Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@coal
For example, you can broaden the definition of "terrorism" to include any act of violence committed by any individual with a potentially political motive.
lol you just described the definition of terrorism. it is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.". So yes, any act of violence committed for political motives is terrorism.
In this way, what counts as a "terrorist" attack is wholly indistinguishable from a bank robbery, disgruntled employee ransacking his former employer's office or other common act of criminality (spectacular or otherwise).
no, it is very easily distinguishable. They don't have political motives. They have personal ones. If you ransack someone's office to try to intimidate them into doing something to further your political ideology, that is terrorism. IE you are using fear (terror) for political gain.
But if you actually understood the data and the underlying methodologies behind those categorizations, you'd notice there's a big signal-to-noise problem with that approach.
no, the problem with that approach for right wing loons is that much of what they do is actually terrorism. But they are desperate not to be seen for what they are.
After all, as you correctly state the "terrorist" label goes a bit too far when all we're really talking about is garden-variety crime.
no, i said it might go too far because they didn't get to do the terrorism some of them wanted to. They wanted to murder political leaders to bring about an illegal regime change, that is terrorism. They just didn't get that far. Mostly due to incompetence, not for lack of trying.
So there's a level of judgement involved in the act of categorization. And if you have a political motive to brand those who disagree with you as "terrorists," then the word is meaningless.
or we could leave that level of judgement out of it entirely and make it very simple. Did you carry out an act of violence or intimidation for political reasons? then you're a terrorist. No judgement involved at all.
When every crime is an act of terrorism, there's no difference between terrorism and any other crime. That is the issue here.
no one is talking about all crime being terrorism. Only those done for political reasons. Why does this confuse you?
Basically, Islamist terror acts are a LOT more likely to be identified and prevented than anything with a purely domestic origin, which would include so called "far right" extremist attacks.
this sounds like a very good argument for why right wing terrorists are far more dangerous than islamists. do you suddenly agree with me?
The number of attacks deterred is a better measure than number of successful attacks.
this point has some merit. The number of attacks stopped is certainly relevant. But far less so than the number of successful attacks. If we are currently preventing almost all islamist attacks, but right wing terrorist attacks happen regularly, then it's pretty obvious which one is the bigger threat.
Right wing extremist groups, to the extent they exist (which is exaggerated in my estimation), literally have not identified maximizing human casualties as a stated goal, ever.
this is sort of the problem with right wing extremists. They aren't centralized. There is no equivalent of Nazi Al-Qaida. There is no leadership to target. Just lots and lots of rightwing loons who are willing to do terrible things to fight enemies that don't actually exist and threats that aren't real. Like the thousands of lunatics who attacked the capitol to try to destroy democracy.
Their goals tend to be only political in nature; and any "attack" they plan is consistently limited to use of violence as a means to an end as opposed to the end itself.
islamist terror is also a means to an end. To force the US to leave Iraq, to force them to stop meddling in the middle east etc. They aren't attainable goals, but they are goals.
In this way, to claim that the magnitude of threat posed by any specific attack is the same for right wing extremist groups and islamist groups is completely absurd.
a group of rightwing loons tried to attack the capitol and murder a whole bunch of members of the government in an attempt to overthrow democracy. They that is a far bigger threat than any islamist one in years. that is a pretty massive magnitude
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No I think it can be tweaked. One and only one. I was asked a question and answered it. I am not out giving government money to women to have abortions because they can't get to PP till they are pregnant. I am also not a law maker.
you are contradicting yourself. The Hyde amendment say s no government money should be spent on it. you are saying the exact opposite. you are saying money should be spent on it, you just want some limits. That's fair enough, I don't think we need to pay for dozens of abortions for the same person. But if you support any funding at all for abortions, then you disagree with the Hyde amendment.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Oh. And Democrats have no dogma?
they do. But it usually isn't the kind that actively tries to screw people over.
You’re just bleeding all over the page because you cannot afford an astringent?
I'm not "bleeding" anywhere. I am point out how shitty republicans are.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If life threatening then the medical would pay for it. So you are trying to mix two different types of abortion.
no. Pregnancy can be life threatening, just like a kidney stone. We don't wait for the person's life to be in danger to do something about a kidney stone. It is a medical issue that needs to be taken care of. Why would we need to wait for the woman's life to be directly endangered to do something about a pregnancy?
Funny they can't get to PP for birth control but they can for the abortion. LOL.
I don't actually see any valid point here. You seem to just be trying to insult people and use that as grounds to ignore them when they need help. Which is pretty despicable.
As I stated I am all for one elective abortion per person for free. At some point people need to quit expecting someone else to pay for their lack of judgement.
so we are just arguing semantics then? We both agree on the core argument. That the Hyde amendment is wrong. Because as per the Hyde amendment, you proposal would be illegal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
The truth is there have only ever been a handful of terrorist attacks in america by Islamist groups. Right wing terror attacks are actually much more common. But in the wake of 9/11, any terrorist attack by white people was usually just referred to as a "crime", and not terrorism. So in the modern world, groups like al-Qaida are considerably less threatening that right wing terrorists.
The media's characterization of the events that took place on January 6, 2021 as an "insurrection" and those who participated in any way in the events of January 6, 2021 as "terrorists."
I agree that "terrorist" might be too far based on what they actually managed to do. But insurrection might be a bit too soft. They marched on the US capitol with the express intent of overthrowing a democratic election and installing someone else as the leader of the country. That is an insurrection. They tried to overthrow democracy.
And many of them had the express intent of murdering elected officials who did their job upholding the election. What else do you call that? That is treason. If they had succeeded in getting their hands on some of these elected officials, it would absolutely have been terrorism.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Elective abortion isn't life threatening. Kidney stones can be.
pregnancy can absolutely be life threatening. Women do die from pregnancy. It also has serious health implications, some of which can be permanent. So lets not pretend like forcing someone to go through with a pregnancy doesn't have serious impacts to their health.
You can also give up the child and not have to raise it.
that has no bearing on this conversation. The point is that the right wants to force a woman to go through a painful, potentially fatal medical procedure (pregnancy and birth) against her will. What happens to a potential child afterwards isn't really relevant to the question of the medical procedure.
If you aren't going to use it or the morning after pill then you can pay for the abortion.
no contraceptives are 100% successful. not everyone has access to the morning after pill. Assuming that everyone has easy access to all the tools to prevent pregnancy is a big assumption. And even then, those tools can fail.
And even then, why is that relevant to this question at all? Should we refuse to treat car crash victims who weren't wearing a seatbelt because they didn't use all available safety equipment? Bottom line, you disagree with their choices and want them to suffer for it.
Yet that is a liberal inconvenience and should not be expected to be used cause you don't like the poor having to exert any personal responsibility cause your guilt at them being poor.
wow... that is just a whole lot of bullshit. By that standard, if you get into a car crash and don't wear your seatbelt, the doctor should just smother you with a pillow. accidentally take too much of your medication? well you didn't take personal responsibility so why should we help?
Personal responsibility is a good thing. But people make mistakes. Saying "fuck you, you deserve to suffer" when they do isn't helpful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
No, that wasn't the source.
ok... well I searched an exact quote from what you provided and exactly 1 website came up. So it sounds to me like that was your source. And if not, then whatever your source was lifted it word for word from the crazy conspiracy website.
Just looking for other people to respond to see if its credible.
why would you do that though? You found some crazy conspiracy theory posted somewhere really sketchy (if it weren't you wouldn't be ashamed to tell us where it is). I looked around for like 5 minutes and could tell this was insane conspiracy theory nonsense. So why would you expect other people to spend time debunking insane conspiracy theories when you could do it yourself in like 2 minutes?
and I mean, even on the face of it, this makes no sense. Why would a military tribunal have any right to try people who aren't in the military? Anyone thinking about this for more than 5 seconds would see this is stupid.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What other elective procedures does the government pay for? If it's none then why should abortion be special?
1st off, it sounds like you are saying "elective procedure" as if it is something unimportant. the term "elective" procedure includes all sorts of things that might not kill you, but would make your life a living hell if untreated. things like kidney stones, hernia surgery etc. "elective" procedures are critically important to peoples' health.
And, through programs like medicaid, the government helps to pay for all kinds of elective procedures. Lab work, x rays, physical or occupational therapy etc. Abortion shouldn't be special. Republicans try to make it special for their dogmatic reasons.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Truth is a hard thing to accept when you have been lied to all your life. I speak from experience.
I have no idea what "lies" you are referring to. We are discussing a health issue and whether or not you right wing loons should have the right to withhold paying towards a specific policy they don't like. If that argument were made for virtually anything else it wouldn't be taken seriously. But because the right are loons, they demand special treatment to protect their very fragile feelings. And yet somehow they think it is the left that is weak. It's unbelievable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
well you pretty clearly got this from "beforeitsnews.com" which is a website full of hoaxes and conspiracy theories with little to basis in fact. So I can see why you refused to give your source, since it is a complete joke.
unless you can provide a credible source, i'm not going to waste any additional time looking into what is almost certainly entirely lies. this looks like just more right wing conspiracy nonsense.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
If you don't want to get pregnant keep you dick in your pants and/or keep your legs closed.
yeah. yeah. I've heard this one before. "just ignore one of the most important parts of life to protect my delicate feelings". Man right wing people are so damn fragile.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don’t want to pay for other people’s choices.
then go find some deserted island somewhere. Because in a modern society, that isn't even remotely an option. If you don't like the things the government spends the money on, then you get to vote for a different government. You don't get to pick and choose which policies you like and which you don't and only pay taxes towards the ones you like. If they gave me an option, I wouldn't pay a dime towards a bloated, runaway military budget. But no one is going to offer me that choice. Likewise, you have no right to decide which healthcare options the government should or shouldn't help to provide to other people.
Created:
History has shown that the right will use any kind of ploy they can think of to make it impossible, or as difficult as possible, to get an abortion. As armored cat said, the amendment, on the face of it, makes absolutely no sense. You do not get to decide what your tax dollars are spent on outside of an election. We force pacifists to help fund the military. If republicans actually gave a shit about the morality of forcing people to fund things they are morally opposed to, there would be hundreds, if not thousands, of exceptions that should be made. But they don't. Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of making people fund abortions. It is entirely about trying to restrict abortions in every single way they can legally get away with. It is about denying women their rights, not protecting the rights of others.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm not saying that is how we evaluate presidents, this story was used to bring down Trump and spread lies about him. he was honest
You keep moving the goal posts around. This story was never about lies, so whether he was "honest" is irrelevant. This story was about what trump did when he was given intelligence that american troops were in danger. He chose to do absolutely nothing. That was the wrong thing to do. It turned out that he didn't get any US soldiers killed by being stupid and reckless, but that doesn't mean he was right to risk their lives.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Then say what you mean. Including which election of which you speak.
Fair enough. The right lies so often and with such vehemence on pretty much every topic that when I am not 100% clear which lies and bullshit I am referring to, there is simply no way to know which lies from the vast multitude I mean.
I will attempt to be clearer precisely which lies I mean next time so as not to confuse you since your virtually everything your party says is lies.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
trump didnt ignore anything, he was right and didnt put any us troops in danger
so your argument is that Trump didn't ignore anything.... but that he was right to ignore it....
You can't even decide which line of bullshit you are spreading. Which is it? Did he ignore it and you think he was right, or did he act on it?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Trump then ignored it.he was right
how is that relevant? If you decided to play Russian roulette you are an idiot. Your being and idiot doesn't change whether you win or lose, you are an idiot for playing in the 1st place.
Trump ignored intelligence that US troops were in danger. The intelligent course of action was to take precautions and investigate the intelligence. That is what any intelligent person would do. Ignoring it was stupid. He was gambling with American lives when there was no "winning". If he was right then america gains nothing. If he was wrong, then who knows how many americans could die. He was playing russian roulette while pointing the gun at someone else.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I never said anything about the popular vote.Let's review your post #33:
I said "where trump somehow won the election despite losing by a fairly large margin?". I'm guessing you think I meant this in reference to the 2016 election. But that isn't what I meant. I meant all the insane conspiracy theories where right wing loons insist trump somehow won the 2020 election, even though he lost by a wide margin. Both in the popular vote and in the electoral college.
Is this like the "real history" where trump somehow won the election despite losing by a fairly large margin?Are you wanting us to believe you were not talking about the popular vote here, and then claim in your #61, referring to Trump:
I meant the electoral collage in 2020, as explained above.
Come on; we're not idiots here. Try making a real attempt to be a history buff. This ain't it.
I explained this above. I was not referring to the 2016 election. The electoral college is stupid and is badly in need of reform. But I meant that trump lost the 2020 election by alot (both electoral college and popular vote) and there are millions of idiots that insist he won.
Created:
Posted in:
A story got published in the New York Post saying that the US government was giving out thousands of copies of Kamela Harris' book to migrant children crossing the border. This apparently caused a stir on the right where they spread this story as evidence of Kamela being corrupt. It turns out the entire story was a straight up lie. One (1) copy of the book was donated and photographed. And from that one copy of the book, the Post decided to lie and say that the government was giving them out to everyone.
The reporter in question has now resigned saying that they were ordered to write the entirely false story.
This is just yet another example of how low the right will sink to try to smear anyone and everyone they don't like. And as an added side note, when their lies were exposed, they didn't even take down the story. The took it down just long enough to modify it slightly to remove the obvious lies, but left the rest of the smear article up. So even though they now acknowledge they straight up lied, most of the people who read it will never realize that it was fake news. They will continue to believe that the US government is passing out Harris' book and it will be one more in a long line of right wing lies that they internalize.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you have any actual original ideas on how to make anything better? Or are you just wearing your hand out slapping your own back?
in reference to this specific topic, the correct thing would have been to take additional precautions with US troops while you have the agencies investigate the claims. But that doesn't really count as an "original" idea because literally anyone with half a brain would have done that. Trump is just an idiot.
I'll predict the latter is true. Every time. We haven't had the Orangeman for 5 months, and yet everything is steadily going to shit.
how is anything "going to shit"? Vaccination is rolling out at a huge pace. The economy is starting to re-open. Covid relief actually got passed. A big infrastructure plan is actually going to pass. From where I am sitting, other than the things trump caused (like a treasonous attack on the government), most things have been getting better since trump got booted out of the whitehouse.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Thank you for making my point. Since when was the popular vote the means by which a President is elected?
I never said anything about the popular vote. While it is true trump lost by a huge margin in popular vote, he lost by a large margin in the electoral college.
Real history, by no less authority and credibility than the Constitution says another body politick elects the President: the Electoral College. By that college, President Trump's victory was a landslide over Hillary Clinton, popular vote be damned.
lol you are aware that trump lost by almost the exact same margin in 2020 right? My statement was that trump lost by a large margin. You have just confirmed that margin is "a landslide". So all you have done is confirm 100% of what I just said, but somehow still think you are disagreeing with me.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, Trump absolutely doesn't matter. There's not a single policy right now in effect due to Trump.
and we are right back to distraction. We aren't discussing a policy today, we were discussing a policy under trump. but you just want to point the finger anywhere else.
All policies are ineffective without full lobbyist support, which Trump NEVER had, at ANY point during his term.
most of his policies boiled down to "helping the rich", "stupidity", and "race baiting". I agree that getting out of afganistan was a good idea that was opposed by lobbyists. But lets not pretend like he was fighting the good fight. He was fighting for himself and his rich friends, and one or 2 ideas happened to benefit others.
But you go on with your bad self thinking any president matters.
we are discussing about whether or not trump took action based on a threat to US troops. Literally no one else matters in this decision. It was all him. And he chose to do nothing.
Or that fake stories are more hazardous to Soldiers than actual combat in wars we shouldn't even be in were it not for people like you feeding the industrial war lobby with your ridiculous apathy about what "matters"
and we are back to straw mans. I have never "fed the industrial war lobby". I am opposed to the war in Afghanistan. But that doesn't change what an incompetent idiot trump is.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolutely. I haven't seen you ever say anything but kind words for the corporate lobbyists that write laws and policy for America, while you blame the people that really don't matter.
1st, when I have I ever said "kind words" about corporate lobbyists? This is just another one of your lies.
2nd, we were discussing the security of america's soldiers. The commander in chief is supposed to be the person who matters the most. The fact that he ignored a threat to their safety matters alot.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Life is so much simpler when you simply ignore anything you don't want to see isn't it?You mean like ignoring real history?
i have no idea what you are even talking about. Is this like the "real history" where trump somehow won the election despite losing by a fairly large margin? That kind of "real history"?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's what the Lobbyists have indoctrinated you to think. Don't hate the game player.
lobbyists have indoctrinated me to be able to see that all you do is distract and deflect and try to point the blame at anyone else? Funny, i don't remember ever hearing that from a lobbyist. Yet it's all I see you doing most of the time.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nah, I just don't have a lifelong raging hard-on about the presidency when Washington DC corporate lobbyists and corporate media run the show.
yeah yeah. I have heard your arguments before. Deflect, distract and straw man. I am familiar with your bag tricks. You want to ignore the raging idiocy of trumps screw ups and point the finger anywhere else. Life is so much simpler when you simply ignore anything you don't want to see isn't it?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just putting corporate fear-mongering into perspective mate. You do you.
lol this is sad. The us president ignored a threat to US troops, and your response is to whine about the media. you really love whataboutism don't you?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
involving troops in proxy wars is thousands of times more dangerous than anything else the media lies to you for corporate profit.
That sentence has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. We are talking about trump being reckless and ignoring intelligence that American troops were in danger. You can be dedicated to withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan and still take thetas seriously. It would have been easy to take precautions and investigate the threat. Trump chose to ignore it and endanger American troops. It is one of the many, many reasons he was a shitty president.
And I agree that the media ran with this story too much. But they weren't wrong that trump was reckless and endangered American troops.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Actually, IT IS when something is completely made up and the liberal elite establishment promote it for their gain
Nice straw man. But that isn't what happened. The "liberal elite" didn't make this up. Most likely, an intel agency got this as a tip from sources in Afghanistan. Potentially, coming from the Afgan government who desperately wants the US to stay. So your statement is false.
He reacted to it truthfully. He called what it is- a hoax, he is the trustful man in this story clearly
how is endangering american troops reacting to it "truthfully"? If you get information that someone wants to murder your family, you should take precautions. Even if there is only a small chance it is true, you should look it into it. Trump got intel that the russians were trying to get american troops killed and did absolutely nothing about it. Any moderately intelligent president would have taken some precautions and ordered them to confirm if it was true. Trump however is not an intelligent person.
Created:
I agree the media ran way too far with this story. They have gotten into the habit of just taking what people say and reporting it as fact. And that is really shitty.
But in this case, the big problem wasn't the "russian bounties" per se. It was that trump didn't do anything about it. Any other president in the history of the country would have been briefed on this, then gotten the security agencies to confirm and take precautions. The public probably would never have known that trump was briefed on this because sensible precautions would have been taken and it would have been a complete non story. The reason it was a story, was because trump was briefed on a serious threat (which turned out not to be accurate later) but seemingly did absolutely nothing about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
From whose perspective comes this opinionated result? Yours? Your sock puppet? Show me some valid stats, not your personal opinion. Should you bother to look, [I did] I think you'll find there's divergent opinion [not even legit stats] on the subject. That you have one, too, congratulations, but its worth is about as valid as the result of picking one's arse, thinking it is one's nose.
this translates as "blah, blah, blah" i don't care if police abuse their power.
That's about 3 per each officer on an annual basis. looks like, to me, by the numbers, most of us are not harassed by the police at all. Care to revise your opinion?
wow, your numbers have absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. How does the number of police officers have anything to do with whether they are abusing their power?
America has the highest percentage of population imprisoned in the world. America is literally the worst country on the planet (except maybe some that don't publicly say who they imprison) in terms of imprisoning people. And you are using this statistic as evidence that american police are totally fine?
And lastly, police can harass people without imprisoning them. They can stop them without cause, give out more tickets, more traffic stops, use excessive force in interactions etc. None of these things would necessarily be reflected in prison populations, but could easily be abused by police. Although, as i previously proved, america has a massively inflated prison population as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
ACAB supporters are still disappointed after the verdict because the police exists. This isn't over by a long shot.
there are a handful of people who believe that police shouldn't exist. but they are a tiny minority.
The main issue isn't that police exist, it is that a large percentage of them are, or become, assholes. All jobs that give you power over others attract certain types of personalities. So right off the bat, the population of people that want to become police skews towards assholes. But on top of that, the police have created a culture where these assholes are protected. So people like Chauvin, who has had tons of complaints against him, gets little to no punishment. The police protect him while he continues to be a piece of shit not worthy of public service. The culmination of protecting all these "bad apples" is that the entire culture of the police force shifts towards acceptance of these shitty people and abhorrent practices. And that causes more people to hate all police, because there are so many examples of blatant corruption and abuse of power. And then when these thing happen, the police circle the wagons and protect the cops who are the problem.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Trudaeu himself said on twitter it would be government approved facilities.
yes, there is a big list of pre-approved hotels. But a hotel on a pre-approved list is not a "government facility". So the topic's title is untrue.
Created:
Chauvin guilty on all counts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
oh, i'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were blind and couldn't see the video showing chauvin doing exactly that.🤦♂️ I don’t even know why I bother.
I agree. I don't know why you bother saying such incredibly stupid things. You watch a video of a cop illegally kneeling on a man's neck. Then say there is no evidence that he did that. That leaves the options of blind, stupid, or you are just willing yourself to see what you want to see.
He was not in the car. His head and legs were out.
so part of him was out of the car. so chauvin pulled him out of the car and slammed him on the ground. you are just confirming what I said.
You need to watch the video again. Floyd refused to get in the car and was actively resisting by kicking the officers. At this point Chauvin could’ve tased him but he chose a lower lever of force and brought him to the ground.
he smashed his face into the ground, as evidenced by the fact they had to call an ambulance because his face was bleeding, then they crushed him death. You and I have a very different opinion of what "lower lever(sic) of force" means. personally, I would argue murder is a higher level of force.
This isn’t some honeymoon scenario where Floyd got in the car, didn’t do anything, and for no reason Chauvin took him out.
chauvin resisted being put in the car. So chauvin illegally crushed him for over 8 minutes and killed him. There is no evidence floyd was resisting while he was on the ground. Therefore there was no justification for force of any kind, let alone multiple cops crushing and killing him. Chauvin is asked multiple times if they should flip George onto his side and he keeps saying no and keeps on crushing him. There was no reason for Chauvin to be doing this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Show me evidence that his neck was literally “crushed.” There is zero such evidence.
oh, i'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were blind and couldn't see the video showing chauvin doing exactly that.
Also, why did chauvin pull him out of the car?Cause he refused to get into the car?
let me see if I can get this straight. George was already in the car. He refused to get into the car (while already being in it), so Chauvin pulled him out of the car to try to get him into the car..... even you can't think that makes sense.
You need to watch the video again dude. George Floyd refused to get in the car, so much so that his own buddies told him to just get in the car.
apparently you need to watch the video again. George was in the car. Chauvin pulled him out the other side of it and slammed him onto the ground.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I don't see how anyone could defend crushing a man's neck for over 8 minutes all the while he wasn't resisting. And during this shouting at him to get in the car, but still crushing his neck while you yell at him.
Also, why did chauvin pull him out of the car? he was yelling at him to get into it, but George had already been in it, Chauvin pulled him back out and slammed him onto the ground.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
what r ur thoughts now that the defense is making its case?
I haven't really been paying attention to trial, so I haven't seen anything the defense has said. But there are tons of hacks out there that will say anything on the stand for the right amount of money. So I was completely expecting them to find "experts" who argue that crushing a man to death is totally normal, or whatever other bullshit they decided to spew.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think the blatant outward parading of degeneracy of the alternative kinda forces them to vote for whatever Republican is on the ticket.
which translates as, "people choose to do things that have no effect on me, but I want the government to force them to behave they I want them to". clearly, they have no choice but to vote to suppress other people's rights.
Kinda makes a veto-proof majority when half or one-third of Republicans and maybe one or two Democrats are all that care about the deficit.
good. because people "caring about the deficit" is almost exclusively used to try to screw over poor people. When they try to balance the budget, they aren't pushing to cut that vastly over bloated military budget, or to raise taxes on the insanely rich ruling class. No, they always run right to cutting services for the poor and vulnerable. So if the choices are deficit spending, or actively trying to screw over the poor, most people would take deficit spending.
there is no baby involved in this scenario. I care more about a woman's right to control her body than a fetus' life to live. Because a fetus isn't a person.Oh it isn't a person? Guess it is a tree or a dog or perhaps a car.
no. it's a fetus. Which isn't a person. It might be some day, but isn't yet.
Cool, just stay the hell away from kids and don't pretend that "women" are women for the sake of sports, government preferential grants, keep men wearing wigs out of bathrooms that children attend, etc.
blah, blah, blah. all I hear is whining and crying about people making choices that you don't like but have absolutely no effect on you at all. And in fact, have negative effects on almost no one at all.
Also, Democrats' shitily-run cities are where crime occurs with less guns present. More people per capita own guns in rural areas https://www.statista.com/statistics/625196/firearm-ownership-rate-by-proximity-to-urban-centers-us/
we've been down this road. Gun control cannot and will not work on a state by state or city by city basis. If I can drive one city or one state over and buy an assault rifle, then it doesn't matter what the local laws say. and yes, crime rates rise as population density increases. shocker. Clearly if we armed them all somehow this would solve the poverty problems that cause crime....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
All I feel like saying currently, is that I think you're letting your emotions over the case overwhelm you and put words into other people's minds and mouths.
how so? Chauvin's supervisor and the chief of police have both testified he breached procedure and had no business kneeling on him like that. What words am I putting in other people's minds and mouths?
Do you see how triangle.128k is not concerned with whether Chauvin is guilty, but is rather concerned about BLM rioting?
I see you point. It isn't fair to string someone up as an example when they are innocent. However, the evidence says he is guilty. Therefore it is just to string him up for his crimes.
bmdrocks21's statement there, does 'not have to do whether Chauvin is guilty or not, but was directly stating disapproval of triangle.128k's post #17
I understand. But I have shown over and over how the evidence says Chauvin is guilty. bmdrocks21 chooses to ignore it because he wants to. His opinion isn't rooted in facts, because the facts say the exact opposite of what he chooses to believe. He had the exact same opinion when police were attacking peaceful BLM protesters too. It says alot more about him, than about the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If there is reasonable doubt that his enlarged heart/heart disease and consumption of multiple drugs killed him instead
so your argument is that is was completely random chance? He happened to die at the moment a cop was crushing him? The crushing him had nothing to do with it? That is a very weak argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
No, I mean they at least they pretend to care about "family values" to court their base.
to be fair, most of their base only pretends to care about "family values" too. If they actually cared about that, then the republicans wouldn't get away with being so despicable.
I don't think either party is in any position to say that they care about the deficit. It's either "keep spending roughly the same and lower taxes" or "raise spending a helluva lot more than taxes"
that is my point. Demcoracts say that deficits are fine, the goal is to spend the money to help the people and the country. Republicans say deficits are terrible and should be avoided. Then the second they are in power, they cut taxes and the rich and blow up the deficit and pat themselves on the back for it. Then the second they are out of power they start crying about how terrible the deficit is. Only 1 party pretends like the deficit is an important issue. They are just massive liars about it.
You don't need to mince words here. You care more about the right to murder babies for convenience than you do about the right of that baby to live.
there is no baby involved in this scenario. I care more about a woman's right to control her body than a fetus' life to live. Because a fetus isn't a person.
Yeah, the right to mutilate your genitals and chemically castrate yourself is exactly the same as the right to self-defense/protection against tyranny, amirite?
one is making changes to yourself to make yourself happy. The other is endangering lives by having more deadly weapons floating around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
To 'you ,"there is no question of if he did anything wrong."
to everyone there should be no question. His supervisor, the chief of police etc have testified he was breaching police procedure and using excessive force. Who is claiming he didn't do anything wrong?
triangle.128k's comment also clearly stated that 'guilt was not so much his motivator, as fear of mobs. I 'think.
so if he murdered george out of fear of the people trying to stop him from murdering george, would that be a reasonable defense in your eyes? This would make it pretty easy for police to abuse whoever they want. They would just have to say they feared someone and poof, now they have a free pass to crush you to death.
A preference of comfort rather than justice, is bad to some of us.
who is suggesting that we should be pursuing comfort rather than justice? We already know Chauvin was breaching procedure and using excessive force. We know that basically every medical professional involves agreed Chauvin killed george. Holding him accountable for that is justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Unless it is determined that Chauvin's actions killed Floyd, then yes, it doesn't really matter if he did anything right or wrong according to protocol.
But basically every medical professional involved, including both autopsies, confirmed Chauvin killed him. What is left to determine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm not particularly ready to have some guy lynched as a sacrificial lamb if he didn't do anything wrong.
there is no question of if he did anything wrong. His supervisors have already testified that he was using a restraint he wasn't allowed to use and he used it for far longer than anyone could possibly defend. Whether or not he did something wrong isn't really in question. The question is "did the shit he did wrong cause George's death?" and "what level of murder is that?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ah yes, the "far right" party. The one that is just about as degenerate as Democrats, but that slight bit of principle they cling onto makes them "far right".
if by principal, you mean corruption and resentence to facts and knowledge, then sure... i guess.
Unless you only consider economics, then sure, when the opposition is in charge they begin caring about "fiscal responsibility" and could be considered "far right".
republicans were in charge. They cut taxes on the rich and ballooned the deficit. Also, again, "right wing" is an almost meaningless term. Monarchists are right wing too. They don't tend to care about deficits.
Banning murder of helpless babies = as big of a government as you can get. Pretty neat reality you live in.
no. Banning a woman from having control of her own body is as big a government as you can get. I can't think of any more aggressive government control imaginable than their controlling your body.
A better example would have been banning gender transitions. We FASCISTS love restricting the ability of minors to mutilate themselves and inject themselves with wack hormones.
that's also a good example. You fascists love banning people from having control of their own body. But if it's the right to own and use weapons of mass death and carnage? well don't tread on me, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol, they aren't though. Under every metric, the Republican party fails to provide anything close to the accepted wiki definition of right-wing.
you clearly didn't both to read much of what I said. There is no definition of "right-wing". To some people it means religious rule. To some, it means authoritarianism. To some it means monarchy. So asking if a party is "right-wing" is pretty much meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Generally speaking, people who want more freedom from the government are going to lean away from the left even if there is no real party on the right since the Republicans are into big government.
we are getting into the area where "right" and "left" are useless. The republicans are really far "right". but there is no universal description of what that means. Originally, being right wing meant you were a monarchist. So saying that the "right" believes in small government is silly, because the term originally meant the exact opposite of that. And the right wing republicans advocate for lots of government control. For example, banning abortion is government control of people's bodies. It doesn't get much more "big government" than telling you what you can do with your own body, but the right would love to be able to do that.
so right vs left isn't super helpful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's only because the left has the power in all of public education to control the narratives. Try comparing the well-educated homeschooled, charter schools, or skilled tradesmen to people with no education for example.
that probably plays a role. There is also other stuff wrapped up in this too. For example, rural people tend to get less services from the government, and therefore would rather just be left alone. Whereas urban people get lots of services from the government and are more receptive to higher taxes and better services. Urban populations tend to have a higher percentage of people who get advanced degrees. So this also plays into this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It comes primarily from influences during your childhood and education. Even if your family isn't political, they probably had thoughts or feelings about issues which would color your political views. Maybe your dad said taxes are too high. Maybe your mom said people needed more jesus (or any other religion). These aren't inherently political, but they would color your views. If you heard these kinds of opinions from your parents young, theres a good chance that you would internalize that taxes should be lower or that people should be more religious. These are obviously just examples, I don't know anything about you or your parents.
The other main influence is education. for the last few decades at least, generally speaking, the more education someone receives, the more likely they are to have left leaning views. The less education someone has, the more likely they are to have right leaning views.
Created: