even released the supposed tape that "proves" anything.
They also haven't released the tapes showing fight 77 hitting the Pentagon, that doesn't mean we're being reasonable by claiming it hasn't been proven.
You really seem to be gravitating towards this nuclear method strategy of 'until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law it's all meaningless'. That's not how reason works. Unless you are a juror on the case, Occam's razor applies.
But what really makes this thinking dangerous is that unlike any other trial, the court of public opinion (which you are refusing to take part in) will likely decide the outcome of this case. The legal case is damning and the Trump team knows it, so they will do everything they can delay delay delay. Most legal experts agree that this trial will not conclude before the election, and if Trump ends up winning, the federal charges will be instantly dropped. So all of our opinions are really going to matter here.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Hillary illegally obtained classified documents
No, she didn't. She had the necessary clearances and they were sent to her through her email server. It's not a crime to receive an email, no matter what's in it.
illegally disseminated them
Citation please
destroyed the proof, and then tried to cover it up.
As the story goes, her aid after sifting through the messages deleted all of the personal ones not realizing they were supposed to be maintained.
Is that believable? Maybe. Either way it certainly stinks. But being that this was her personal email address we have no proof of what was in those emails and thus we have no evidence that anything classified was deleted. It's one of those frustrating cases where we can reasonably suspect something foul but will never know anything more.
You cannot prosecute someone for that. And when you look at the situation in it's totality nothing else about her actions suggest any intent to do something illegal.
Trump obtained them through a normal process that all previous Presidents had done. Usually, NARA gives a president months to go through the boxes to siphon out the classified documents and hand them back. With Trump, they changed the process, gave him 15 days for a handFul of boxes, and then alerted the FBI.
Setting aside the accuracy of this statement, you began by telling us you were about to list the "key differences" between Hillary and Trump. Why then are you not talking about Trump's repeated attempts to lie to federal investigators including moving boxes around from room to room and even from facility to facility in order to keep them from finding them? That's kind of a "key difference" between these two don't you think?
BTW, since you're playing the "but her emails" card... Do you not find it odd that Trump's own DOJ determined that there was nothing there with Hilary to prosecute?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I think, the way the law currently works, it's nobody's choice to violate civil liberties over political preference. I.E. you can't kick someone out of your establishment over politics. Though I could be mistaken.
You are. Political identity is not a protected class nor should it ever be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion that the crime of obstruction of justice was committed by Trump.""Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”-Mueller
Wow, talk about gas lighting.
Here's the full part of that second quote;
“[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
So "that judgement" in the second quote is referring to the conclusion that the president didn't commit a crime. In other words, 'we can't call him innocent'. Yet you dishonestly cut out the rest to make it look like the opposite.
I expected better, even from you.
Trump was later exonerated after his failed political impeachment over obstruction.
Yep, Trump was exonerated by house and senate republicans, because that's how exoneration works. Ok bro.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let me know when you have something to offer other than nonsensical and baseless assertions that ignore reality and the points I just made.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Judge Jackson said it herself in the Clinton sock drawer case, it is the POTUS’ sole discretion what is or isn’t presidential records and/or personal records. So yeah, POTUS is the final say, UNLESS Congress changes the PSA. It’s that simple.
She did not rule that Clinton had unchecked power to do whatever he wanted. In fact in her ruling she even referenced a 1993 ruling which stated the following;
“We did not hold in that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise ‘virtually complete control’ over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of ‘presidential records’ in the PRA.”
As usual, Trump cultists ignore any part of the ruling that inconveniences their narrative.
But regardless of what Amy Berman Jackson says, which you would immediately disregard any time it doesn't suit your narrative, let's just take a step back and look at how absurd this argument is.
The PRA was passed in 1978 in the wake of the Watergate scandal and one year after Nixon's infamous "if the president does it it's not illegal" comment. It's entire purpose is to prevent abuse by the executive by restricting what the president can deem as his own personal property. And in it, it specifically defines what qualifies as personal vs presidential.
So you are literally arguing that a law which was written to restrict Trump's authority gives him unlimited authority, and a law which defines presidential records really just says "whatever the president decides".
And you reached this conclusion how... Because Vivek Ramaswamy, a guy who studied biology and ran a t-shirt company said so?
Let's make this real simple. You claim the PRA gives Trump unlimited authority to deem any government record he wants as his personal property. Show me the provision in the law that does this. Here's the link. Go.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Planted evidence is a fact.
Do you have any evidence that theFBI planted anything? No, of course you don't. Because why worry about being reasonable when you can just spout whatever nonsense makes you feel good?
You do know most of the FBI photos released to MSNBC
They were released in the indictment genius. That's not "releasing them to MSNBC". You know this bit you spout this bullshit anyway because you're not a serious person to talk to.
In most legitimate FBI cases, a jury sees the evidence when they show up in court to see it for the 1st time.
Most FBI cases do not involve a former president of the United States.
There is nothing illigitimate about their decision to release the photos. Classic No True Scottsman fallacy.
Created:
-->
@Slainte
Again, you undermine the process.
This isn't the legal process, it's a debate site.
Innocent until proven guilty and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt are principals injected into the system not to govern what qualifies as rational thought, but to ensure prioritization of the protection of the innocent over consequences for the guilty. If and/or when any individual becomes part of the legal process those principals will need to be understood, respected and followed. The rest of us are free to use our rational minds to make valid logical inferences.
Or if you prefer it more simply; Nothing about the legal process says the rest of us are not allowed to think for ourselves.
An indictment is an accusation without fact, or retort.
Without retort? Yes. Without fact? Absolutely not.
The indictment contains statements from first hand witnesses who gave their testimonies under oath, photographic evidence, video evidence, etc. It's not an accusation without fact, it's a trove of evidence resulting from a months long investigation woven together to form a coherent narrative. And in this case, it's a very clear and damming one.
I argue that if one would "conclude" based on an indictment, they are part of the problem.
The suspension of rational thinking is not a virtue, but you are free to your own viewpoint.
No one is arguing the case is over. If and/or when we learn something new that undermines the current allegations we'll adjust properly.
Created:
-->
@Slainte
With respect your statement here shows a complete disregard for the integrity of the justice system. (emphasis added)someone is as obviously guilty of committing a serious crime as is Trump, they should be prosecuted.You prosecute when you suspect someone of a crime. Though it may APPEAR to be obvious, the arbiter of commission/guilt are the courts.
Prosecute; institute legal proceedings against (a person or organization).
Instituting legal proceedings against Trump has nothing to do with whether he is ultimately found innocent or guilty of the alleged crime. That's what the proceedings are for. No one I know of any prominence on the political left is advocating for anything other than for Trump to be subjected to the legal system as any other American would be if there was evidence such as this that they committed these crimes.
When I say he is obviously guilty, Im speaking colloquially. No rational person would look at the facts alleged in the indictment and conclude otherwise. But obviously guilty in the court of public opinion is not the same thing as being obviously guilty in a court of law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As regards to Trump or the FBI, nothing criminal was proven with either.
The Meuller report listed 11 counts of obstruction of justice by Trump as well as the indictments of 34 individuals and 3 Russian businesses.
But nope, nothing criminal to see here. Cause reality be damned.
As far as criminality proved but the Durham Report? Well, let's go back to the Atlantic;
Dan Crenshaw, for example, is a rising leader in the Republican Party—one who has always kept some moral and political distance from Trump, and who is firmly anchored to the pro-Ukraine, anti-Putin side of the GOP House caucus. Yet even he tweetedafter Durham:"I’ve never been a reactive “lock ’em up” type. But this Durham report is a lock ’em up moment. We should be looking for statutes that apply to these egregious violations of public trust. If they don’t exist, it’s time we create them so it never happens again."Similarly, Nikki Haley, the former UN ambassador and a candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination, today demanded retaliation against the FBI: “If we can’t hold the FBI accountable for the Russian hoax, we are no different from South Sudan or the Democratic Republic of Congo. This type of corruption should never happen in America.”Crenshaw’s and Haley’s menacing but vague language makes clear that they both understand there’s almost certainly no statute to invoke here. They are not calling for measures consistent with the rule of law but are instead appealing to dark fantasies of cultural revenge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
That the FBI is corrupted, along with many other aspects of the federal government.
I addressed this vague assertion already in the OP. Do you have any substance to add here?
And if you're too lazy to write your own words, since I'm the one seeking information here I'd actually be willing to watch one of your videos (provided you explain what I'm supposed to be looking for and at what point in the video)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It proved just as much as the Mueller report.
Which is what exactly?
A lot, in which case you failed to provide a single example.
Or nothing, in which case you clearly do not know anything about the Mueller report.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
When we talk about how Fox is a propaganda outlet unlike anything on the left,That's right. Nothing on the left is propaganda
Slow down. Read first, then react.
I didn't say "nothing on the left" is propoganda. I said there is nothing on the left that compares to Fox News. Why? Because Fox News is an overt campaign arm of the republican party pretending to be a news network. You can criticize other networks for being biased, you can't pretend they're the same.
Do you really want me to run through the list of reasons why again?
Created:
Posted in:
In the wake of the Trump indictment the "weaponization of the federal government" claims continue to be made as if it's just a proven non-controversial fact on the political right. I haven't sat down to read all 330+ pages yet but am really curious to see if there is anyone on this site who can explain how this report proves anything.
In my research looking at what others have had to say about the report this article from the Atlantic seems to put my findings best:
Rather than endorse the theory of a global anti-Trump conspiracy, Durham settles into a long bill of grievances against the FBI. The agency’s methods, he argues, were too aggressive; its agents were too ready to believe the worst about Trump. The FBI had only enough information to justify a preliminary investigation, not a full one—a distinction the report carefully parses for some pages. This, in the end, is the gravamen of the Durham report: The FBI overreacted to the available information about Trump’s Russia contacts and should have moved more cautiously before advancing to the next phase of an investigation.
What the report says is in essence a classic Miranda-rights criminal defense of a kind that conservatives dislike when it benefits a mugger or a car thief: “The cops messed up in this way or that, and therefore my client must go free, even though we all know he did exactly what he is accused of.”
From everything I have seen and heard, this article nails it. Here's a counter article from the Hill titled "Durham Report: The FBI is as bad as you feared, maybe worse" which begins by proclaiming that the conspiracy theorists were right. Yet there is absolutely nothing in this article supporting that assertion. The worst thing it mentions are Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's text messages and some guy who falsified a document.
Is this really it? Is this really what the political right thinks proves an agency of the federal government has been weaponized?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
When we talk about how Fox is a propaganda outlet unlike anything on the left, this chyron singlehandedly demonstrates why.
What's most ironic is the fact that there actually was wannabe dictator on the screen, but he wasn't the one speaking from the White House. As usual with these people, up is down and black is white.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you oppose BLM and other social justice movements that want discretionary Justice.
I've never advocated for discretionary justice and don't support it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't seriously believe in your "reality" that jailing Trump is going to do the opposite of what you want. I know you can't possibly believe this.
What I believe is that of someone is as obviously guilty of committing a serious crime as is Trump, they should be prosecuted. Because that's how the rule of law actually works, and for all the postering by the political right about the rule of law it turns out that it's actually the left that cares about it.
What I don't care about is using the justice system to appease the ignorant among us as part of some grand scheme to sway the electorate in the direction I desire. That would have long term consequences just as bad if not worse than the alternative you seem to be advocating for.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn't offer it as a valid way to eliminate MAGA, it's an assessment of the issue here. Any conversation regarding how we solve real world issues must begin with a shared sense of reality, which requires an adherence to basic facts and logic. The MAGA crowd is not concerned with facts and logic, so no productive real world conversation is possible there.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Levin spells it out again how the PSA and the law I cited in my previous reply is applicable based on what the judge said about the POTUS being the one who decides what is person or not personal records, and Congress deferred to that judgment. This case is a political shit show circus, and you know it.
The PRA defines what qualifies as presidential records and contrasts that with what it defines as personal records. The entire point of the law is to establish what records belong to the American people vs what is the president's personal property.
But no matter how any law is written, it always, necessarily, requires a human being to be the ultimate arbiter of whether something meets that law. So the question becomes, who is that person(s)?
Mark Levin asserts that the president gets to decide full stop, and no one could ever challenge him. That position is inherently circular, incoherent, and self defeating.
He's right about the fact that it says right in the name; the Presidential Records Act... It's written specifically for him, which is exactly the problem. If he is the ultimate authority and no one could ever challenge his judgement on what is a presidential record then the law instantly becomes null and void. Defining what records qualify is immediately replaced with "whatever the president says". The law overrides itself.
And worse is that this flagrantly abusive interpretation doesn't even require him to document his own classifications, so no one ever has to know what he took with him as he left office and he has a lifelong pass to decide because no one can argue he didn't deem something his. So according to that logic Trump can claim any record in the federal government's posession right now that was there since 2020 is his because he once upon a time he deemed it so and demand it back. Under this theory Trump gets to take, keep, share, and even sell the country's most guarded nuclear secrets after leaving office and not be in violation of any kind because they're his personal property. That's absolutely ridiculous.
The judge did acknowledge his role as the arbiter of what qualifies but that was in an entirely different context. To assert that he gets to make a determination in an instance where there may be reasonable disagreement is not the same as saying that he gets to throw the entire law in the garbage because he's the ultimate king and and is definitionally excluded from being wrong.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So can you identify a non-angel on the left?
I know of not one single individual in politics whom I consider to be a colloquial "angel", so anyone you can possibly mention would qualify.
This goes beyond a simple thought exercise. It gets to the heart of good and evil, and who gets to define that. People in power or the people themselves.
This right here is the problem with today's political right. We're talking about justice. That requires us to acknowledge basic principals like "no one is above the law", due process, evidence derived from facts and logic...
But while the political left is engaged in that conversation, the MAGA cult and it's sympathizers are talking about some war of good vs evil, as if politics is a cartoon.
And this is why we will continue to have Maga, because the left and the establishment right have absolutely no clue how to deal with Maga.
Correct. The left is interested in reality, not the MAGA cult's emotions. These people need to depart from politics and go find themselves a therapist.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I never argued, suggested, nor implied that there aren't any non-angels on the left. What I contended is;
A) We do not nor should we ever indict people based on optics.
B) If we were to indict based on optics, the last group we would appease are those who remain willfully ignorant of the facts and logic surrounding the cases in question.
C) That I have no interest in engaging in this absurd hypothetical until you can explain why anyone interested in a reasonable and productive conversation should.
And since you want to pretend that anything I said suggests there are nothing but angels on the left, I remind you that not being an angel is not an indictable offense. So when I pointed out that no one on the left is claiming this, that's because the conversation we're actually having on the left pertains to the rule of law which is an entirely different conversation from your silly framing here.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you had to pick a scape goat on the left to balance out a Trump conviction, solely for appearances sake, who would you pick?
Appearence to who? The stupid and ignorant people who think justice is about "which side" is getting arrested vs following the facts and the law to wherever it leads?
There is no reason for any reasonably intelligent person to go down that path, yet you insist we both do. Why? Why are you feeding into this idiocy? What is your point?
Demonstrate that your question leads to some kind of reasonably intelligent reasonably productive conversation and I'll be happy to address it.
Not only can't he select a non-angel as a scapegoat, he can't even select a hypothetical bad guy on the left.Not a single one.
This is so incredibly childish and stupid.
We're talking about real life, politics is not a comic book filled with good guys vs bad guys. Justice in America follows a system designed to do everything reasonably possible to hold criminals to account while prioritizing the protection of the innocent. Do you intend to talk about that or just keep pretending this is a team sport?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Appearence to who? Here's the problem; your question is entirely about the optics to the stupid and ignorant.
If the goal here is to have productive and intelligent conversation, then we need to discuss these matters with the idea that facts and logic matters. Appeasing the stupid and the ignorant is therefore a waste of time as is any conversation built on the idea that we should catter to it.
So what is your point here?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I heard you the first time, and I did not address it because your premise is deeply flawed for the reasons pointed out. Address the problems with your question and I'll be happy to answer it
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump was indicted because there is overwhelming evidence against him. That's called justice.
Indicting someone on the left as a scapegoat is the opposite of justice.
Therefore the latter doesn't balance the former, in fact it does the opposite.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
The only reason Trump took the material was that he thought he could make money off of it.
The problem with this analysis is that it is built on the premise that Trump is a normal human being. He's not, he's incredibly psychologically damaged. In the indictment Trump is quoted as he showed classified documents to onlookers with no clearance and no business having anything to do with them. Some of the witnesses said they felt like he was showing off. Think about that, a former president showing off that he had access to classified information. How egotistical and narcissistic do you have to be to do that?
It's quite possible Trump was or intended to sell national secrets. It's also possible he's just a deranged lunatic holding onto a time in his life where he held real power and cannot handle admitting it's over. He's not a normal human being so it makes no sense to treat him like one.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So the whole case seems to be falling apart even before it begins
Not one single paragraph in that entire video transcript even attempted to address the case against Trump.
Because you know, critical thinking and nuance.
Created: