Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I'm not sure anti-vax is a right or left wing thing. It is a low information person kind of thing. They hear a rumor and internalize it. It doesn't matter how many times you disprove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't think we knew of any crimes before the obstruction.
If you mean in the mueller investigation then I would agree. We didn't know if a crime had been committed. If you mean in the Ukraine scandal, then that isn't true. The call transcript shows a crime.
Schiff said there was clear evidence of obstruction
Meuller detailed multiple counts of obstruction. There is alot of evidence for those. For the ukraine scandal, trump has openly ordered people not to testify, they hid documents, they threatened witnesses etc. The obstruction is pretty clear there too.
When something is used against liberals they get pissed and change everything to suit their whims at the moment. The whole point of being a conservative is to conserve things. So... not lying to anyone.
I don't want the courts to be a weapon. They weren't intended to be one. They are currently being used as one by the republicans. So it is the republicans who have changed the nature of the court by packing it with young, ideologues. Even going so far as to breach precident and refuse to hold hearings to help them do this. Trying to restore the court is the right thing to do. Trying to "conserve" the corrupted version the republicans are working to make is the exact opposite of what was intended.
You don't think a bunch of guys who just fought off a tyrannical government using guns would intend this law to prevent tyranny via guns?
They might have. But the amendment doesn't say anything about that. It explicitly says it is for a well regulated militia. So you are arguing we should ignore what the amendment says in favor of what you want to interpret they meant. Even though they didn't say what you want to believe they meant.
You would think they would have done away with it then, since it was no longer needed for that purpose.
They were afraid that a large military could be abused. They wanted to keep the military as small as possible to prevent this abuse. And now people who claim to respect the founding fathers are doing the exact opposite.
And we have had long periods of radically liberal appointments. Your activist judges have done so much damage in federal courts, and now that some people are going to reverse that, you automatically have a problem with it.
Who, when, what damage? I'm guessing you think "damage" is upholding people's rights.
You just support whatever gets the ends you want. If that means having a stacked liberal court, you would support life terms.
No I don't. I don't think using the courts as a weapon is a good idea. I think that stacking them either way is bad.
I am not against change, I am against upending something the second you have a problem with.
These 2 ideas are contradictory. You aren't against change, but you are against changing things that you have a problem with. That is why you would change it.
There is a huge difference between simply updating versus doing the opposite of what it was intended to do
If it isn't working for people, it should be changed. The founding fathers were intelligent men, but they lived a long, long time ago. They lived in a world where slavery was considered good and women weren't considered people. Letting them decide how we should live is dumb. If their ideas don't work any more, they need to be discarded.
and gut it so the federal government can control most aspects of our lives.
That is a nice idea in theory. But in practice what that means is that the rich control our lives. If the government doesn't decide what the rules are, the rich and powerful will decide it instead. I would much rather have a government, that I have a say in, deciding things than some billionaire asshole deciding things and having no say in what the rules are.
In 2018, of the 13 federal appeals courts, 4 had Republican-appointed majorities.
That isn't evidence of stacking. i don't disagree that it is possible there is stacking there, but that just shows who appointed them. If the people appointing them weren't picking ideologues then who appointed them is completely irrelevant. We know for a fact that republicans have actively been working to stack the courts with hard right wing people and picking young candidates so that they will stay there a long time. That is stacking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
america doesn't really have a radical left. They have a moderate left. I mean Sanders' most "radical" ideas would be considered fairly normal in most of the developed world.
Omar is an anti-semite
No she isn't. She criticized israel. It is only low information (or extremely biased) people who conflate criticism for a country with hating a religion.
all of them are American-hating communists
none of them are communists. Either you don't know what communism is, you don't know what they are calling for or, the most likely one, you only watch news that is extremely biased so you honestly believe that they are communist even though they haven't called for any communist policies.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It is funny considering he was the "change" candidate.
He pretended he was going to be. Then his policies were no different than the any other sellout democrat.
I would think you would like his stimulus spending
I don't know a great deal about this aspect. But understanding is it was needed. But again, that is no different than any other democrat, or alot of republicans would have done.
attempts for Obamacare
He sold out before he started. His starting point was a right wing plan. Then spent years trying to convince republicans to support it and only ended up watering down the already right wing plan. He tried to reform health care and ended up failing miserably.
increase of taxes
1) he cut taxes as well as raised some.
2) raising taxes is not a good thing or a bad thing. If those taxes go to an important service then it is a good thing. If they go to bailing out wall street bankers that caused a financial crisis, then it is a bad thing.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Every president does a thing called "balance the ticket". The VP is almost nothing like the President. Why they think Biden is like Obama is beyond me.
In alot of ways they are the same. They are both centrist, corporatist sellouts. If you are afraid of change, going back to what you know is comforting.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I still think Obama is going to endorse Warren at the last possible minute and completely sway the primaries.
Strongly disagree. Obama pretended to be a progressive to win the nomination and election, then immediately shifted right once elected. He likes to be seen as the standard bearer of progress, when really he was mostly just standing in the way.
If Sanders or Warren win, they will almost certainly crap all over his legacy. His paltry gains will look extremely sad once an actual progressive takes over. His legacy would be tarnished and history would remember him as the failure that lead to trump.
I think he plans to stay out of the primary entirely as long as a centrist/corporatist candidate looks like they will win. If Sanders or Warren look like they could win, he will try to undercut them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well, doesn't obstruction of justice need to have an actual crime?
1) we know there was crimes before the obstruction.
2) no. If they are investigating and you obstruct that investigation, that is in and of itself a crime. If you obstruct an investigation, you are committing a crime even if what they were looking into wasn't a crime.
The Mueller Report didn't really accuse him of anything, so he couldn't obstruct a false investigation. I don't know much about your other claims.
Untrue. Obstruction is a crime. And if there were no crimes to find, why did Trump obstruct the investigation?
Well, I support how it is for the reason most people support it. I think lifetime appointments shield them from backlash for making unpopular, yet correct interpretations. If a liberal judge made a good interpretation of the law which a conservative president had personal problems with, he shouldn't be able to fire them. That would give the president supreme power over the judicial system.
I'm pretty sure you are lying, either to me or to yourself. If the court was packed with liberal judges reinterpreting the law against what you wanted, you would want reform. But because it has been packed with conservative judges you are totally fine with it.
The Second Amendment, from how I interpret it, is to prevent government tyranny and infringement on rights. Preventing us from having rifles would make that essentially impossible.
But that was not how it was intended at all. That was a later interpretation. The start of that amendment makes it clear that the purpose is for a "well regulated militia". It had nothing to do with preventing tyranny. It was to prevent america needing a regular military.
They don't have to vote a certain way, though, because they don't have to worry about appeasing the president for job security. Bernie said he wanted to rotate them because of Roe v. Wade overturning. If that isn't a call to ideologically alter the court in the liberal direction, I don't know what it.
The point is that if it is a life long appointment and you only appoint hard right (or left) wing ideologies, then they will continue to rule one way for decades. And that is exactly what the republicans are doing. They put hard right wing people on it who will never (or rarely) stray from the republican interpretation.
I don't appreciate when liberals wipe their ass with the Constitution every time it gets in the way of their excessive government intervention.
This is a really weird thought process. You appear to be advocating for never updating laws or rules beyond what a group of upper middle class white men wrote hundreds of years ago, despite those laws having been changed dozens of times already. When society or technology advances and the constitution is no longer doing what is needed, you update the law. You don't use it as a weapon to fight against progress.
I didn't see any liberals complaining about the liberally stacked courts before because they cared about ideological balance. I don't care for partisan BS.
I'm not aware of liberals doing that. It is extremely clear the republicans have been. but you seem to be fine with that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah he is kind of terrible. Any time he gets challenged at all, on anything, at his events he seems to lose it.
Some guy questions why he thinks it's ok for his son to engage in corruption, he loses it and calls him fat. Someone asks about his border policy, he tells them to vote for trump. Someone questions his environmental record/policy he tells them to vote for someone else.
If you can't explain to people why you think your policy is the correct one, you either don't really believe in your policy or you just don't have the emotional stability to be a politician.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It was referring to a 1992 speech by Joe Biden to president Bush telling him to not put a new Supreme Court justice in because there was an election coming up. The winner should decide, not the lame duck. Either that or he should put a moderate candidate in.
Interesting. But no one refused to hold hearings to block the nomination. Also, Obama did pick a moderate that conservatives could agree to. The republicans still refused to hold a hearing.
What crimes are you specifically referring to?
Multiple counts of obstruction of justice, bribery, threatening witnesses, violation of the emoluments clause, violation of federal election law
It means they can only be removed if they start abusing their power somehow. That essentially never happens, though.
That is the common interpretation of what it means. But it doesn't explicitly say that.
If anything it would be activist judges, typically liberals, who abuse their power by passing laws through the courts instead of just interpreting the law.
Then you should support reforming the supreme court. That would mean liberals couldn't just cram it full of lifetime appointment far left wing judges to reinterpret the law. But i'm guessing you wouldn't support that because conservatives have already managed to do this.
The Constitution isn't set in stone, but it generally shouldn't be amended to be something it wasn't meant to be.
Oh please. most of the right wing only cares about the constitution when it is useful to them. The constitution was never meant to allow people who own automatic weapons either. But lots of right wing people argue that it should.
Would you support Bernie Sanders' blatant desire to try to stack the court?
How does rotating the supreme court stack it? It just keeps people from picking a young, extremist judge to try to force the law in one direction against the will of the people? I don't know if that method is the best way to resolve the current problems, but something needs to be done to stop the current attempts to stack the court.
He obviously wants to pass laws that are forbidden according to our foundational document.
Again, you make it sound like the constitution hasn't been changed 27 times already. It's not like changing it is in any way unprecedented. When something needs to be changed, it should be changed. The right is currently working hard to stack the courts with hard right wing judges so that the law will be reinterpreted in their preferred way, even though it is against what many of the american people want. That is a problem. If liberals were doing that you would up in arms about it.
If laws need to be changed, they should pass laws to do it. They shouldn't use lifetime judge appointments to get their way in an anti-democratic fashion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If you are talking about Obama's nomination, they were following the Biden rule.
What does that mean? To my knowledge, no one had ever refused to hold hearings for a supreme court judge because a president was in the last year of their term. they even later acknowledged (and laughed about) that this reasoning had been a lie.
Precedent shouldn't really be broken unless necessary. If Trump should go to jail, impeach him then handle all of that. Don't indite him while in office.
Donald trump is an unprecedented president. He has committed numerous crimes in office and his party has made it clear they will do everything in their power to prevent him being punished for it. If the normal method of dealing with an issue is completely blocked, then you have to use an irregular one. I'm not arguing that trump should be charged with a crime now, but I think mueller should have done it.
Bernie said he wants to rotate the Supreme Court, which is obviously breaking precedent due to its blatant unconstitutionality.
It is unprecedented. But the constitution doesn't explicitly say you can't add a term limit. it says they "shall hold their offices during good behavior". Many interpret that to mean they cannot be removed for any reason. But that is only 1 interpretation.
But even if it was unconstitutional, it's not like the US constitution hasn't been changed multiple times. I don't understand why some people think that the Constitution is set in stone. If what has been laid out in the constitution isn't working properly or is being abused, then amend the constitution so that it works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It also says kill anyone who doesn't believe in Allah and his prophet Muhammad untill all religion is for Allah, don't forget that part, will you.
no it doesn't. please stop lying.
Stop making shite up. Devout Christians follow the teachings of the Christ who preaches nothing at all about murder rape and slavery. Islam is vile it teaches violence. PERIOD!!!!
lol you really know very little about islam do you? Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same god. The method in which they do so is slightly different. Islam teaches that muslims should defend themselves.
Oh, so when an "infallible" religious official orders Christians to kill Muslims, that isn't Christianity teaching violence?Correct. You are catching on, although at an extremely slow pace.
Wow, you are just straight out admitting your hypocrisy now? So when a muslim cleric writes something that is evidence of what islam is. When a catholic cleric writes something that doesn't count, because.... reasons. lol. this is just sad.
No. And I haven't said so. Stop attempting to put words into my mouth . The New Testament does not teach violence; how many fkn times. The Quran makes it perfectly clear what it expects of its followers.
But your point is still stupid. Christians have carried out just as much, if not more, violence in the name of god as Islam. But you want Islam to be evil but Chistianity is blameless. How can you be this hypocritical and not see it?
I have asked you twice already so for the third time,, are you now saying that the Hadith are not the words and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad?
No, not really. I mean they were written generations after his death, how could they possibly be accurate? Just as the bible was written generations after the death of Jesus. It isn't accurate either.
Who said, YOU!? The pope is only a man in a fancy fkn dress just like a Ayatollah FFS grow up.
The catholic church says that. And since catholics make up the majority of chrisitans in the world, that is the main position. If you are a christian and deny that, then you are in the minority.
The Pope recently called for peace in the middle east. He didn't call for FKN jihad.
But he did. In 1097. The pope called for the 1st Jihad, they just called it a crusade. And the people calling for Jihad now, primarily have no religious authority to do so. You are pointing to random people and expecting me to believe they represent the entire religion when most muslims detest what they are doing. There are lots of christians who are bigots and would love to go on a holy war. But I am not foolish enough to believe they represent Christianity.
This is what I mean by you not being able to grasp what it is that is being said. Even if 99% of Muslims are peaceful it still leaves over TEN MILLION that are not and the peaceful 99% are irrelevant. HOW MANY FKN TIMES do you need this simple logic explained to you.
I never claimed there weren't violent muslims. But 1% cannot be said to be representative of the group. 1% is a tiny minority. Trying to blame the entire group for the actions of a tiny fraction (1% is a tiny fraction) is insane and bigoted. All people like you are doing is convincing muslims that there is no way to live peacefully with christians, which just increases the violence. You are part of the problem.
Were in the New Testament can we read of the Christ Jesus instructing his followers to go out into the world and kill in his name anyone who does not believe in him or is not Christian?
There are lots of christian teachings that aren't in the bible. You are happy to use the teachings outside the quran, but for some reason chrisitianity needs to be judged differently. That is what most people call hypocrisy.
Are you telling us that the Hadith (the saying of the prophet Muhammad) are not true, not his sayings, and are nothing to do with Islam?
no. But if you want to include the Hadith, then I am going to include what other catholic clerics teach too since you want to include extra stuff.
What were Muslims "defending" when they invaded West into Germany, Spain, France, the Caucuses, the Christian Holy land and East into the Indian subcontinent and far east as China?
I never claiming muslims didn't conquer places. What I keep saying that this is no different than when Christians did the EXACT SAME THING. Why is Islam violent and Christianity is not when they both have killed for their religion?
Why can't Islam reform?
Reform comes when you are economically prosperous. America and European countries keep toppling them, invading them, bombing them etc. That continues a cycle of desperation and violence that stifles reform. You want muslims to stop being violent? Stop attacking them.
What is the penalty for apostasy in Islam?
In Christianity it is death by fire. Are you really going to argue that Islam is worse?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Disgusted is European. It's probs not his 1st language.
Perhaps. But i mean, it is a pretty minor issue. I had to double check myself to make sure.
Created:
Posted in:
As much as I usually disagree with bmdrocks21, I believe he is correct. It's is the contraction for It is. It does not mean the possessive form of it. The correct way to write the possessive form of it is its.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, but it would break precedent.
True. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. It would be perfectly legal to do so. We live in an age where precedent means very little. Trump and the republicans wipe their asses with precedent regularly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
A sitting president cannot be indicted, though.
This actually isn't true. There is no law that says that he can't. The only reason they don't is because the justice department wrote a memo in 1973 saying they shouldn't.
So the only thing standing between Trump and a criminal charge is an internal memo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
This EXACTLY what it is: perpetual jihad "untill ALL religion is for Allah". Deny this as much as you like but YOUR Quran confirms it.
1st, I'm not muslim. I was raised christian. I'm just not a bigot. 2nd, the Koran says to defend yourselves. And to muslims, both christians and jews also believe in Allah. It just means god.
Get this into your skull bone. Christianity does not teach violence.
Oh, so when an "infallible" religious official orders Christians to kill Muslims, that isn't Christianity teaching violence? You have some really skewed views.
Of course you would say, is all you can do to present this vile religion in a good light is play down the figures and wave them away as insignificant .
lol I showed how your statistic is proving my point (that a tiny fraction of the muslim popultion is violent or "extreme"). You just want that 1% of the population to be all we look at.
The Hadith ( the saying of the prophet) are a big part of islam or are you denying this?
But they are not the Koran. The pope, and the things they have said, are a big part of christianity. Are you denying this?
I think there are just "a handful" of US personal there serving on advisory capacity only. I couldn't tell you if they are there and serving in this capacity on the strict instructions of Jesus and have been told not to leave.
They invade the country for no reason, caused chaos and massive numbers of death, set up a puppet government and still have thousands of troops on the ground.
I KEEP SAYING SO. BUT NOT ON THE STRICT INSTRUCTIONS OF THEIR BOOK OR THEIR GOD, what the fusk is the matter with you. Why are you refusing to see this BLATANT DIFFERENCE ???? And How is that hypocritical.
Lol so it is fine for a Christian to kill for god as long as it isn't written in a book. But when a muslim kills for god their religion is evil because someone wrote down that they should defend themselves. That is insane levels of hypocrisy.
This will be the Hadith you are referring to, which are said to be the words of the ISLAMIC prophet Muhammad won't it. Or are you denying this FACT also?
The Hadith were written generations after the prophet mohommad's death. By people who had never met him. They are no different that the teachings of the catholic church after jesus' death. So when a pope, who catholics believe is infallible, says to kill muslims that should hold just as much weight as the hadith. So if you want to point to what clerics said long after the death of mohammad, I will point to what catholic clerics said long after the death of jesus.
But they were not instructed to call for any of this on the instructions of their god Jesus as does the god of Islam and his book. How's that.
But the pope is supposed to be infallible and speak with the voice of god. When he calls for the murder of other religions, that is supposed to be the word of god.
and I have said that the MAJORITY of peaceful are irrelevant and explained why. But you cannot grasp the logic of what it is being told to you. .
Lol this is just sad. You claim to understand that 99% of muslims are peaceful, but still want to paint islam as a violent religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you going to acknowledge Greeks and Romans killed for their gods too? Or is that as irrelevant as what happened 500 years ago?
Of course not. Virtually every religion has had people kill in it's name. Christianity certainly has, so has Islam. That is exactly my point. Islam is no different.
There is only one remaining war religion.
This is a gross misunderstanding. Islam is not a "war religion" any more than Christianity is. It is a religion of people who are constantly under attack. They therefore frame their defense in religious terms. People use religion as crutch when they are desperate. People in Iraq, Syria, Yemen etc. are very desperate these days, in large part because of america. So trying to paint them as evil because they react to situations America had a big hand in causing is ridiculous.
The best way to avoid terrorism, is to stop giving them reasons to hate and fight you. Every drone strike, every country america invades only increases the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
But when the nut is fertilized, it is no longer part of the tree, it is a seperate tree, even if it were to somehow get nutrients from the original tree.
But until it is capable of living and growing on it's own, it is still just a seed, not a tree. Just like a fetus is still just a fetus, not a human.
The consistency test applies. Unemployed people can´t live on their own; they need welfare.
I'm talking about homeostasis, not means testing. Can it maintain it's own life without outside intervention. That means being able to breathe, pump blood, etc. Not financial aid.
You can´t be against the death penalty and pro choice at the same time because pro choicers want to sentence unwanted fetuses to death rather then support adoption for the kid.
The 2 are completely unrelated. 1 is terminating a person. The other is terminating a cluster of cells that might one day be a person, but isn't yet.
It´s an unbiased question.
I didn't say it was biased, I said it wasn't clear. It's like asking someone if they are a "never trumper". What does that mean? It will mean different things to different people because it is a colloquial term. "Pro-Life" is similar. What exact beliefs that entails is not clear. So maybe people who want some level of restrictions on abortion would identify as pro-life, but they would be strongly against a complete ban.
80% of pro lifers support the right to birth control, including myself, so the notion that the right opposes birth control is not accurate.
1) where did you get that stat
2) right wing people constantly attack groups that provide that kind of care. Planned parenthood for example. They never stop trying to defund groups that provide family planning assistance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I grow weary of your constant goal post moving. You criticize muslims for conquest, but won't acknowledge christians did alot of that too. You criticize muslims for writings that aren't in the Quran but won't acknowledge that alot of christian clerics called for the death or enslaving of others too. You point to stats that say like 1% of muslims might be "radical" but insist that it isn't a small minority.
Your hypocrisy and goal post moving makes this discussion quite tiresome. You clearly have no intention of actually paying attention to what I say (or reality in general) and just want to repeat your bigoted talking points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That would be Muslims in the name of Allah.
They were saudi's who had been trained and equipped by the US.
Bullshit!! Tell me; what were Muslims "defending" when they invaded west into Europe, North into the Caucuses and east into the Indian subcontinent?
Again, you are blaming muslims for things Christians did just as much if not more. What were christians defending when they invaded the saxons, or africa, or north america, or south america, or india, or china etc. Why do you not see the ridiculous hypocrisy of your position?
I have no need to be selective. I was actually waiting for you to bring up the crusades as all apologist for Islam often do.The crusades were in direct response to Muslim invasion deep into the West and into the holy lands by MUSLIMS who were converting by the sword as they went.. I thought you were a "history Buff".
The muslims conquered the middle east aroung 700 AD. The 1st crusade was in 1096, 400 years later. I think waiting 400 years kind of removes any legitimate way you can say it was a defense. It was conquest, plain and simple.
It may well do. BUT it also teaches intolerance of anyone not Muslim. Stop trying to play down this fact as if you and Muslims have been persecuted all you fkn life , You haven't.
It tells them to protect themselves from other religions because at the time it was written those other religions hated them. That is a perfectly reasonably position to take.
And it teaches violence towards anyone not muslim.
No, it teaches to defend yourself against those trying to harm you. And at the time it was written, that was pretty much everyone.
How many times!!!!! IT DOES NOT! Show me where in the Christian New Testament that the Christ, the god of the Christians, instructs his followers to go out into the world and rape, rob, and murder anyone who doesn't believe in him or isn't Christian.
That argument went out the window when you decided that writings that are not in the Quran should be seen as parts of Islam. If the Hadith are part of Islam, then the terrible, terrible things that Catholic clerics have taught are fair game too. And they have said and done some terrible, terrible shit.
This is because Christianity has reformed and dragged itself into the 21st century, which is something Islam cannot do. do you research "HistoryBUFF"!!!!1
It's easy to preach peaceful co-existence when you are on the side of the people doing the oppressing. Christian countries are, primarily, wealthy and prosperous. They also keep bombing, attacking and undermining muslim countries. it's easy to take the moral high road while you are standing on the other side's neck.
I have given you a complete link directly to Pew Research. besides, if you were really interested in the facts, you would have and could have simply googled Pew research yourself, but you have proven to be averse to the facts and the truth
Did you? I didn't see one, I only saw the link to the right wing lunatic.
Britain is home to 35,000 Islamist fanatics, more than any other country in Europe, the EU anti-terror chief has said.
The number of british muslims is 3,372,966 (estimate for 2017). if 35,000 of them are islamist fanatics, that is about 1% of muslims. I'd say 1% is a small number.
I don't agree . Let me see you evidence for this engagement and suppressing of Iraq. but I suggest you do a little homework first "HistoryBuff".
what? do you not watch the news at all. America and the UK invaded Iraq for made up reasons. They toppled the regime and removed all central power. This threw the country into chaos that it still hasn't recovered from. They continue to occupy the country as well.
Not true. They harbored binladen AFTER 9/11 and wouldn't give him up. They let him flee to Pakistani.
The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over if the americans could provide evidence he was guilty. Bush said no and invaded. Once Bush refused to negotiate, why would they turn him over?
Yes I did. And still say they were. The Ottoman Muslims had at least 3 maybe 5 of the largest empires the world has ever known and long lasting. And BEFORE there was ever a British Empire or a United States. how is that moving goalposts? I think your trouble is that you cannot keep up with what you are saying and what I am replying.
I never moved the goal posts. You said they were the biggest empire ever. i proved you wrong. You are now crying about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Humans are composed entirely of cells. When the fetal cells are specialized, how is this different from a human being?
And trees are made of wood. But wood is not always a tree. All humans have cells. All cells are not a human.
What makes someone a human being is if they have the chromosomes and their cells are specialized. If you disagree, that´s fine, but what counts as a human being in your opinion?
It has to be capable of living. A fetus does not have the necessary organs to survive. Therefore it is not a living human. It has human cells, but isn't a human.
It means that you want most already legal abortions banned.
That is how you interpret that term. But there is no way to know how the people who answered the question interpret it. Since there is no set definition of the term, there is a fair bit of leeway in what it actually means.
Abortions are already becoming less common and they aren´t going up anytime soon, so once abortions are gone, I predict Roe V Wade will be overturned and abortion might eventually be banned.
lol that doesn't even make sense. Abortions are going down because of things right wing people oppose. Family planning, sex education etc. The success of progressive policies in reducing the number of necessary abortions is not, any way, evidence that right wing policy will implemented in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If I grow a human lung in a lab, it´s a human lung. If I grow a fetus in a lab (if it were possible), then that fetus is a human being.
There is a big leap from human cells to human being. You seem to be arguing that one equals the other when that is very much not the case. You choose to believe so for your own pre-determined reasons.
Because of this, a fetus now is as human as an African slave during the 1700s.
Again, this is just your opinion. It is not based in science.
It´s not the vast majority. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx hows that the ratio between pro choicers and pro lifers in the US is about 1:1.
There is 2 main problems here:
1) Describing yourself as "pro-life" doesn't necessarily mean you want to ban abortion. That could mean you want reasonable limits on abortion. The question they asked is not clear.
2) The large majority of young people are pro choice. The large majority of people over 65 are anti choice. Therefore as we go forward this shift is only going to go against you. So society is going to shift to more pro choice, not less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I dislike the Muslim law that requires a petty thief to be dismembered, but like the Christian law that says a petty thief should recompense the victim. Is that hypocritical?
yes, yes it is. If you are against being ruled by religious law, then you should be against it. You shouldn't object to one religion but want another religion to rule people.
America is not a religious state. It has a separation between church and state. Christianity should have no more role in deciding law than Islam should.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Why not? A fetus´s cells specialize at 5 weeks. Since they got chromosomes and the cell specialization, they are human beings.
Because cells don't make a person. We can grow specialized cells in petri dish.
Not applicable to all pro lifers. Not applicable to me, or Ben Shapiro, or Stephen Crowder. They and I cite science to back up the claim that a fetus is a human being.
I haven't seen you do so yet. You cite facts, but use them in a way that doesn't make any sense. For example saying that a fetus has cell specialization. That might be true, but it has absolutely no bearing on where or not it is a person.
But if you want to keep abortion legal, there are secular arguments too that have to be addressed and refuted adequately to keep abortion legal.
And those arguments have been made, many, many times. And this is already pretty much settled. The vast majority of americans understand that a woman has the right to choose if she wants to continue a pregnancy. The small number who want to restrict women's rights just haven't given up pretending like it is something that will actually happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Just because religion believes a certain thing doesn't mean we should do the opposite. We shouldn't have a theocracy, but we shouldn't have an anti-theocracy
Agreed. Religion should play absolutely no part in how we make laws. Pence believes that Christianity should have a special, privileged and protected place in america. That is wrong. Christianity should not influence America's laws.
Science backs up why a fetus is a human being.
No, no it doesn't. But people who already believe that, often for religious reasons, like to say that it does.
Although he cites the bible way more than he should, on issues like abortion, there is a science pro life argument.
You just made my argument for me. He, and most people on the right, aren't making any kind of scientific or even logical argument. To them it is a moral issue. And their morals are almost entirely rooted in their religion. Therefore they want to pass laws based on their religion.
The left and most atheists often ignore it and pretend like the only pro life arguments are religious based, which is incorrect.
I've never seen any pro-choice arguments that are religiously based (it's possible they exist, but they would be rare). But I see lots of people who want to restrict women's rights for religious reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This is a bit of hyperbole. A theocracy requires priests to be the rulers. He isn't a priest so this isn't technically the case. He just wants religious rules to be law. Which is a horrible, horrible idea.
I hear right wing people cry all the time about how sharia law will take over the country. But when a right wing politicians talks about instituting religious laws that happen to be chrisitian, they don't care at all. That is massive hypocrisy.
Created:
-->
@Vader
They are ganging up on each other when they need to gang up on other.
This is just a ridiculous read of the situation. The republican 2016 primary was one of the most fractious ones ever. That didn't stop trump from winning. Getting the bad stuff into the open in the primary is the whole point. The problem isn't that they are pointing out flaws. The problem is the corporatist media actively trying to hide them. Such as Biden making no sense, Pete lying about black people that support him etc.
I see comment sections where they flame Pete Buttigieg or the other candidates. This is going to cause haste between party and overall cause Trump to win the elections
Strongly disagree. Trump held back nothing at all as he flamed the entire republican party in 2016. He then managed to win the election (while still losing the popular vote). You don't win by hiding the flaws of a candidate in the primary. That stuff with definitely come up in the general election. If they can't defend themselves against it in a primary, they won't do any better at it in the general election.
The Liberals believe that helping illegal immigrants to go college is better than helping legal middle class people go to college. Classic hypocrisy
Umm no, no they are not. They want everyone to go to be able to go to college. But nice try though.
Created:
-->
@Ruby
So you think the best option is not in the middle?
The entire idea of a "middle" is a myth sold to you by people who don't want change. Politics is far more complicated than "left" and "right". Neo liberals don't represent the middle of anything. They represent the wealthy and the powerful.
What about the black vote or 'philly' as I think ethang put it?
The best way to attract votes, is by speaking to the issues that affect them. Tell those people that you see the problem and tell them how you will fix it. People like Sanders are very good at that. They see the problems and can tell you how they will fix them. People who like to call themselves "centrists" can't because at their core they don't want to fix them. They represent people who like the system broken. So they are only willing to round off some of the roughest edges of the problem while refusing to go after the underlying issue. This usually makes them seem inauthentic, because they are pretty much just lying to you.
You can see the false idea of "centrism" in the 2nd choices people have for candidates. The top 2nd choice for Biden supporters is Sanders. The top 2nd choice for Sanders supporters is Biden. If you look at them only as "left" or "centrist" candidates that doesn't make any sense. That is because those 2 are the most trusted to actually do something about problems. It isn't about ideology, it is about who people believe will actually fix the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The last time I checked it had a lot to do with planes being flown into buildings .
You would be wrong. Did the taliban do that? nope. Did iraq do that? nope. Did Iran do that? nope. It was primarily Saudi citizens that funded and carried out that attack, yet america is bombing muslims all over the world, notably not in Saudi Arabia though. 9/11 may have been a catalyst for american imperialism, but that doesn't explain the large majority of america's actions.
Stop telling lies. it is clear as day, the instruction is there for anyone to read. It is a clear instruction to fight "untill all religion is for Allah"
The 1st sentence is "until there is no persecution". So until other religions stop persecuting muslims. That is defensive.
It doesn't. And the Christ does not instruct its followers to kill anyone simply for not believing in him.
So when the pope's called for crusades against the infidels you think that was just for fun? You seem to be REALLY selective in which things should count and which shouldn't. Keep in mind you also argued that things that aren't in the koran should count against muslims.
Then Quran preaches violence AND intolerance towards the non believer - Christianity and the Christ does not.
The Quran primarily teaches muslims to defend themselves. It was written at a time when they were being attacked from all sides. Christianity also taught people to commit acts of violence. I mean various popes have called for crusades, the sanctioned slavery etc.
So you have already said. and I asked SO, what's your point?
That it is easy to take the high road when you aren't writing about reality. When you are giving practical instructions about how to live in the real world, and especially when that world is that you are under attack on all sides, it is much harder to only preach about peace and love.
A different tone !??? It is COMPLETELY the opposite to what Christianity teaches. And the many adherents to Islam still read it as if it was written yesterday.
No, it is more or less the same religion. They just have more practically useful things, like about how you should defend yourself. The bible includes no information about the real world at all.
You are a bigot. You don't have to take the word of a Jew.
I didn't even know he was jewish. That is not a detail that should matter. Calling someone a bigot then making your argument about their religion just makes you a bigot.
you can read the well respected research of Pew Research, for yourself. but it is becoming more than obvious, you simply can not face the facts.
You did not provide any link to it. You only provided a link to a video by a right wing nut job.
I know it is not ALL Muslims who are committing the violence preached and promoted by the Quran. But I also know that it is more that a fkn "handful" of Muslims.
It's a tiny fraction of the 2 billion muslims in the world. So yes, it is a handful when you take the total size of the population into account.
Not all Germans were Nazis; the majority were peaceful , but it didn't stop the MINORITY causing the deaths of over 60 million men
This is kind of my point. You are saying islam is evil because a small fraction of them do evil things. That would be like saying germans are evil because a small fraction of them took part in the holocaust. It is a weak argument.
Engaging and suppressing!??? Where are they doing that.
Iraq
You say this as if America and Britain had just marched into these countries unprovoked.
They did. They invaded afganistan rather than negotiate with the afgan government. They invaded Iraq for no reason at all. They destabilized Syria leading to years of civil war. They regularly carry out drone strikes all over the middle east which primarily kill civilians. They back the Saudi's in their genocidal war against the Houthi's. The list goes on and on and on.
There were many MUSLIM empires and CENTURIES before a British Empire or a United States of America were even thought of. I thought you were supposed to be an "HistoryBuff"?
Man, you move goal posts REALLY fast. You said the muslim empire was the largest known. I pointed out 4 larger empires and your response is "yeah but they were later". that is just sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Or asking for a legitimate investigation into a crime.
I have never seen anyone say any crime that Joe or Hunter could have committed. There simply is no evidence that they did. But if they had, the legal way to proceed would be to get the FBI or congress to investigate. Asking the president of Ukraine to do it is a crime.
For example, if Trump replaced Biden with me, you wouldn’t we saying “dirt.” Your problem is the coincidence that the person is a candidate running from President.
The problem is the profit motive. If trump had asked about some random person he had no benefit to investigating, then that would not breach election laws. But because he did stand to directly benefit from it, it is illegal. It could still break the other laws he is guilty of breaking though.
Just because you’re running for President doesn’t mean you get a pass.
Of course not. that is what law enforcement agencies are for. Trump chose not to do that though, so he broke the law.
If this were the case the entire Russian investigation should be null and void. It started while Democrats were in office against a candidate running for President.
And they did exactly what they were supposed to. they asked the FBI to investigate. If trump had done that we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead he went and committed some crimes by trying to get the Ukrainians to smear his political rival.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
raves about nonsense, every president does that
No. Everyone makes the odd comment that doesn't make sense. Trump is the 1st president in history that will call in to a TV show and rant for an hour and make almost no sense.
Yet liberals treated it as fact
since you clearly get all your information from Fox, I can see why you would believe that.
Giving polling data to countires is not collusion, the meeting is about non-illegal stuff
lol you have no idea what collusion means do you? Here is the definition.
Collusion is a secret cooperation or deceitful agreement in order to deceive others, although not necessarily illegal, as is a conspiracy.
Trump and his team said on multiple occasions that no member of his team had any contact with any russians. So giving russians polling data and having a secret meeting with them, then lying about it, that is collusion.
LOL BS
You clearly have completely checked out from reality. We have conclusive evidence for multiple crimes at this point.
SOME mexicans are rapists, that's a fact, non white countries like Haiti IS a shithole, facts matter
yes, facts should matter. Calling all mexicans rapists, saying that black hatians should go to africa and america should get immigrants from a white country instead, and lying to black people to keep them from living in your buildings are all examples of racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Or it could be that successful countries with a culture for decency and prosperity are the ones we want immigrants from, and skin color and/or DNA eugenics are conspiracy theories cooked up by the left in a mad attempt to divine the worst intentions for political gain.
Lol he said that haitians should go to africa. you cannot possibly think that wasn't a racial comment.
Calling a country non-white is purely racist.
Acknowledging the demographics of a country isn't racism. You are really working overtime trying to deflect.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
All 3% of them? Doesn't seem likely to make much of a difference. Kamela had become a non factor awhile ago. Even if everyone single one of them went to 1 candidate (which isn't likely), it wouldn't really change the rankings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
But here's the thing. Even if Trump is guilty of everything that he stands accused of (and the Establishment most certainly does have the means to frame him of stuff he didn't do), doing away with him would not being "taking a stand against corruption". Because selective enforcement of laws against corruption and graft by some political actors against others is not rule of law. It's weaponized law, which is the same as anti-law.
So even though we know for a fact that trump has committed multiple crimes in office, you don't think we should do anything about that because some other people (who don't have the power of the presidency) also do shitty stuff? That is stupid. Yes I agree that many politicians are corrupt. But saying we shouldn't fight this corruption because there is also other corruption is just allowing corruption.
He quickly alienated the Establishment on both sides, which is why he's facing challenges and attacks from all directions.
That's a joke right? Pretty much everyone on the right has bent over backwards to defend him. There are a tiny handful of people on the right willing to say even moderately critical things about him. Even as he commits crimes in broad daylight.
So if it's a question of one sonuvab**ch over another, why does it matter?
Because evil should be fought. Trump is abusing the power of his office in order to get a second term. That is precisely what impeachment was designed to prevent. The founding fathers were afraid of someone exactly like trump seizing power.
Because there's nothing you or I can do about the larger issue of corruption in America.
Of course there is, we get the money out of politics. Ban all private contributions to political campaigns. Ban elected officials from going to work at big companies after they leave office. We need to remove the ways that private companies and billionaires can control politicians. That's why we need a president like Sanders.
So the defining attribute of politicians is whether you like their policy positions or not.
How much of a criminal the candidate is should always be a big determining factor. We know trump has committed multiple crimes. People like Sanders and Warren have not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are whites not allowed to live in those shithole countries?
Calling countries that are primarily non white "shit hole countries" while simultaneously praising countries that are primarily white is racist. The full comment was:
Haiti? Why do we want people from Haiti here?" Then they got Africa. 'Why do we want these people from all these shithole countries here? We should have more people from places like Norway
So he is saying Haitians (who are primarily black) should go to Africa and America should get more people for Norway (which is primarily white). That is pretty racist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
as they ship more and more of these primitive morons into the country,
You aren't even pretending to hide your blatant racism today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Lie. Trump said nothing about dirt. He mentioned Biden because Biden was the one who strong armed them into closing the investigation. Your baseless assumption will not be used to convict Trump.
His exact words were:
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
He explicitly asks him to look into biden and his son. That is asking for dirt.
Or there was just a pause in the convo. Either way, it isn't an invitation for you to insert your assumption.
No it's not. Vindman, who was on the call, testified that they were deleted phrases. That specific one he testified was something about trump saying there were tapes of Biden. But the transcript had that section deleted.
The same congress that started talking about impeachment on is first day in office? The same FBI that had an insurance plan in case he won the presidency? Please.
This is in no way a defense. You are saying the the legal channels wouldn't work, so he decided to commit a crime. That does not excuse the crime.
It's harder yet to frame someone for crimes that are jacked up by a dishonest partisan congress.
You clearly suffer from trump derangement syndrome. It doesn't matter that we now know for absolute certain he committed multiple crimes, you just keep repeating lies over and over and over and pretend like reality doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
1. Trump is unfit for office
The man rants and raves about nonsense and conspiracy theories. He has committed a number of crimes while in office. He is the most unfit president that america has ever had.
2. Melania cried when Trump was elected
That's just a rumor.
3. Trump colluded with Russia
This is well established fact. His team had over 100 contacts with russians they claimed never happened. This includes giving polling data to the russians and having a meeting with agents of the russian government in trump tower.
4.Trump's impeachment
I'm not sure how this is a conspiracy theory. I'm guessing you mean the charges against him. But we now have conclusive proof he committed at least 4-5 crimes. So no, it really isn't.
5.Trump is racist
This is also well documented. Including, but not limited to, refusing to allow black people to live in his buildings, calling mexicans rapists, calling non white countries "shithole countries", etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Clinton is more of a criminal than just his sex scandal, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Haiti
I'm not familiar with right wing conspiracy theories.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bill Clinton should be up there with Nixon. Flawed men that worked to make changes to help the country.
Bill clinton wasn't forced to resign in disgrace. He lied about sex and then fully complied with the investigation.
Nixon ordered men to break into the office of his political rivals. He ordered evidence covered up or destroyed. He ordered government agencies, such as the IRS, to go after his enemies. Bill Clinton and Nixon are in no way similar cases. Flawed and criminal abuse of power, are really the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
hey may well be Christian "countries" committing acts of violence against Islamic countries but again, these acts of violence and murder are not committed on the strict instruction of the Christ and in the name of Christianity. No matter how hard you attempt to conflate the issue.
Ok. so christians are murdering muslims for their money and oil, muslims are killing christians to defend themselves, their people, and their religion. And you think Islam is the problem? You have messed up priorities
Quran 8:39And fight them until there is no fitnah and[until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed,Allah is Seeing of what they do.
A couple of things,
1) there are different translations of this. Fitnah is often translation as persecution. So this quote is telling them to fight the other religions that were persecuting muslims. IE defend yourselves.
2) Do you think that chrisianity doesn't tell christians to convert the infidels? Pretending like this kind of message is somehow bad for muslims but fine for christians is incredibly biased.
Islam is. It actaully promotes and teaches violence against the non believer. Christianity does not. You really aught to read the Quran "HistoryBuff", and the New Testament.
The new testament isn't based on reality. There is nothing in there that has anything to do with the real world. it is about morality tales. The quran was written as messages for people about the real world. It was written in a period when they were fighting on multiple fronts against pretty much everyone else. So yeah, it is going to have a different tone.
But you are. you have said you won't watch the clip because of who is presenting the facts while ignoring the origin of the facts.
Who is presenting them is critically important because they can use them in ways that weren't intended or out of context to prop up idiotic arguments. If the the person using the fact cannot be trusted, then you shouldn't give them the time of day. That man is a waste of time, I won't give him a single minute of my life just to let him spread his bigotry and hate no matter how many grains of truth he has managed to wedge into his lies.
Yes, well. I have already covered the "tiny minorty" theory, above and you have chosen to ignore it.
lol a handful of muslims engage in terrorism and you think you can paint almost 2 billion people as violent. You are delusional if you think you have rationally explained this.
Indeed. That would be Muslim terrorist committing murder in the name of Islam and for Allah. Or are you going to claim now that these vicious demented bastards are not Muslim? When two Muslim attempted to remove the head from a British soldier in broad daylight in London they were actually quoting from the Quran as they went about trying to remove his head.
You didn't really address my point though. The british government, and it's soldiers, are engaged in suppressing and attacking muslims. The terrorists were fighting back against that in one of the few ways available to them. Just because they have chosen to use a religious message to explain that defense does not mean that their religion is violent. It means they are violent and are using their religion to try to justify it.
No I am blaming the Islamic ideology. You are attempting to make out that I am holding all Muslims accountable for these horrific incidents. It is a cheap shot and it is not working.
You are pointing to the actions of a small number of muslims and trying to paint the entire religion as violent. It is a dumb argument. Especially when christians have done, and continue to do, all the same things.
Islam has had biggest and longer lasting Empires -plural- that any other religion known.
The largest extent of the muslim empire (The Umayyad Caliphate) was about 5.8 million square miles. The british empire at it's peak was 13 million. The mongol empire was roughly 12.7 million. The russian empire was about 8.8 million. The spanish empire was bout 7.5 million.
So no, they were the 5th largest behind 3 christian empires and 1 that followed tengrism. Do you bother to check any of the information you throw out?
Did Islam just walk in and take these countries peacefully. NO IT DID NOT!!!!
Did christianity walk peacefully into parts of europe? no. How about africa? no. how about north or south america, also no. They massacred them. You want to pretend like islam is evil for doing the exact same things christianity did.
Afghanistan was a Buddhist country before Islam converted it BY THE SWORD to Islam.
A quick read tells me they conquered it from the persians. The locals then continued to rebel against the muslims and that was why the sword was used, to stop rebellions, not to forcibly convert them. But like i said i took a quick read. But again, christians did the exact same things. Here is a link about how the franks conquered and forcibly converted the saxons to Christianity.
That would be Islamic Hadith would it? I didn't say it was in the Quran. Learn to read properly.
so when pope's called for the enslaving or murder of non Christians, you think that is evidence that Christianity is evil as well right? because otherwise you are a massive hypocrite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I only had time to skim your debate. Nixon does have some accomplishments as president. but to me being a massive criminal who abused the power of his office quite frequently seems disqualifying for being a good president, let alone the best president.
Anyone forced to resign in disgrace because he was about to be impeached should not be on this list, in my opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
That's absurd.
It's the law. You can argue that you don't agree with the law, but saying that it is absurd seems to be denying reality.
the Steele Dossier would be illegal
Steele was never paid a dime by any elected official. He was contracted by an american company. So no elected official every got information from a foreigner.
90% of congress would be in jail for accepting free trips and other kickbacks from the Israelis
This specific law is things of value to an election. A trip to Israel is not of value to an election.
Presidents ask foreign powers for information all the time. We work closely, for example, with British intelligence and Mossad.
True, on issues of national security. Investigating your political rivals (which he asked them to do by name) is not a national security issue. It is a personal benefit.
Your whole argument is convoluted. Hunter Biden did something wrong, but it wasn't illegal so it can't be investigated.
False, no one has ever alleged Hunter did anything illegal. The company he was on the board for was investigated for things that happened before he was on the board. Other than vague speculation, I have never heard anyone say any crime he even could have broken. Also, it has been investigated already.
Since graft and naked corruption apparently don't disgust you enough, would you apply this argument if concerning evidence of Biden's son killing and raping children existed?
Why would it? Hunter is not the same person as Joe. The sins of the son are not the sins of the father. If hunter were a criminal, that wouldn't change my opinion of Joe. And to be clear, I don't like joe. And also to be clear, I think the kind of corruption engaged in by the bidens should be illegal. But unfortunately, it is perfectly legal and fairly normal for most politicians.
If Trump said 'hey, can we get this investigated?' after he was cleared by a predecessor who depended on his father for political support, would you flip out and say that he's receiving 'something of value' from a foreign country?
A president asking a foreign leader to look into a specific allegation that has to do with his rival should concern anyone. Trump didn't ask them to look into just anyone. He specifically, and only, asked them to look into things that would personally benefit trump.
If it came out that George Senior had been bribed by an Iraqi oil magnate during the Gulf War and Gore won the election, would it be beyond the pale for Gore to request an investigation from the Iraqis if he was running against Bush Jr?
Yes, that would be incredibly wrong. The proper channel would be to send that to the FBI or congress to investigate. Asking a foreign leader to investigate your political rivals is a crime.
The irony of all of this is that Trump HAS done something that violates the emoluments clause
You do realize that the emoluments clause and federal campaign finance laws are 2 separate laws he has broken right? Asking for a thing of value that helps in an election is a violation of the federal campaign finance law. Accepting gifts and money from foreign leaders violates the emoluments clause. Trump has done both.
But Congress will NEVER investigate that because then they'd have to apply the same standard to themselves (a standard they would almost all fail)
Agreed. Most of the establishment dems and republicans are dirty as hell. That is why I think Sanders needs to win because he doesn't have those corrupt ties.
you've plunged yourself into this fever dream where sinister Bond villains with Russian accents are hiding around every corner, the heroic CIA and FBI hot on their heels.
Oh god no. The national security state are not heroes. I mean, some of them might be. But on the whole the national security apparatus is contemptible. But it is proven that the russians hacked the DNC to benefit trump. Pretending like the Russians didn't break laws to help trump get elected is incredibly naive.
The collapse of the progressive dogma is so traumatic that you've regressed to a simpler, cold war us vs. them mentality to shelter your lizard brains from harsh reality
To be clear this isn't about russians per se. This is about rich, powerful assholes working together to make themselves richer, more powerful assholes. Those assholes could be russian, ukranians or american, trump doesn't care. He will work with anyone, no matter how corrupt, as long as it benefits him personally. So it might be an us VS them mentality, but it is more about class and power than nationality.
Trump isn't some interlude or a bump on the road to utopia. He's a sign of a very sick society that's falling apart.
Agreed. And until all that corrupt money is taken out of politics, things will continue to get worse. But luckily, left wing ideas are on the rise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You top president was a criminal that liked to abuse his power to attack his political rivals? How is Nixon anywhere near that list?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I indeed like Pence a lot. Good guy from Indiana
Lol, because what america needs is to become a theocracy. His extremist right wing views would make him extremely unattractive nationally. He can win in solid red states, but in purple states he would be a massive liability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
He can't win by trying to work within the confines of a system that's rigged against him and hellbent on undermining him at every turn.
The argument you appear to be making is that he wouldn't have gotten his way if he followed the law, so he decided to commit a crime. That is not a defense. Asking the ukranian president to look up dirt on Biden is a crime. Why he decided to commit that crime is useful info, but it certainly doesn't excuse the crime.
The only way to ensure an actual investigation would've been to ask somebody who didn't already have a stake in the investigation's final outcome, such as a newly elected, anti-establishment Ukrainian president.
Let me get this straight, you think the only way to get an unbiased investigation is to extort the president of a country known for corruption into investigating trump's political rivals? if you think that is unbiased, i'm not sure you know what bias means.
Created:
-->
@Ruby
I'm sorry if I had this incorrect but I think the pundits agreed, mostly, that this was a reaction to the medicare for all plan and her plan for payment. There was a large reaction that this made her no longer electable and resistance from wealthy donors.
I think the pundits are right that her drop is about healthcare, but they took the complete wrong message from it. She was surging when she was saying she fully believed in Medicare for all. When she released her financing for it, which included weird gimmicks and a head tax, she lost some steam. When she announced she would split it into 2 different bills, which would essentially kill medicare for all, she started a freefall.
The problem isn't that she is too far left, as most pundits would have you believe, the problem is that she bailed on medicare for all and tanked her support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Where do you people get your reality? Trump did not ask for dirt on Biden. That is how your interpret what he did, but your spin is different from reality.
The exact quote from the transcript is:
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
Trump explicitly asks a foreign leader to dig up dirt on his political rival, by name. That is a crime. Also, please notice the ellipsis (the three dots) near the end. That means something was omitted. They cut something out of the transcript there. So while what we know he said is already a crime, we don't know the full extent of what he asked for.
Trump asked for an investigation. There is nothing wrong with that. An investigation could have cleared Biden.
No, if he wanted an investigation he would have referred it to the FBI or to congress to look into. The president is not supposed to get foregin leaders to investigate his political rivals.
Why are you all trying to frame Trump with your assumption?
Asking a foreigner for something of value in an election is a crime. That transcript confirms he did that. So we already know he committed that crime. We also now know he is guilty of bribery because he held back aid and offered a white house visit in exchange for the dirt. We know he is guilty of witness tampering and obstruction of justice when he threatened witnesses and ordered people not to testify.
It's hard to frame someone for crimes they are doing in public for all to see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Yeah it is unclear to me whether they have the integrity to stand up to trump or not.
Another thing to keep in mind is that consequences don't necessarily have to be direct. Supreme court justices have to live in the real world. And if all the people you rub shoulders with think you are a piece of crap, that will make your life more difficult. While it is true that they can't be removed for ruling the wrong way, they could certainly be ostracized from their chosen community if they make a "bad" decision. To some people that is an important thing. That can certainly put pressure on them to rule one way or another.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No you haven't.
I gave you the definition of the term and explained the very simple reason it does not apply to insurance. Your refusal to acknowledge the definition of the term has nothing to do with me.
Gets doesn't mean in the present tense they require healthcare.
So because they don't need it every second of every day, you don't think it is necessary to live? by that definition then nothing is required to live.
Still a choice. This is just feelings from you.
If you think paying or death is an actual choice, then i'm not sure you understand what a choice is.
I didn't describe things. I merely said what they are. It is isn't an appeal to emotion so please stop lying about what things are.
I would like to believe you argue from an intellectually honest position but it doesn't appear that you are. You used a loaded and biased framing that is common on the right to try to paint any progressive idea as extreme. When i pointed that out to you, you attempt to place the blame on me for pointing it out.
Everything else after this wasn't relevant to what I asked. You haven't given a better framing instead of doing what theists do, shift the burden of proof and don't even bother explaining your side.
You used an extremely inaccurate and biased framing. I pointed out your framing was biased, you now complain. That isn't shifting the burden. You made the positive claim. I called you out on it and showed how it was biased. That isn't shifting the burden.
I just realized how useless this talk was. You don't understand when you appeal to emotion. You don't understand clear comparisons. You don't answer simple questions.
I haven't used emotional arguments. Your comparisons are extremely flawed. I do answer your questions. You simply ignore my answers and try to pretend my answer is emotional so you don't have to examine your own flawed logic.
Created: