Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
Quoting telex
The stock market isn't the economy. GDP is a better measure. And it's a simple fact that barring extreme cases like financial crises and pandemics, the GDP increases over time. The GDP under every President is going to be better than it was under the previous President.
Do you have any reason to believe that the GDP under Trump is significantly better than it would have been under Clinton, or will be significantly better than it would be under Biden? If not then wanting a strong economy isn't a sufficient reason to prefer Trump over any alternative, especially given your stated cons.
It's also worth considering the effect that certain GDP-boosting policies might have. Cutting regulations is likely to increase GDP but at the cost of a reduction in quality and safety. Looking only at "the economy" seems misguided. In fact, the financial crisis of 2007-2008 is a prime example of this, where the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that lacking regulations was a key contributor.
Quoting telex
Same principle. In this case the rises were due to the dot-com bubble and the financial crisis.
Quoting telex
That's not always a good thing. If you're too tough then other countries aren't going to be willing to give. Negotiations tread a fine line. Could you be more specific by citing some cases where Trump's "tough" foreign policy has benefited the U.S.?
Quoting telex
Do you have any statistics on this? I can't find any information about the effect under the Trump administration but this study on the relationship between undocumented immigrants and violent crimes 1990-2014 concluded that "increases in the undocumented immigrant population within states are associated with signi?cant decreases in the prevalence of violence".
I think Americans are becoming far more fractured. The conflict between liberals and conservatives seems to be greater than it's been in a long time.
What's your take on the argument of Trump supporters that his cutting of corporate taxes, etc brought jobs back to the US and contributed to lower unemployment?
Thanks for your response Tim. What do you mean by he has killed?
I guess the whole thing with trump being a liar, narcissist, a traitor, etc ... I'm wondering if you could make the argument that every politician has somehow lied and maybe even took bribes and thereby betrayed his people.
Maybe Trump has lied more?
How would you compare Trump to Obama in this scenario?
Where are you getting this from? The below source suggests the opposite.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/08/07/more-pain-than-gain-how-the-us-china-trade-war-hurt-america
Thanks for the reference. This is simply the view most of the folks that are sympathetic to Trump or support him that I work with believe when asked for reasons.
Those are great arguments Michael. As you point out, GDP would have increased anyway. So, based on this argument, we were not better off economically if Hillary was elected. I guess the Trump side would say otherwise.
So it seems we are left with something like this for pro - trump side:
1) people solely support trump because he appears to be pro-white. (white nationalists)
2) people support trump because he is pro-white and creates a strong economy
3) people support trump just because they are republican.
4) people support trump only because of his strong economy
5) people support trump for all of his issues, including immigration
Anti - trump side:
1) the economy would have been the same or similar under Hiliary.
2) Trumps boasting of a strong stock market, employment rate, and economy is superfluous.
3) Trump is obviously racist.
4) Trump creates a lot of division in this country. Cultural civil war.
5) Trump wants to be an unquestionable president in regards to free press.
6) Trump creates a lot of hostility in international and domestic issues
(Michael you asked about illegal immigrants and less crime --> I heard this on the news, I just wanted to bring it up, I'm not for or against it, I just wanted to make a point for one side or the other, as a discussion point)
I guess my other point is this:
1) If it was undeniably true (like a natural law of gravity) that Trump was the ONLY politician in the next election to maintain a great economy (anyone else means bad economy, just as general terms), would you still vote for him, even if he had extremely racist views toward black people and other minorities? (let's not consider Covid-19 here and let's exclude Michael's GDP argument for the sake of this argument) --> what would be more important? money and job security or racial solidarity? (let's say both are not possible and also if you voted for Trump, it could mean a civil war in the long run) (let's also exclude the question about who gets the money. Let's just say in general for all population, the economy and job opportunity are much better)
2) On the other point, let's include Michael's GDP argument and Covid-19. Do you think if Biden is elected, our cultural civil wars would end. Perhaps living in less fear of war is more important than Trumps economics,
Actually, Trump failed to produce the GDP growth that he promised.
Quoting telex
This probably is the case for some. David Duke, for example, has made statements that indicate this.
Quoting telex
He inherited a strong economy, which is now in shambles, but that won't disaffect his cult-like supporters.
Quoting telex
If there's such a thing as a 'true Republican', I'm not sure they would.
Quoting telex
The strong economy that he inherited is no longer strong.
Quoting telex
He supports many conservative policies, and his more xenophobic supporters are apparently strongly motivated by his anti-immigration stance.
On the supposition that both 1) Trump inherited a good economy that then went south, and 2) that the dot com and financial crisis bubbles lead to downs and subsequent reactive ups, in your view, can any of these presidents- say from Clinton to Trump be themselves credited much with economic factors like GDP, the stock market, or employment - or are they more incidental to the broader trends? Or - if you view one individual as having more impact than others - which ones?
[Quote="Michael;452462"]also worth considering the effect that certain GDP-boosting policies might have.[/quote]
Edit: Also acknowledging this, as well as an indefinite number of variables bound up with metrics such as the stock market, GDP, and employment levels (how they are measured, at what other costs, etc), such measures have always struck me as dubious as to their usefulness, despite common talk about them.
Trump did inherit a strong economy. The economy is no longer strong. Trump failed to produce the GDP growth that he promised. Etc... Where did I say that any president is credited with economic factors and what is your point?
I was taking your post and Michael's together - as considered together they seemed to me to raise this question.
Let me attempt a rephrasing/reframing:
Michael's post indicates that:
Quoting Michael
If this is true, and if it is also true that Trump inherited a good economy from Obama, one implication - or possible implication - might be that neither Trump himself, nor Obama himself, can be directly credited with the trend - or alternatively, if you like, how much of an effect each individual had seems a reasonable question.
I meant to combine this also with the supposition that Obama inherited a terrible economy - and presumably a case can be made that with some economic trends, others will be more probable (for example, wild swings in unemployment may in general lead to an eventual upswing albeit timing a question, in what way, etc).
Thus, to recapitulate, there is a sense (not being an economist myself not having studied at length the economic policies of each of these administrations) that if the above generalities are true, a reasonable question to ask is whether this or that president can take credit for this or that economy generally.
In the case of Bush, I think his administration contributed to the housing bubble enormously and can take credit for the downturn. Whether Obama can take credit for the subsequent upswing - I do not know. I'm not saying he can't. I just wondered your take.
I wasn't really arguing a point. Just wondering out loud.
Interesting points. Side note: I do find it interesting Clinton ends up fairly well-received even by otherwise Republicans and Trump supporters (among a few I know anyway - no idea if it's a more generally held view).
His tax returns?
Like a god he speaks and brings ruin and pestilence. And they say I’m in a cult. Meanwhile the politicians of the last 40 years receive your endorsements because you can be sure they‘ll pay your causes lip service.
Obama’s was bigger. He didn’t have professional agitators and anarchists blocking the entrance and threatening attendees.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/20/inauguration-protesters-police-washington-dc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisruptJ20
LOL you guys just have an excuse for everything huh?
You weren’t even aware of that, were you.
Nah I don't do wacky conspiracy theories.
It is a fact, by their own statements, that they intended to disrupt the inauguration, and attempted to do so.
The media was astroturfed, the inauguration was disrupted, and you guys ate a propaganda platter.
Sure buddy. If as many people attended in 2017 as they did in 2009 then I'd doubt that they would be scared off by a small group of protesters like that. Or (just a thought) it could be the case that the guy who lost the popular vote by 3 million just didn't attract as big a crowd as Obama did. Oh wait, I forgot, those 3 million votes were all illegal according to people like you and went entirely for Clinton despite the lack of evidence. I guess that was another thing I wasn't aware of either. Like I said, I don't do conspiracy theories.
So the protesters scared away thousands of Trump supporters. That’s easy to imagine. What’s the propaganda? That Trump is so unpopular that he drew a small crowd, or that he’s so unpopular that 200 protesters were arrested at his inauguration? Hardly a platter. Meanwhile, you guy’s scarfed down at the buffet of alternative facts (see post above this one).
I don’t think he was right. But I also don’t think he was lying. Were you aware that event goers had to contend with riots and a violent mob? What are your views on terrorism against fellow citizens?
Plenty of disagreement. I disagree with your false definition of the word “lies” and I also disagree with your area of concern. While you focus on crowd size (ironically) and Trump’s opinion of it, you can say nothing of political violence and persecution against your fellow citizens and democratically-elected officials. You can say nothing about what should be the peaceful transfer of power because you cannot get over Trump’s opinion of crowd size.
https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-world-left-stunned-as-trump-says-covid-19-will-go-away-because-of-herd-mentality-2843436
The economy is nowhere in the World strong. The Corona-slump is universal.
So this isn't his flaw only. One flaw in the future can perhaps be the massive printing of money, but that again is something that Obama and all current US Presidents have done. I think that with the economy Trump hasn't done as much damage as he has done for example bungling up the pandemic response of the US. There he does carry responsibility and a lot.
Just to emphasis this, now Sweden has less deaths per capita than the US, even if they haven't had any lock-down whatsoever. So with a lock-down the US got more deaths, it's really a genuine disaster.
If you do the math, herd immunity would cost around 6 million American lives. Hey, no sweat, right?! :brow:
Herd mentality helped him get elected, so that might be why it's on his mind.
Banana. Republic. Well, if Trump and Barr would get their way.
This isn't correct. Herd immunity could be achieved by the use of immunisation.
Nevertheless, I think the number of cohorts that would die from covid-19 is much lower than 6 million. The chance of the virus "meeting" someone who will die from it is much higher in the beginning than in the end as not only group immunity starts kicking in at around 60% infection rate but the cohort group of those who will die from it has then already diminished greatly.
As such, I'm a little behind. Can anyone tell me how anti-fascists became the bad guys on Cloud Trump? Being an anti-anti-fascist doesn't seem like an obvious recipe for political success.
I was never good at math.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
The name doesn't mean anything. Just because you call yourself something like that doesn't mean you're on the side of justice. Antifa as a movement is militant and they have assaulted journalists, Trump supporters, and burned down and looted businesses. It's a standard leftist tactic that they'll name themselves something nice and then commit atrocious acts in the name of achieving their "utopia."
But that's not what Trump was saying. He was saying that even if we do not have a vaccine, herd mentality (his words) would eventually eliminate COVID. He just neglected to mention that this would cost millions of lives.
Sabotage the means to vote by mail (mostly in areas that are more likely to vote for a Democrat), and then use the resulting mess as evidence that mail-in voting doesn't work well enough. And people buy into it.
Dems are using lawfare to get their Green Party opponents off the ballot. The fix is already in.
That’s like saying if you oppose the Democratic People's Republic of Korea you’re anti-Democracy and anti-Republicanism. What they oppose is their activity, not the name.
Protesting against fascism? Same question, really.
RBG dead. Yall fucked now.
"Oh we'd fill it"
:cry:
That's right. I forgot he said that.
This shit is becoming qanon for liberals.
This brings us beyond philosophy to the realm of politics, where the lives of individuals hang in the balance. This is utterly devastating news. Make no mistake Trump will place someone on the court and there's nothing the Left will be able to do about... the weak, incompetent, arrogant Left.
Are you describing the left here or humanity in general? I see it as the latter but I hesitate to call any politician human.
This isn't what was originally stated. What was originally stated and implied was that "Russia" was pulling Trump's strings. Putin isn't some all powerful puppet master. This is just an unhinged liberal explanans for Trump's election, the actions of his administration, and the overall disaster that has been the last 4 years.
To the right, anti-capitalist = communist = totalitarian = fascist, so if anti-fascist = anti-capitalist then anti-fascist = fascist, in their dictionary.
@Maw Amy Barret is also on that list. However she may rub Protestant Republicans the wrong way.
In this context I'm specifically referring to the Left. What I believe will happen, specifically due to the Left's polemical incompetence, is that they will literally have to begin from scratch, back to the streets where Dr. King marched. It wasn't the Right that set the Left back 60 years, it was the Left's arrogance and polemical incompetence. Who stood up to Ayn Rand when she was alive? Who refuted Milton Friedman? Hayek? The Left just called them names and comforted themselves with the thought that no real intellectuals would ever take them serious. It's the exact same story today.
Quoting tim wood
Quoting Maw
Quoting Kevin
Quoting Maw
I read this as one possibility considered:
[Quote=tim wood]Granted in some cases and areas the GOP has been practicing for years[/quote]
So we've got the GOP named as logical body to which Trump is beheld. Sounds reasonable. But:
[Quote=tim wood]I feel the presence of master hands. But who?[/quote]
So we're not positive the GOP is the best explanation for Trump.
[Quote=tim wood] The only reasonable explanation that occurs to me is that he gets advice and suggestion from Russia.[/quote]
Here's one candidate supposedly. Putin hasn't been referenced yet. But Russia has. I also think it's fair to say that sometimes when people reference a leader - especially casually - and even in a "philosopy forum" - they may conflate things like the individual, an individual's circle, an individual's influences, an circle's influences, etc. You seem to me to have conflated Russia with Putin. And then went on to ask:
Quoting Maw
So you agree implications can take place - but you don't think the logic you suppose for Putin holds for Trump - compare:
[Quote=Maw]Putin isn't some all powerful puppet master.[/quote]
With:
[Quote=tim wood]Near as I can tell, Trump would have to be his own kind of Superman to be screwing with and screwing up as many things as the news is reporting that his administration is screwing up.[/quote]
A reasonable comparison?
Keep in mind: I'm not saying Putin-Russia is behind Trump. I just think your supposition that individuals aren't "all powerful" and that, this being the case, the question of their influences makes the questioners akin to Qanon - is at odds with itself. Let's continue:
[Quote=tim wood]Not orders, because probably that wouldn't work[/quote]
Sounds reasonable.
[Quote=tim wood]But suggestions the substance of which he follows. And of course this implies that he is not alone.[/quote]
Well you and Tim seem to agree on this, no?
[Quote=tim wood]Does anyone have an alternative explanation that makes more sense?[/quote]
This seems to me a reasonable question. Agree to disagree I guess on the supposition that this is on par with Qanon.
[Quote=tim wood]Since coming into office he has been working to corrupt, ruin, spoil, incapacitate every federal agency beyond ordinary rhyme or reason. And who but an implacable enemy would want that?[/quote]
Ermergerd.
Lol. Agree to disagree. I think it's readable.
If you actually look at my post - most of it was quotes already posted with my effort at some commentary. Unless I formatted incorrectly or it displayed wrong - this should be completely readable.
I interspersed quotes with comments - I was trying to be brief for reasons I thought would be obvious.
We could spend twenty pages, get more involved arguing over such things - or we could just look more closely at what has already been said. That was my thought.
My summary:
I do not think your view and Tim's are as divergent as you and StreetlightX say with comparisons to Qanon.
And/in other words:
Quoting Kevin
Edit: I do use hyphens a lot. *shrugs*
It's very simple: it's 2am where I am, I'm pretty drunk and I just took another shot of Eagle Rare, and I don't have the patience to read some deconstructed argument consisting of over 10 quotes
and pedantic commentary about qanon and Russia
Yeah, well - I'm drunk also. Cheers.
Well that would certainly explain your post
Maybe it's contagious.
So would you agree that, as a whole, the US police are a militant, murderous white supremacist organisation? Like Antifa, the police are not a centrally organised body. Like Antifa, the principles they nominally stand for are not manifest in the crimes of a small number of individuals.
Do Antifa principally assault Trump supporters? Or do they principally protest fascism?
I think the harm Trump supporters do makes a good case for interpreting the assault of them as self-defence. Joke. But still...
This to say nothing of the thousands of extra-judicial murders carried out by agents of the state - i.e. police - whom 'small government' types rush out to boot-lick.
Here's to more antifa actions, everywhere, all the time.
The reason I'm more skeptical of antifa is that the far left operates with a different definition of "fascism" than the rest of the country. They'll call Ben Shapiro a fascist. They'll call mainstream right-wing thinkers fascists - and now consider that they openly advocate for violence against the fascists.
Quoting StreetlightX
This reminds me of people who sidetrack discussions about race or gender with something like "oh but what about unattractive white men? my friend has a big mole on his face etc. etc."
Fucking seconded!
I think what the president was talking about is "herd mentality", not "herd immunity". Herd mentality is what he believes is his best chance at getting reelected so he will promote this in any way he can.
This. :up:
Those who complain about anti-fascists are fascists and fuck them.
Again, the police openly commit acts of violence against black people and yet, as we've seen, you'd refrain from condemning them. But someone in the internet age calls someone a fascist and that's an enemy worth having. Am I being unfair?
Quite! :victory:
Obviously Trump isn't operating in a vacuum, as a one man administration or political party. That's not the issue you originally raised however; you stated that Russia is the likely culprit behind the Trump administration, that it comes from "outside the system", which is simply a ludicrous fantasy that grossly overestimates the power that Russia has over worldly affairs. In fact there are very clear explanations that are to be found within the American political system. For example, the USPS has been bleeding money for nearly 15 years thanks to an insane bi-partisan Congressional act that require the postal service to prefund retired employee's health benefits up to 2056, something no other business entity, private or public, has to do. We are now simply seeing the capitalist effort of privatizing the USPS come to fruition. There is no need to look towards Russia as an explanation. The call is coming from inside the house. Why is Trump "against the scientists"? He has said so repeatedly that he did not want panic to disrupt the stock market because that's where his wealth and his rich friend's wealth are tied up in.
The actions of his administration can be explained by their material interests, their complete callousness towards American citizens, especially towards blue states, and their desire to maintain power at the expense of any sort of norms, mores, or decency, the latter of which is particularly indigestible for centrists and liberals who still believe that we are still bound together by some invisible code of decency and political norms, which the GOP has shed ages ago.
Hence my analogy with qanon. It's a deranged political theory that ignores substantive facts and materialistic explanations in favor of taking something basically true (Russian election interference and pedophilia) and transforming it into an all-encompassing fantasy narrative and we get psychotic answers to the question: Why is Trump destroying the USPS? It's because Putin has his pee-tape or is it because Trump needs to do it to take down a global pedophile ring.
Dude read what I fucking wrote how is this difficult
Very interesting. Expect Romney and the Lincoln Project neocons to agree. Just like impeachment, the RINOs will stick together to the very last. Only the uniparty benefits.
This is what I took you to be asking.
I don't know the answer. Koch Bros and Robert Mercer have been cited as interconnections of "American Capital," and Craig Unger's book, [I]House of Trump, House of Putin[/I], makes a compelling case for overlapping circles with Russian interests (but I only read half the book and it didn't, so far as I can tell, touch on the specific question of election meddling).
Jane Mayer's book, [I]Dark Money[/i] has some interesting notes on the Koch Bros, and the documentary, [I]Trumping Democracy[/I], has some interesting notes on Mercer and Cambridge Analytica.
Bannon was involved with CA and Breitbart, and now appears associated with the conspiratorial-seeming, "The Epoch Times." Bannon is also a former Goldman Sachs man. Goldman Sachs appears to have had a heavy presence in the past three or four administrations.
Also, the Council on National Policy (I think) has been cited as another circle of influence (I'm forgetting where I read this, though - Edit: I think this was in Mayer's book too) while other connections can be found to think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute (DeVos, for example).
So for me these may point to the general nexus of ideology and financial interests one can suppose have had an influence on his administration. Pompeo hails from some circles overlapping with Koch interests as well, and Tillerson was an oil guy.
I condemn the policemen/women who commit egregious murder, but it's important we get the facts first before rushing to judgment every time someone is shot. Each case has its own facts. If the officer has committed an offense then of course we should punish them. Policemen have killed white men as well, you just don't hear about it because nobody cares especially if these white men are poor or mentally disabled.
A package containing the poison ricin and addressed to Trump intercepted by law enforcement
And yet there are a hundred thousand instances of anti-fascists protesting fascism, but we should judge them on the few instances of them assaulting -- not killing, just pissing off -- bad people. That's your hypocrisy, and what it says is loud, clear, and in no way good.
a) Antifa has killed. Does the name Michael Reinoehl ring a bell? Earlier there was a terror attack that was stopped.
b) Most importantly where is the condemnation from antifa for these acts? Answer: There is none. Show me where antifa apologizes. Jesus Christ, look to Streetlight who's probably antifa himself. I don't agree with the man but at least he's honest and he follows his beliefs through to the logic conclusions. Ask any antifa protester whether they feel bad for dead cops. They're not going to feel bad. ACAB. You don't get it. If all antifa is about is "fighting fascism" then all of America - myself and NOS too - should join. Come on.
Could be he’s pro-fascist and speaks ill of capital as an excuse so that he can wear all black attire. So vain.
An anti-fascist shot dead by police again?
Because he killed Aaron Danielson and then drew a gun on police when they tried to arrest him?
Quoting praxis
Pro-fascist, anti-fascist.... both love the color black and silencing opposition. Horseshoe theory at it's finest.
I'm far more liberal than even the most liberal people on this forum and I agree with this. There are damaged people in the world who are exceedingly dangerous because of their damage. This damage is not their fault, but they are dangerous because of it nonetheless. The recent cases we have seen are examples of the police abusing their power and flat out murdering people. This is not acceptable and cannot be allowed to stand if civil freedom is to survive against the state's monopoly on violence. Those who wield this power should always be held to a very high burden of proof. Having the right to violence is the greatest social responsibility there could ever be.
As far as I can tell the so-called “fascism” they are protesting against doesn’t exist beyond their own skulls. What fascism? But while they protest the figments of their fantasies, they arbitrarily disrupt the lives and destroy the property of innocent people, none of whom meet their absurd criteria of “fascist”. In other words, this is an unjust and violent movement worthy of contempt.
Was this based on due process? I'm joking. Fascism doesn't do due process. Allow me to rephrase. Was this based on the testimony of people who murder black people?
So just to be clear, thousands of black people murdered by police for decades is a few bad eggs who have to answer for themselves, but one anti-fascist accused of a crime by the same police who murdered him makes the entire organisation murderous? This is still the same question, although I guess you are answering it implicitly.
All right-wing nutters agree with this.
Quoting NOS4A2
American police, you mean?
Red fascists love red, I would assume.
What fascism?
I think you know what I mean. Of all the people who have been assaulted, have had their businesses and property destroyed, none of them had anything to do with the death of any criminal.
That's ridiculous If you're going to arrest someone and they pull a gun on you you can't give them "due process."
There are witness reports which seem to back it up, but we're just not going to ever completely know the truth. His murder of Danielson was captured on video.
The organization is very openly violent, Kenosha. You should listen to people when they tell you who they are. Are you really going to make the case here that they're simply violent and assault-prone and not in fact murderous?
Fascism
Fascism is right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice. It is an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government. Fascism began in Italy (1922-43), Germany (1933-45), Spain (1939-75), and various other nations, starting generally in the time between the first and second world war. The origin of the term comes from the Italian word fascismo, derived from the Latin fasces (a bundle of elm or birch rods containing an ax: once a symbol of authority in ancient Rome). Benito Mussolini adopted the symbol as the emblem of the Italian Fascist movement in 1919.
The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes (see petty bourgeoisie), with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, lumpen proletariat. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of big capital. These capitalists along with the top-tier leaders they create become fascism's ruling aristocracy.
Fascism has many different forms: the Italian fascism of Mussolini was often against Hitler’s Fascism, calling it “one hundred percent racism: Against everything and everyone: Yesterday against Christian civilization, today against Latin civilization, tomorrow, who knows, against the civilization of the whole world.” When Hitler began achieving impressive military conquests, which Mussolini had started in Ethiopia in 1935, the two formed an axis of power in June of 1940. The birth of fascism in Germany was aided by Western governments, who for two decades viewed it as the ideology that would successfully crush the Soviet Union. Not until Germany’s tanks were on the borders of England and France did those governments ‘switch’ sides: now it was their imperialist domination being threatened.
While Mussolini had once been a member of the Socialist party (banished from the party for his rampant support of World War I), Hitler fought leftists from the first. Thus it is not without irony, that in the name for his party Hitler used “socialist,” (Nazi = National Socialist) conceding to the engrained consciousness the German masses had for leftist ideals. It should be noted that fascism supported the community ideal, but not the grass-roots power of direct community democracy as Socialism demands, but the unity and obedience of the community to vanguard of the Nation. Further, orthodox fascism constantly parrots the Communist lexicon of working class struggle, etc., for reasons of populism. Neo-fascism is authoritarian but disdains any trace of Socialist/Communist terminology in their labels, and instead appeals to new populist roots: the modern aspirations of many workers to be wealthly, to be stronger than others, etc.
Fascism championed corporate economics, which operated on an anarcho-syndicalist model in reverse: associations of bosses in particular industries determine working conditions, prices, etc. In this form of corporatism, bosses dictate everything from working hours to minimum wages, without government interference. The fascist corporate model differs from the more moderate corporatist model by eradicating all forms of regulatory control that protect workers (so-called "consumers"), the environment, price fixing, insider trading, and destroying all independent workers' organisations. In fascism, the corporate parliament either replaces the representative bodies of government or reduces them to a sham and the state freely intervenes in the activity of companies, either by bestowing favouritism, or handing them over to the control of rivals.
“to believe, to obey, to combat”
There are several fundamental characteristics of fascism, among them are:
1. Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.
2. Nationalism: Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicous of foreigners.
3. Hierarchy: Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of fascist society – every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat – and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy (e.g. Communism) is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed.
4. Anti-equality: Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example.
5. Religious: Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Most but not all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches.
6. Capitalist: Fascism does not require revolution to exist in captialist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficent and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed.
7. War: Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.
8. Voluntarist Ideology: Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist.
9. Anti-Modern: Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimises artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths. The peddling of conspiracy theories is usually substituted for the objective study of history.
Source: Marxists Internet Archive Encyclopedia
Not “what is fascism”, but “what fascism”?
But thank you nonetheless.
"The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed... Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example... Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true."
I mostly agree with you here, I just think each instance where cops kill someone needs to be taken as an individual case and it's not fair to lump them all in as one so I get annoyed when people take every death-by-cop case under one umbrella. In those cases where cops did kill someone unjustly they should face criminal charges, not just be fired.
Do you see this version of fascism somewhere?
The leftists have their own definition of fascism under which mainstream right wing thinkers qualify as fascists.
This seems like common sense to me. The biggest problem I have with identity politics is that they negate specifics in general, which is its own kind tyranny. What is most damaging in this way of approaching the world is that it destroys class awareness, which is vital to a focused, cooperative emancipation from oppression.
That's not true.
And yet one guy dies during a BLM protest and every anti-fascist is a criminal. The hypocrisy is incredible.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This is untrue.
Yes, this is an instance of fascism as provided in the definition above.
FTFY. I never said every anti-fascist is a criminal either so you're straw manning me now. Strictly speaking I'm an anti-fascist.
Lets start here: Do you believe the group is violent/promotes violence? Also if they're not violent, why in a crowd of hundreds did basically no one step in to stop the assault on Andy Ngo as he was assaulted by dozens of men dressed in head to toe in black?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
It was captured on cell phone video. It doesn't even matter though the guy admitted to it in a vice interview.
But what has any of this to do with Trump specifically?
Come to think of it, class awareness has kind of fallen by the wayside with identity politics/BLM nowadays. I actually find discussions of class to be much more interesting than discussions of race, personally. At least you can do something about class; no one's changing race anytime soon.
All have been silent following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Prior to her death, Collins and Murkowski claimed they would not vote to confirm another SCOTUS nominee before the election. They are both Pro-life and so would be the most likely to vote against a new justice nominated by Trump, as this could potentially lead to the Supreme court overturning Roe v Wade and lead to abortion being made illegal in the united states, again. Collins is also facing an extremely tough re-election in her home state. Part of this is due to the pushback she received from her constituents when she voted in favour of the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme court.
Romney, being the only republican to vote to convict Trump during his impeachment trial, is known to have the courage to stand up to Trump and the rest of the Republican party.
Gardner faces and extremely tough re-election in Colorado but is probably still likely to vote with his party.
Alexander and Roberts are considered to be pragmatic institutionalists and are retiring at the end of their terms. Meaning they won't have to fear any bombastic retaliation from President Trump but it's really anyone's guess as to how they will vote.
All six will be under immense pressure from both parties in the upcoming months.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You characterised the entire organisation as violent on the grounds of overbroad definition of fascism and cited as evidence a single person killed by police who claimed that person killed a fascist. At the same time you insist that the police, who have been murdering thousands of black people with impunity for decades, should not be judged as a whole for its systemic racist violence but should be considered distinct from each individual, however many, who commit those acts. You're not being misrepresented. Your problem is you apply one criteria for systematic violence against black people and another for occasional unorganized violence against fascists, as evidenced here:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
and here:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
White cops killing black people forever = bad individuals
A few people roughed up by anti-fascists = bad anti-fascism
I wonder how predictable this can get. For instance, I would guess you agree with the following dual standard as well:
The extraordinary numbers of hand-picked Trump staff involved in crimes and collusion with Russia = a few bad apples
A few opportunistic looters piggybacking on a peaceful protest against murder of black Americans = bad BLM
Amirite?
no i characterise them as violent based on their beliefs and also actions. antifa is more of an ideology than an organized group. it's the belief that we ought to be quick to be use violence if "fascists" are active because their very presence is a threat. they are very openly quick to violence. no they don't have a giant death count but neither did hitler's brownshirts in the early 30s. would you even consider the brownshirts a violent group before they killed anyone? or was it fine because they were just assaulting some people and doing some marching and chanting?
I agree, it's not an organised group like a police force. It's more like an identity, or a hash tag. I don't think it quite constitutes an ideology. Most anti-fascists believe in liberal non-violent protest. Some believe that if they are attacked by fascists, those fascists are fair game for retaliation. You obviously do not. And inevitably, as with rioters and looters who piggyback any protest, there are people drawn to it for aggressive purposes.
But then that illustrates why this:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
is hypocritical. Because "their beliefs" are not fundamentally or ubiquitously violent, nor are their actions. It is sufficient for you to label a movement of anti-fascists fundamentally violent if a few people who identify as Antifa are so, even though they are not organisationally linked to the vast majority or even any of the movement whatsoever, which is far from logical by itself. But to simultaneously claim that the police forces that endlessly churn out and protect racist murderers bear zero responsibility for the death they cause speaks to an intense bias.
The irony of course is that the aggression between fascists and anti-fascists pre-exists the latter. It's not like right-wing, racist thugs were harmless placard-wavers until Antifa showed up. Racism and fascism have always been violent, be they in the form of the KKK, skinheads, or the police. That violence has been condemned by the left, thumbs-upped by the right, and been ignored or even propagated by the police for decades. Now a left-wing movement has said, 'We'll go where the right-wing goes and hang the consequences' and suddenly the right wing, like yourself, *sometimes* has a problem with it, i.e. has a problem with the left meeting the right on its own terms. A white supremacist drives a car into a group of left-wing protesters. Fine, so long as no one retaliates, right?
When you're fine with racist organisations, including police, repeatedly murdering people but you feel you have to take a stand when anti-fascists say and act like they're not going to be intimidated as they peel swastikas off walls, you declare the prejudices that are necessary to support such blatant bias. When you say that only individuals can be murderous racists but even in a non-organised anti-racist movement every member shares the blame for its worst elements, you are taking a firm position on the side of violent fascism.
I don't know when they started, at least 2017. I'm dealing with them in their modern form. The core belief is that fascism ought to be physically fought and the problem nipped in its bud. It's an entirely reasonable belief on the surface because we all think back to Hitler, but it's when we put this into action and expand our definition of fascism is when things get tricky. There is some association between, say, nationalism and fascism but to treat them as the same is not fair and it's what we're often seeing today. Nobody is going to have exact statistics for frequency of violence instigated but plenty of cases have been caught on camera.
Maybe read up a little before coming to a judgment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-alt-left-fact-check.html
And yet the right-wing message, from posters here up to the President, is that the problem is a violent left wing.
I said it above but it's worth reiterating: this violence is pre-existing fascist violence. If you remove anti-fascism, fascism remains, and kills, and destroys. If you remove violent fascism, there is no Antifa.
I fear it’s more arbitrary than that. The term “fascist” is thrown about pre-emptively, before any fascism can be demonstrated. “Fascism” is thus used in the Orwellian sense, as a pejorative, but even worse, as a means to dehumanize and incite violence against political opponents.
I don't care if their movement has extensive roots dated back to the 1920s and a heroic history of fighting oppression, the moment dozens of them begin assaulting gay minority journalists (see the andy ngo assault) and random business owners as they did in Portland you're just shit. I don't even care if they label themselves the biggest anti-racist and anti-sexist to ever exist, they're still shit. I don't care what they were in the 80s or 90s or even early 2000s. I'm talking about today's crop.
And of course, these shitsticks will want to wait until people are in ovens before they may get an inking of the fact that hey, maybe we should have done something about the fascists before we got to this point.
It's not like Americans are scooping out the reproductive organs of those housed in concentrations camps or - no, wait, that's exactly what they're doing.
Living languages are fluid. It's ok if people make it up as they go.
What's clear is that Antifa is presently impotent, so understanding it would be a rambling psychological quest.
Quoting Rolling Stone
John McWhorter lays out what it is your dealing with in this topic, and why you are wasting your time trying to discuss the issue with them. Everything you say is going through a religious filter of trigger words and agenda driven placeholder words. Self righteousness is a powerful inoculation against different (and therefore opposing, under this cultish ideology) points of view.
Would you agree with this statement: Although the stated goals and history of the antifa movement are noble, in recent times there has been some disturbing footage involving seemingly unprovoked assaults on the innocent including business owners and journalists. While fighting fascism is a noble goal, we encourage the antifa movement to show a little more constraint but also to continue to maintain vigilance in regard to fascism.
Not really a good comparison. The brownshits were assaulting jews, gays, the disabled, Jehovah's witnesses and sympathizer of those demographics, plus others, whom they went on to kill in their millions. 6 million jews and 5 million of those other demographics were killed across nazi controlled Europe.
Antifa are assaulting people who ideologically align with the Brownshits, the right wing extremists would and do target those same demographics and they have a death count in the united states. The fact that their have only been assaults on the Antifa side and no killings just demonstrates restraint on their part and a desire for the fascists to change their ways rather than just outright condemning them as evil and killing them. The brownshits condemned their victims as evil and used that to justify their brutality. Lets not forget that the brownshits practiced voter intimidation during Hitlers rise to power which was a clear attack on democracy and already there are news stories of attempts by right wingers to intimidate early voters at the polls. Maybe when fascist extremists show up at polling sites with guns you will understand.
Changing the meaning of Anti-fascism to fascism for fascists doesn't really make much sense. It just sounds like you're saying "It's fascism to say people can't be fascists.
The Brownshits = Prejudicial and offensive tactics toward groups that are now deemed protected.
Antifa = preemptive defensive tactics used to protect the demographics the brownshits would have us enslave/murder.
So the whole "both as bad as each other" narrative you are trying to push doesn't really make much sense as the very reasons and motivations behind the existence are entirely different. To put it simply, if there were no Fascists, there would be no Antifa. If there were no Antifa, we would still have fascists.
If you are violent towards others, you can hardly blame others for responding and reacting violently as a means of self defense. Violence begets Violence. If your priorities are to reduce violence then your focus should be on Fascists, not Antifa. If your priorities are to empower fascists by ignoring their violence in favour of coming down on the people who are defending themselves and others from this very violence, then you are a fascist and also have a violent ideology.
As to the fires. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/
Sorry for the brief answer but I'm arguing against 4 other people here... I was referencing the brown shirts in the early 30s, before the wide scale assaults/killings started. My point was that a movement can be violent - as the brownshirts were - before racking up a high body count. This was in response to one of Kenosha's points earlier. Quoting DingoJones
It's just a slow sunday morning here. Me and Streelight know we're never going to change each other's minds, it can just be fun to get it out there. With Benkei there is a chance of finding some common ground so who knows.
So if Andy Ngo is a fraud and not a journalist do you support initiating mob violence against him? The damage was fairly serious by the way, he did suffer brain damage. You can watch it all on youtube.
There isn’t much to understand. Antifa is wholly composed of reprobates role-playing their protest fantasies in the public square, virtue-signalling into tyranny.
Also Andy Ngo already had brain damage, he just found a convenient excuse for it. It would be good if he were to drop dead tomorrow. The world would be a better place.
Or maybe not. Trump has vocalised an intent to close polling stations in Democratic demographics to stop people voting, has incited his own voters to commit voting fraud by voting twice (once at a polling station, once by post), and has repeatedly stated an intent to stay in power beyond two terms. I don't think he needs guns, nor do I think his voters would care if he used them, since the above doesn't phase them at all.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Change 'gay' to 'black' and 'Portland' to 'Tulsa', see if you still feel the same way.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This is almost what the Antifa manual says. It warns against accepting people who are drawn to it for violence, against allowing violence to be a member's MO, but permits confrontation and self-defence. They seem as aware of opportunistic thugs as anyone. If the police would take this stand with actual racist killers, it would be a good and welcome start.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
If you're talking about the Tulsa massacre of 1921 of course that was awful. The interesting thing is I'm fine condemning right wing violence, but with you guys I've noticed you're not willing to condemn any left wing violence so I usually just nope out after realizing that.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Great so lets get back to that.
At a glance, his point is simple and easy to appreciate, but rather ironic that he exaggerates the issue to the unrealistic extent of religious devotion.
I don't think you are. Your stated view is that the police who vet, recruit, train and arm the police who enjoy positions of authority over people have no responsibility for the lethal racists they unleash.
I am anti-violence as a rule, but let's say there's a film in which every day a bunch of white thugs beat a black kid coming home from school. Sometimes to death. The parents tell the police every day and the police sometimes shoot the father for invented reasons. Then one day these thugs follow their next target around a corner only to find a posse from all walks of life ready to beat the shit out of them. You're the guy in the theatre standing up shouting 'They shouldn't be allowed!' having sat silently through two hours of violence against blacks. I'm the guy saying, 'This should never have been thought necessary'. So, yes, after centuries of violence by whites against blacks, I'm less disturbed or surprised that decent people have accepted that occasionally there will be fisticuffs than I am by the dude who stood up and ranted at the end of the movie.
So I'm afraid you've got it back to front. What pisses us off is not that left-wingers aren't immune to criticism for violence. What pisses us off is that, after everything that's happened, after every crime that the right wing has perpetrated, defended, or remained silent on from slavery to George Floyd, you cry 'no fair' when a fascist gets so much as a punch in the teeth for a fight he almost certainly started. It's a bully's mentality.
It's all good, we've all been there where we get overwhelmed with engaging with multiple people. My Push the button post yesterday did that to me too. Reply at your leisure and take your time. I'm not going to rush you.
That's basically what Trotsky was until the shit hit the fan.
I don't know Kenosha, can you look at someone and determine if they're a racist? If someone is actively racist then of course we should get rid of them and if we don't then that's an institutional failure but racism in practice isn't black and white. It's not just a white cop on black victim problem either. Black cops shoot black people at around the same rate. Quoting Kenosha Kid
If someone is committing violence against you you always have the right to stand up for yourself. What you can't do is if one cop commits a horrible offense that he deserves to go to jail for tothen target every cop and start shooting cops indiscriminately. That's not how justice works. Target the actual individuals. Quoting Kenosha Kid
Just curious, are you black? This seems like a larger criticism towards white people. I don't get it. Do you want white people to apologize for slavery? Jim Crowe?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Huh. Nice spontaneous word association.
Nice identity politics too.
See - you're the lesson. You just speak, and all this hilarious shit comes tumbling out.
Ha. Trotsky was in a much different context. The communists I have in mind require the products of capitalist innovation to spread their gospel, and have self-exiled in their mother’s basement.
Yes, to an extent. It's called psychological vetting.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
There is an extensive history of protectionism in the police, as well as a stubborn refusal to allow reform. That is not a failure, that is an oppositely-directed success.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Are you seriously going to rest your argument on an inability to differentiate between a lawful killing and murder? How many black people have been shot in the back by black police officers who then hide a gun on their victim? How many black people have been choked to death by black police officers? If you're excusing every George Floyd on the basis of black officers inevitably sharing a quota of lawful killings, that would be a new low.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And who the hell advocates this? Are you claiming this is Antifa's MO now?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Is it difficult to imagine white people not being more okay with racist violence than with anti-fascism?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Now that *is* a straw man, though not an unfamiliar one. I've heard racists use this a lot, like they're excused for pretending bad shit never happened. No, I don't expect white people to feel guilty for their ancestors' crimes; I just expect them to not perpetuate them. My point was that this violence has been going on for a very, very long time, and yet people like you act like the left have just picked a fight for no reason.
I can’t wait. A warmer climate is sure to raise the value on my property, and I wouldn’t mind a first and second amendment.
I don't care as much about an organization's stated, ideological goals as I care about their actual actions. We've seen journalists assaulted, business owners harassed, businesses looted and burned. We have seen murders as well, Aaron Danielson for instance. To document all of these instances would be an awful lot of work, and often when they are documented the journalists who document them are just smeared as frauds or fascists themselves, so it's often not really worth talking about.
I think many of these antifascists operate under the premise that the American system is rotten to it's very core and since it can't be reasonably reformed it needs to be destroyed and rebuilt. So the violence follows from this and there's no discussion to be had. If you're one of the believers in this premise then I don't see our discussion going very far.
And you'll probably say the same about the hundreds of thousands of COVID deaths I'm sure.
It makes no sense to me to dream up a dystopian future only to feel sorrow or fear in what I just created. I’ll let you know how I feel if your fortune-telling comes to fruition.
Over a million people die of tuberculosis each year with no peep from the usual suspects, probably because you cannot use it as a political football.
You're right. It's not like those 200K deaths are easily preventable if not for the intentional downplaying of certain politicians...
Since you mentioned political footballs, if you want to get a better idea of what 200K deaths means, it's around 50,000 Benghazis.
Ngo claimed a subarachnoid hemorrhage, which is total bullshit as he was up and about the day after. An SAH requires several days (up to 2 weeks) of monitoring at a hospital.
The guy that hit him committed a crime but it was exactly what Ngo wanted. Precisely because he has an agenda. He has been known to dox a minor.
So really, what journalists are we taking about?
The fires I already referred to with a WaPo article that illustrated there's no Antifa behind the fires during BLM protests or the forest fires for that matter.
Until recently, Antifa wasn't linked to any murders in 25 years. We now have one. The far eight committed 329 murders in the same time period.
Antifa violence and fear thereof are simply not grounded in reality. What you need to be afraid of is white supremacists, various types of extreme nationalists and retards linked to the boogaloo nonsense.
:razz: good one
Right, because a mob of murderous rioters is akin to a global pandemic. No more foolish comparison has been made, except for the similar one about 9/11.
Um I said Benghazi, not a "mob of murderous rioters" but I suppose the death count from both is similar. Indeed it's foolish to compare these events to COVID since the US death toll from that is way way worse, but for some reason the right gets all up in arms about one but not the other.
I’m under no delusion that Trump could lose. If the polls are any indication (they aren’t), it’s not looking good. But I’ve been pleasantly surprised before.
The Benghazi attack, where terrorists and a violent mob of rioters killed Americans, and where cries for assistance were met with a hand wave. I wager they would still be alive had Trump been in charge.
So true. Literally just a scapegoat to distract, textbook fascism.
All I really want to know is whether you support the assault on Andy Ngo.
Of course rolling stones isn't going to like a conservative reporter/journalist. Who would have thought a heavily left wing publication would dislike a conservative reporter/journalist/hack etc.? If I were to reference the National Review how do you think they would view Ngo? How do you think conservative sites view Seth Abramson or Sam Seder? It's a constant thing coming from both sides to try to discredit the other. I'm not going to blindly bandwagon one side here. I don't even care about defending Ngo's journalistic integrity right now. It's irrelevant.
This is why I hate politics and I prefer philosophy. All I want to ask you is whether you condone the assault. It doesn't even matter if he's a legitimate journalist or not. If someone spreads lies and publishes them then you sue them. If you watch the videos he's attacked by many black clad men and the crowd really doesn't stop them. There's also been a number of assaults on other conservative journalists like the youtube channel "the colored conservatives" by men clad in black.
How do you think I would react if, say, the proud boys assaulted a liberal journalist? Do you think I would immediately jump to their defense by trying to discredit the liberal journalist? Shitty behavior is shitty behavior it doesn't matter what side it comes from. This shouldn't be political.
Quoting Benkei
I never said antifa started the forest fires. What I am aware of is tons of footage on youtube of black clad men either assualting journalists or looting/burning stores.
If that is all you're aware of, aren't you making the assumption that they are Antifa? If you don't know either way then mighten they not be a false flag? Hypothetically.
The thing that bothers me is that many are jumping to conclusions prior to police investigations being finished and are conjecturing all sorts. On both sides really. For all you or I know, there are personal disputes or normal crimes being labeled as Antifa or Right wing extremists.
Are you of the opinion that neo-nazis don't exist in the USA? Sincerely asking.
Since we are talking about killings, what did you think about the killing of BLM activist Oluwatoyin Salau?
What an excellent display of critical reasoning.
Quoting MSC
True, you never know for sure. We've seen protests and lootings and burnings across the country and only some the perpetrators have been identified as ANTIFA. I certainly don't think everyone who is committing crimes here are antifa. It's nearly impossible to get perfect statistics about this, but it's likely a mix of antifa, other left wing radicals, opportunists, criminals, and who knows what else. I'm happy to extend my argument here to left wing radicals in general. If there are right wing radicals in there I'd be quick to condemn them too obviously. I certainly don't buy that the majority of people committing the lootings and riots are really right wing radicals though.
Quoting MSC
Absolutely. All we know is that antifa members have been identified behind some of the looting and assaults, but there's certainly a lot of confusion.
Quoting MSC
No I belive neo-nazis exist in some measure in the US. It's important to distinguish neo-nazis from just normal racists and neo-confederates though. All racists are not the same. Don't get me wrong, I hate racists - I do believe neo-Nazis exist in some quantity (certainly in the prison system) but all racists are not equal. Actual neo-nazis are the worst of the worst in my book.
Quoting MSC
I would have to look into that one and get back to you later. Yesterday I was looking to Breonna Taylor (horrific what happened) and Jacob Blake, but I'll get to Salau at some point. I have no problem condemning police officers when they commit like an actual crime as is what likely happened with Taylor. It's certainly happened we really just need to wait for all the facts before rushing to judgment.
Quite sincere. :smile:
No, that's not luck. You read it multiple times in a critical fashion. Bravo. If only we could get more critical thinking into the world.
Agreed. I wish it was a heavier focus in schools. Philosophy should be part of the core curriculum. I've never been to University though and I dropped out of highschool.
One of the things you mentioned, protests, isn't a problem and by law the people have a right to protest. The majority of the protests have indeed been peaceful. This brings me to another point, ANTIFA is an ideology, a statement you and I have both agreed with. So individuals who identify as ANTIFA, are not members of a group but are individuals espousing a belief in an ideology.
Pro-Life is also an Ideology. Do you think every pro-lifer spends their time outside of abortion clinics shouting profanities at employees and scared women seeking abortions? I'm Pro-Life, but I don't do that. I also identify as ANTIFA (Now don't rush to judge or throw the baby out with the bathwater because what I have to say is monumentally important and it would benefit you and everyone on all sides of all ideological debates to hear it) but I am not out Looting or burning or assaulting anyone and even if Trump wins a second term, I still probably won't be doing any of that. I'm human and I've been angry at times and when we get angry we think of doing stupid things, sometimes we do those stupid things to different degrees. I wouldn't judge you in the slightest if you told me that the thought hadn't crossed your mind to go out and assault people you see protesting. We all have those kinds of thoughts from time to time, especially about the things that mean a lot to us.
Why is this? Because the modal quality of my ANTIFA ideology and my Pro-life Ideology are personal and based on my individuality, just like ANTIFA who are out on the streets looting and burning, and the ones PEACEFULLY protesting... Or, like you. In the last few messages to me you have expressed ANTIFA ideology, yet you're not out looting and burning either. Instead you are having a collaborative, open, equal, equitable and honest conversation on the internet with people who disagree with you. On a philosophy forum no less. You might say that the Modal quality of our ANTIFA beliefs are like a super hard Titanium alloy, while the looters and burners are but lithium, a soft metal.
Oh I thought you were referring to the protests that's happening right now, since that for some reason is so much more of a concern for you folks instead of the 200K dead.
Quoting NOS4A2
And I'd wager that 100K+ people would still be alive today if Trump weren't in charge. Your point?
My problem with your comments was, that you claim multiple journalists were assaulted by Antifa. I haven't seen one example of it and the one you did give is a bad example for various reasons. Meanwhile, there was a lot of footage of journalists being assaulted by police in the beginning of the BLM protests.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This makes me think you didn't read the WaPo article I shared a few posts back. I wasn't talking about the forest fires to begin with until my last post. From that article:
Your identification of people being clad in black being part of Antifa is problematic because likely to be wrong.
You also dismiss Rolling Stone as left-leaning but it's actually a reasonable article. And even if it is influenced by left leaning politics; there are plenty of facts in the article you can try to independently verify. I did that when you started about Andy Ngo because I had no clue who you were talking about. I spent about 30 minutes on that.
With real partisan talking points; once you scratch the surface most of it turns out to be untrue. Andy Ngo does not deserve to milk this situation and he certainly shouldn't be lying about his injuries. The guy that hit him should be fined. The rest is just milkshakes and spaghetti spray which a provocateur and probable criminal like Ngo deserved.
So, once again: the FBI is clear on Antifa not being a problem. It's not an organisation. Some people identifying as Antifa are suspects in violent crimes. Nevertheless, anti-government movements and white supremacists are much more likely to radicalise and commit violent crimes. Recent events provide no evidence of a violent ideology underlying Antifa or violence perpetrated by people identifying Antifa in such a widespread manner that there is cause for concern.
You can also look at Wray's testimony form 3-4 days ago. The interesting part is how he won't commit to a lef or right wing domestic threat and points to two things in particular: lone wolfs with access to weapons and racially motivated violence (e.g. white supremacism) as the main sources of domestic terrorism. While it's true that some lone wolfs may identify as Antifa, it is not the case that Antifa falls within either category the FBI is really worried about.
I did baulk at that one. One doesn't expect racism on a philosophy forum to be quite so overt as 'If you think white people have been bad to black people, you must be black'.
No, I found it strange how you only mentioned black people being killed by police on numerous occasions despite more white people being killed by cops and there being no mention of any other race. I couldn't tell if you're just a black person concerned with issues within the black community (understandable) or some random white guy/non-black who's basically just virtue-signaling by only taking notice of one politically salient race. It comes across as very bizarre and in any case you just continue to straw manning my positions so I'm out.
Again, recognising no difference between lawful and inevitable killing and utterly unnecessarily murder. My issue is not that police kill. It is that police particularly murder black people.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And that's very telling. You can understand why a black person would be enraged by police brutality against black people -- an agreement that the problem exists. You can't understand why a white person would find this abominable, and can only assume they are virtue signalling. That is a fundamentally racist interpretative schema that assumes that other white people like yourself would similarly not care about racism. I can assure you -- and I can't imagine you have not been privy to much evidence -- that decent, non-racist, non-fascist white people are very much outraged by unjustifiable and particular police violence against black communities.
It's interesting drawing the comparisons with the UK, the right wing is following the same path, but is a few months behind and the society is not quite so fractured. So it is easier to distinguish the ideology and people who have drunk the cool aid. Because the people who haven't are just normal folk, who are a bit bemused with all these people loosing touch with reality and spouting such nonsense. Their ring leaders are right now trying to paint the Black lives Matter movement in the UK as some kind of antifa organisation. I doubt it will stick though, because everyone knows there is no such animal and the fools who fall for it will become more and more exposed for the fools they are.
It's nearly impossible if not outright impossible to find stats on this. You've got some work to do if you're going to make this case.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Jesus christ you are hyper-sensitive regarding a normal use of language.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Again, you need to find the statistics which prove that cops are just randomly murdering black people -- and only black people -- for no apparent reason/no apparent cause -- simply because they are black. And not only does this happen, but that this happens at an extremely high rate.
It is only against black people too - not any other race.
EDIT: The cops shoot around 1k people a year, the vast majority of whom are armed.
According to stats this year regarding unarmed victims:
"As of the June 22 update, the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019. The database does not include those killed by other means, like George Floyd."
Exhibit A, above.
Ah, so unarmed black Americans get murdered by cops at 3 times the rate of unarmed white Americans, adjusted for population.
Cool and normal.
:up:
You gotta cite your sources man because that's not what mine are telling me.
The Heather MacDonald article? Where? You realize her thesis is that there's no epidemic of shootings of unarmed black people?
I literally used the numbers you quoted in your post (plus a quick google search re: demographic ratio of black::whites).
Or is it that you don't know how to do the calculation?
Either way I'm having the time of my life here :lol:
Statistics are easy to find. You are twice as likely to be shot dead by police if you are black. Beyond statistics, there's a large number of reported cases, often filmed, showing police brutality against black people. There are remarkably few white George Floyd's.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Way to miss the point.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Seriously? This is your cutoff for considering the possibility of racist violence in the police force? Like, none of them can also hate Mexicans? They have to choose victims randomly not opportunistically? It honestly amazes me what presumably otherwise intelligent people will say to avoid admitting there's a problem that the entire world is well aware of.
Right. Now how many black people are there in America compared to white people? And how many white people have been filmed unjustifiably killed?
The same source shows that black people are more than twice as likely to be killed than white people. Funny you didn't mention that...
Don't give him hints, you're spoiling the fun!
Does 14 shooting deaths of unarmed black in late June of 2019 constitute an epidemic? If there were 4 white men and 3 black men shot in the entirety of any given year you could also claim there was an epidemic of racist police officers murdering black people disproportionately. Very good use of statistics!
Blacks are also commit a disproportionate number of assaults and murders so they're unfortunately more likely to be in this type of situation where police are looking for a black suspect. You also only cited national statistics which may not be representative of where the bulk of the shootings are taking place.
You realize there's a ton of dead white people you haven't heard of? There's also a ton of dead indigenous people you haven't heard of. Nobody cares unless it's a black man killed by a white police officer. There's actually a bunch of white George Floyds the media just doesn't care about them.
Twice more likely to be shot dead? Are they armed? Are you committing a crime? Are they a suspect for a crime? Why are they being shot? Did they surrender?
Unarmed. You cited the source, didn't you read it?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Amazing how your demand for statistics ceases the moment you get them. I guess statistics weren't that important after all.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Show me the stats.
Lmao now you're just changing the point to something I never said.
How do you get by being so pathetic?
How do you get by being so angry all the time? Must be hard.
The bigger picture here is that there were 14 unarmed black people killed by June of 2019. The article mentioned this was 63% lower than the number in 2015, so presumably in 2015 we're talking like 25 deaths of unarmed blacks.... in the entire year....of a country of over 300 million, of which over 30 million are black.
Yet your point this entire time is that there is an epidemic, that white cops just walk up and shoot black people without consequence because they just hate black people. The numbers we're dealing with are so small here... imagine if there were 4 unarmed white men killed and 3 unarmed black men killed yearly. Sure the number is disproportionate, guess you win....?Quoting Kenosha Kid
No you just need to do a more thorough job and dig into it a little more.
Why do you think blacks are disproportionately affected?
I hate to say it but probably because they commit a disproportionate amount of the crimes and in turn have a disproportionate amount of contact with the police.
People of color are more aggressively policed, studies show. For instance, white Americans don’t use drugs less than black and brown Americans yet they’re disproportionately incarcerated for drug offenses.
How does this explain that unarmed black people are killed at over twice the rate of unarmed white people?Quoting BitconnectCarlos
So your current logic is that you can choose when this all started and discount every killing before it? Because it's not just one year. It is every year.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
How is your selective approach to stats my problem?
What would explain their higher crime rate?
The answer is multi-variable and complicated. I just can't give a simple, easy answer. I think this is an important discussion to have, but is a slightly different from the subject of police shootings. The two are related, but obviously cutting that crime rate would decrease the number of black bodies at the hands of police.
Okay, so in that case it actually doesn't matter what the numbers and proportions are. If cops went on daily racial murder rampages, it would just mean that more blacks are criminals.
There was footage recently of a perfectly compliant press team being arrested by silent police. I say team, but about half the team were left alone. Specifically the white half. I guess the non-white half were criminals, right? And the white half not.
One of many factors.
I was referring to UK folk, I'm already despairing about US folk.
I see it loud and clear.
I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Rather than teach people to comply with police, saving lives, they teach them to feel indignant and oppressed, putting lives at risk. It’s no wonder they reserve this sentiment for members of only one race.
No doubt before he praises the head of state for being a great leader of government anytime now.
This is the "they were asking for it" line of thought. This is used to blame women for being raped ('shouldnt have grown boobs, they deserved it').
It's popular and for many, honest, so it should be shoveled out into the light of day.
If only Breonna Taylor had, I dunno, shot herself so the cops didn't have to do it for her instead of sleeping or something.
And of course everyone knows that 'not complying' warrants extra-judicial murder on the spot.
I thought that movie was crap tbh. Get Out was way better.
I was touching on the effects of hip hop, which has been a topic of complaint for decades, like Spike Lee.
Yeah, resisting arrest turns out to be a bad idea 100% of the time. So why do people do it?
Because they think that they're about to die.
Don’t worry, Trumps new patriotic conditioning project will set the kid’s straight... or just garner a few more votes from people like you.
Better than critical race theory, witch attracts people such as yourself like flies to shit.
Resisting arrest increases the risk of all involved.
Nothing left to lose. I'm sure you understand that from your days on the mean streets of Vancouver.
At least critical race theory is a real thing and not another pathetic ploy.
You fill American’s heads with fear and nonsense about being killed by police for their skin color, when they are clearly being killed for resisting arrest. It’s just untrue that people are being killed because they have certain skin colors. These lies are exacerbating the very problem you wish would end.
Pseudoscientific, race theories. What could go wrong?
Also NOS is not a person he's just a kind of jar of living urine.
They just kind of spontaneously believe it. I dont deal with cops much. Another figure of power is doctors, though. Ive seen doctors try harder to help white people than black ones, so I think I understand what's happening.
But do I really? I just collect perspectives.
How do you survive outside the womb if an opposing opinion causes this much distress?
My comment was directed at @BitconnectCarlos who, among other insane things, is unable to grasp how the state shooting black men is bad, and if this is merely an "opposing opinion" to you, then you are also part of the problem.
Superficial gestures to an ignorant audience. What couldn’t go right?
You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Do you raise the issue with your superiors?
I haven't. I'm not sure what kind of evidence I would need.
My apologies. If consensus keep you sane and disagreement twists your panties, it’s pretty easy to self-curate the information you access these days.
That’s the problem. The mind-state of the doctor or cop cannot be used as evidence. So we cannot know that the doctor treated someone different based on skin color instead of other reasons.
This was touched on by Bitconnect and myself. Race is a complex issue in the US because race and economic problems overlap. Health issues too: American blacks tend to have vitamin D deficiency. There's a link between that condition and more severe COVID19 infection.
I think we’ll find disparities between any group—tall vs. Short, fat vs. thin, young vs. old—it’s why medical treatment needs to be tailored to the individual instead of to the arbitrary taxonomies we assign him to.
He doesn't really exist. He's just alt right copy pasta.
Yeah the protests are not a problem. I didn't mean it to appear that I thought the protests were a problem.
I believe antifa is both an ideology and a group, but not a centralized group as far as I can tell. It seems to be organized more on a regional/local basis. If we're going strictly by ideology then in the original sense of the word I'd consider myself an antifascist (as any decent person should be) - my issue is that the antifa of, say, the 1930s is not the same as the antifa of 2017-2020.
I think we need to be really careful in regard to whether we refer to it as an ideology or a group. My criticism is really geared towards the group - the (mostly) men who clad themselves in black and assault journalists and burn down stores and harass business owners. There's been many, many incidences where this has been documented.
Sure, I don't think anyone is to blame for their thoughts. You can certainly be blameworthy if you actually execute on those thoughts/fantasies though. To be perfectly honest, I've never fantasized about hurting the protesters though. I don't see anything wrong with protesting. I'm not mad at the protesters, but if you look at the facts of the destruction I think it's been pretty widespread. I know it's happened all across the country and now parts of my home city of Boston (entire blocks, many, many stores) have been destroyed. I don't even fantasize about hurting the rioters I just wish they would stop or maybe that there would be a stronger police response.
Quoting MSC
Yeah, this has been a surprisingly pleasant discussion. And I agree with you -- from a purely philosophical standpoint, I could very well be considered an anti-fascist. In the original sense of the word I think I am. However, I'd just really advise you to be careful identifying yourself with that movement because they are a group -- literature has been written on the group -- and they're not a democratic movement that supports open, free discussions. They very routinely shout down and try to shut down conservative speakers on college campuses. I honestly don't think the movement believes in free speech. They believe in de-platforming and not allowing conservative speakers to express their ideas because anything outside of their little box is labeled "fascist." I know you might just consider me
paranoid conservative, but I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the group a little, not just the philosophy.
You said that it was criminal which is not the same thing as saying that it was wrong. Do you think it was wrong and that it shouldn't have happened?
For multiple journalists you've got Ngo and I said the "colored conservatives" which is a small youtube channel of conservative journalists/reporters. Those are a few I can name off the top of my head but I'm sure there's more. Antifa also routinely shouts down and tries to shut down conservative speakers on college campuses so it really should be no surprise that they've got an anti-conservative journalist bent. I'm sure there are more journalists who have faced assaults or threats; it fits with their view of "fighting fascism."
We're not talking about the police either and I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion. The police doing bad things doesn't justify groups in opposition to the police also doing bad things.
Quoting Benkei
Have you seen the medical reports on Andy Ngo? How do you know that he's lying about injuries? I've seen interviews with him and his speech definitely seems off and likely indicates some form of brain or face damage. I don't know how you can immediately conclude that he's lying. I don't even know how Rolling Stones can conclude it unless they've seen the medical reports. There were actually two separate assaults on Andy Ngo, according to Andy Ngo, but then we go down this rabbit hole of you probably not believing Andy Ngo and etc. etc.
If you look on the video though there were numerous men who attacked him with fists and hit him with objects. You can't dispute that. I feel like we should move on from this point because it's not too important to our central discussion.
Quoting Benkei
I never said everyone clad in black is antifa, but some % of them are likely to be. The truth is we're just dealing with uncertainty and this makes plenty of people uncomfortable. I'm happy to extend the definition/our conception of antifa to militant far-left groups in general, here in the states we just mostly refer to that group or groups as "antifa." Would you be more satisfied if we referred to them as far left militants? There's also quite a bit of documentary footage and literature out there about these groups. I think the umbrella term used here is just the "antifascist movement." They consider themselves warriors, fighters.
Quoting Benkei
Antifa isn't destabilizing the government anytime soon. I've never claimed them to be a massive threat to US national security. And yes, like you've said earlier they're often difficult to identify and we can doubt whether random people dressed in black and assaulting others are antifa - but whether we like it or not that's the clothing we've come to associate them with. It could be some other far left group, who knows. The crips and the bloods and other gangs have their own dress codes and we could see people in these dress codes committing crimes but we'll never know for certain whether it's them until much later after they've been arrested and interrogated. I don't think antifa's violence is a real security threat to the US, but the way they go after conservative speakers and try to shut down discourse is disconcerting.
They're comedians not journalists according to their own patreon page. We are talking about these guys right? https://www.facebook.com/TheColoredCons/
And we're not talking about the police but we should. You come up with journalists that aren't journalists to prove a point that doesn't exist. I'm pointing you to the actual problem--> a police force that's either dumb enough to attack journalists or so insulated from repercussions that they think they can get away with it. Probably a combination of both.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I saw one fist fly. The rest was milkshakes and spaghetti spray. Stop exaggerating.
And no I didn't see his medical records. But as I explained, if someone claims SHA and is up and about the next day, then he doesn't have SHA, he's simply lying. I don't need to see his medical records for that - all I need to do is google!
Quoting Wikipedia
The guy is a troll a verified liar and a likely criminal. As a result, I'm on the fence as to whether it was wrong to hit him in the face. Seems fair play to me. The guy who hit him should pay a fine though because he broke the law.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You're happy to extend a definition to fit your preconceived conclusions. Check.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
No. It's the clothing you associate them with, which as explained before is the wrong thing to do. Just stop.
FBI is clear on this: lone wolfs, white supremacists and ultra-nationalists are mostly responsible for domestic terrorism. I have problems associating "far left" with white supremacy and patriotism. Seems like a typical right wing thing to me.
You're chasing ghosts with Antifa.
What are you saying!!? Do you think resisting arrest is sufficient reason to be killed?
I am saying resisting arrest is wrong, illegal, dangerous and stupid. Had resisting arrest not occurred people would be alive today.
There is a wide variety of reasons why an individual will resist arrest, starting with the situation when one perceives oneself to be innocent, and the arrest to be unjust. In no way does resisting arrest warrant being killed, irrespective of how stupid it may be.
It does warrant the use of deadly force or shooting when the officer believes his life or the lives of others is at risk. There are legal means to rectify unjust arrests, none of which involves putting the officer’s or your own life at risk.
The same snowflake cops who are so fragile that they'll have a mental health episode over a McMuffin are supposed to be in a position to rationally judge what is a threat to their lives.
Cops murder people wontonly and the idea that they do so because their lives are at risk is laughable bullshit peddled by authority loving wankers like NOS who want nothing more than to swallow whatever piss the State will dribble down their throats.
Two words: Elijah McClain.
Quoting NOS4A2
You don't have to beat around the bush, the answer here is clearly "yes" so just say it. Essentially your position is that the onus of personal discipline and self-restraint is situated squarely on civilians, regardless of context, and not the (ostensibly) trained officer carrying a deadly weapon. The only important, consequential word in your outright psychopathic response is "dangerous". How is it dangerous? How can resisting arrested be rendered dangerous? That responsibility lies in the reaction of the (ostensibly) trained officer, who, out of all other possible recourses, chose the most extreme and severe: termination. What you are justifying is the existence of a fascist comic book character, a "street judge" who can summarily arrest, convict and execute civilians with impunity.
I can understand why you would think this. Unfortunately there is a problem with your reasoning on this. A big one. You've made an assumption that it's the Antifa Ideology as the problem in what it makes certain groups of Antifa do, looting and burning. The problem is one of certainty when it comes to knowing the contributing factors of ideology when it comes to predicting and explaining individual and group behaviour.
It's probably a given that we both subscribe to more than one ideology. Now fundamentally we are both Anti-Fascist and not racist, we both agree we have cultural biases and have the potential to be callously racist, let's imagine we are also both Pacifists with a self defence condition for violence. (Not going to talk about whether weapons are just, only talking about self defence and whatever that might mean legally where any given person is.)
Now lets say one of us is a black man and one of us is white. Doesn't matter if it's true or not I just want to demonstrate a deep contextual difference in something here.
We are both in our own cars, driving across the same state. This state happens to have gun rights which allows for both of us to have a legal firearm in our vehicle. We are both responsible gun owners who know the law and our rights.
We both get pulled over for speeding. We weren't dangerously so, just a few miles over the limit and got a bit careless.
Cop walks over to your window which you have opened.
Things contextually diverge here.
White Driver: Hello officer
Officer: License and registration please
WD: Of course, Also officer, I must let you know I am carrying a legal firearm.
Officer: Well if you can show me your permit for that also, and keep it holstered during this citation that would be great.
Driver shows license, registration and permit
WD: Why am I being stopped?
Officer: You're being stopped because you committed a speeding violation so I have to give you a citation. You can try to appeal it with the court but by law I have to give you the citation.
WD: Okay Officer. Once you give me the citation can I leave?
Officer: You can leave, just don't let me catch you speeding again. This is a family neighborhood.
WD: You take care now officer.
Now the Black drivers experience.
BD: Hello officer
Officer: License and registration please
BD: Of course, Also officer, I must let you know I am carrying a legal firearm.
Officer: Well don't take it out.
BD: I'm not going to take it out.
Officer: Don't take it out!
BD: I.. [B]*BANG*[/b]...
The dialogue for the BD was real dialogue from a real killing. Where a black man was shot and killed for trying to exercise his second amendment rights. He did everything a responsible gun owner was supposed to do and where was the NRA? They pop up to help a white man use stand your ground to kill whomever he happens to feel like provoking but they were completely silent on this. Black people can't win. Their second amendment rights in pro gun states aren't respected, gun control laws in California where originally implemented by Regan when he was governor to target the black panthers. It was implemented in direct response to black people trying to exercise the rights they had recently "Won". Look at stop and search statistics in New York.
Now, I'm white. So it's partly my responsibility to know my own cultures history of racism. I have a long memory and my culture also has also experienced racism and slavery. My culture has perpetuated racism and slavery. Historically speaking there have now been oceans of blood spilled of unnamed slaves who's contributions to the rest of man kinds progress, at the cost of the stagnation of its moral progress, well let me make one thing completely plain. The waters are starting to taste stagnant again.
Rounding back to my point about ideology, since the dialogue obviously brought on a subsequent dramatic style which is making me want to kick my own ass.
The ideology you have identified as the problem, isn't the problem. It kind of all comes down to one Moral question. Is it justifiable to use proxies to express your justifiable anger toward others? Thereby using them as a means to your own ends?
I think me and you would probably say No, as evidenced by the fact that neither of us are doing that with looters and neither are we looting.
Maybe another way to think of it, is the accusations of White privilege levied at Lori Loughlin in the college admissions scandal at the recent news she will be allowed to pick her own prison.
While I agree most black men wouldn't be offered that, neither would most white people. The ideological problem isn't privilege by race it's privilege by class.
Can I ask, how familiar are you with Semiotics?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Stronger man than I, I've fantasized about beating up Alt Right Armed Militia. In fairness though, the fantasies usually involve superhuman abilities because it's more like a proxy for a video game coping mechanism and there is little convincing evidence that violent video games increases violent crime.
Sad to hear about Boston! Used to live near JFKs house around Jamaica Plains.
I wish the riots would stop, I wish I didn't have to to juggle different news sources, bias indicators, which are next to useless at telling you individual reporter biases because outlet bias means less than people think, news reliability algorithms just to try and figure out which is a riot and which is a protest due to the potential for misdirection with cherry picked camera footage on both sides.
Apparently the troubles are back in Belfast too. But they are different. More random, angry, isolated and unpredictable.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Lots of literature is written but that doesn't mean the literature is correct.
I think most people do actually support open and free discussions, free speech and democracy. Where I think people are actually disagreeing, though they may not realise it, is appropriate venues. Unfortunately the platforms are actually falling prey to a psychological consequence of capitalism and the free market. Schools are businesses and unfortunately have to protect their bottom line. If a school looks like it provides a platform to fascism, that will threaten their bottom line. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, appearances matter to the consumer. No way around it.
For me, political correctness is no longer even being practiced by either side. Neither is emotional correctness.
Everyone seems to be losing their minds. Even philosophers are generalising and drawing up imaginary lines.
Ultimately I cannot do much about Looters, Police Brutality, Armed militia on the streets, blaming them won't help, hating them won't help, fighting them with violence won't help and may rob me of my chance to really help later.
I can just try to love and have faith in people. I'll forgive the sinner, do my best to examine the sin for what it truly is. If I love people a little more I can empathise more and understand the context a little more each day.
I think the reason why some individuals on this particular thread have lost site of the purpose of the forum, to discuss philosophy, is due to how polarising Donald Trump is. This thread though strikes me like its primary function for some is... Proxy for justifiable anger at a president who should never have been in office and his enablers. Proxy for anger at the people causally responsible for the riots, looting and the people protesting which ultimately are racists. Not just any racists. Dead racists who had the power to shape our culture to be systemically oppressive to the poor.
What's with all the Ad Hom everyone? What is with all the generalisations? Why is this thread laced with thick concepts?
Let me just point out that tragedy, has been a driving force behind some of the most amazing intellectual works of humanity. We are all experiencing tragedy right now and it's happening on a scale of awareness (because of the technology we have.) That very few generations have experienced before.
The Vienna Circle got together just shortly after both a World war and one of the last great pandemics.
So I challenge everyone who reads this. Can you take a stand, then a stance and walk the walk instead of talking the talk on other threads that are probably less important than this one is, right now?
The work we do in times of comfort is boring and complacent. The work we do in times of upheaval, toil and trauma is so much more meaningful, impactful and most importantly memorable.
What does it mean to rise to this challenge, if you consider yourself to be a true philosopher? It isn't a degree. It's a mind set. You just, keep calm and do philosophy in as reasonable and charitable and meaningful way as you can muster in the time that is given to you.
Now, fly, you fools.
Police often have to make split-second, life and death decisions. If he feels his or anyone else’s life is in danger, you’re going to get shot. Resisting arrest, assaulting the officer, going for his gun, chasing him with a knife, shooting at him—all are ways to increase your chance of being shot by police. That’s why suicide by cop is a thing.
That’s not to say that excessive force isn’t real, but while the delusional are off pretending, without evidence, that race figures into these split-second decisions, there are real things they could be teaching to mitigate that risk. Complying with police is the most obvious.
In the absence of a confession, the only evidence you have of their thoughts is propaganda or projection. So which is it?
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/majority-media/johnson-grassley-release-report-on-conflicts-of-interest-investigation
So at least we will have some debates.
Thoughts?
Yes, your position is that trained professionals are actually baby brained individuals that require such immense coddling that we should consider it acceptable if they unload on a civilian if they are resisting arrest, regardless of how that manifests itself, and regardless of their mental state and capacity. Hope you don't startle a cop yourself!
That is a commonly held false belief. Evidence of an individual's thoughts are patterns of their behaviour. Habits of thought directly influence how one acts during certain situations. Look no further than your child mind king of the playground. His racist belief system is put on clear display anytime and every time we look at a timeline of his own behaviour regarding racially relevant events.
With regard to whether or not individual police and law enforcement officers are acting based upon the color of one's skin, we need look no further than the patterns of police behaviour towards blacks, and actually policies and practices of departments across the land.
They most certainly do.
That’s not my position.
I wager that even you are lucid enough to comply with the LEOs for fear of what may come if you do not. Either way, the use of excessive force is routinely investigated and punished.
All the while not addressing, not carefully considering, not eliminating the injury and harm that a pandemic has had upon millions and millions of Americans.
Great job! Easy to see what the priorities of the current GOP are. Slurp slurp...
Another mind reader. You might as well be reading from tea leaves. Your assumptions are just that, assumptions, and worse born of your own fantasies and projections.
What a bullshit line.
Please. Support your claims here.
Show everyone here the actual number of blacks who died at the hands of police officers. Show the actual number of investigations of those events that led to criminal charges. Show the findings of the court regarding those charges.
Guess what you will provide us with by virtue of doing so.
:smirk:
You'll have to do better than that.
No need to read Trump's mind, nor the mind of anyone who has operative racist beliefs governing their actions and words.
I cannot be bothered to correct such an absurd claim that excessive force cases are not investigated.
Of course there is no need to read Trump’s mind. No one can read a mind. All you have is imagination and fantasy.
Changing the subject will not help you here. Nor will a misrepresentation of what I claimed. I did not deny that excessive force cases are investigated.
Your claim is bullshit because excessive force cases are not 'routinely' punished. That is false by any and all standards of what counts as such. The data I asked for would verify and/or falsify your claim and mine.
I know that excessive force cases are not routinely punished. You know it too. Everyone knows it by now. That's why your attempting to divert the focus. Put the stats forward. Show I'm wrong. Show your right. Those stats are at your fingertips. Use them.
That is false. Again...
Evidence of an individual's thoughts are patterns of their behaviour. Habits of thought directly influence how one acts during certain situations.
We can read Trump's words. We can listen to what he says. We can review the history of both, his words and his behaviours during and about racially charged social situations. We can gather more than enough evidence needed to confidently conclude - to know - that he is racist.
We can do much the same, as I've already stated, regarding whether or not law enforcement officials are acting more forcefully based upon the color of the suspect's skin. There are policies which prove that they are, they do, and/or they have distinctly different actions based upon skin color.
There is no need for mind reading.
Are you denying that patterns of one's behaviour is evidence of their thought and belief? Are you denying that habits of thought and belief directly influence and/or govern how one acts?
I will not allow you to obfuscate here.
I was going to start a topic regarding a recent event in the news of relation. I like to look at events that have potential racial pretenses in two ways- one as those who assert they do say, and then as if everyone involved literally looked the exact same. The stats is what is important. Do other people get shot in no-knock raids? Are they punished less (ie. is it just blue privilege)? Most importantly would be is the ex-boyfriend (which the entire warrant was based on) a criminal with current ties to the residence? Etc.
You're talking about the Taylor event right? Getting murdered for having had a relationship with an unsavory individual in the past is a problem. That was a wrongful killing. It's certainly not the only one.
Yeah. Well, alright see right there. No one planned to kill Breonna Taylor. At least, there's no evidence of that? Wrong place, wrong time. Such as where it was.. dangerous people introduce danger into your life. Like gangs. It doesn't "go away" when you decide to do something else.
The AG was saying, the warrant was issued. The issue is whether the warrant was issued inappropriately, which can be changed by democratic process, or it wasn't. At this point the officers are little more than AI robots sent to a location, to search it or extract an individual, and protect their lives if necessary, nothing more. I'm not saying racial prejudices aren't a thing, nor especially am i not saying "historical grievances" created, contributed or continue to contribute to an inescapable (though it really is if people would just think and pray- it's an open system- no matter what the minority of the majority who are bad try to push will say, often through (using) those they target) existence of violence- just that there's much to consider.
Not all murder is premeditated. It is all wrongful killing. Killing Taylor was wrongful. Did race play a part in her killing, such that she was killed because she was black? Probably not. She was killed because there are trigger happy law enforcement officials who have the ability to escape any and all responsibility of wrongful killing by simply claiming to fear for their own lives, regardless of whether or not that onset of fear is well grounded.
In such an execution of a no knock warrant, the law enforcement officers were already in a warlike state of mind. That state of mind is cultivated. Having it all the time has become the norm. That is a problem when you're in a position that is supposed to protect and serve the civilian population.
You do not protect and serve enemies of war.
One study put that between 1981 and 2006 roughly 40 innocent people were killed in no-knock raids. If there's tens of thousands of no-knock raids, that's pretty high still. Likely the stats aren't precise.
But unfortunately many people and the media don't look at this as a problem about police using excessive force, but as a specific problem of the police being racist against blacks. Hence things like a man shot while sleeping in an no-knock raid earlier this year doesn't get much media coverage as the person wasn't black (and it happened before the George Floyd killing).
I find this response interesting, because it doesn't necessarily say any of the cops involved were "trigger happy" or otherwise use lethal city property irresponsibly or otherwise say anyone did anything wrong or say it wasn't just an accident. You seem to be speaking of a culture of abuse of privilege. Understand it is not really privilege. You risk your life, sometimes often several times a day, for a barely average salary. That aside, the average simpleton may not understand the damage police misconduct, especially when injuries or death occur, can cause to the social fabric unchecked, but the commissioner should. And should act when needed.
Quoting creativesoul
In addition to my above response, it depends on the area. Big city, high crime begets prick cops. Which isn't far from understandable. Even if they get breaks, there are no sure things. You could get shot and killed, probably hurt really bad beforehand "just because" for again an average salary- and if you screw up- you might face decades in jail under Color of Law violations- with people you really don't want to be in a cell with. These aren't fun thoughts to have. I've always considered myself a law and order man but even I feel- or at least notice how some would- when I see a cop car drive by and I happen to be going a little over the speed limit or had a beer or two in the past few hours. It's not like flipping burgers or answering sales calls.
Quoting creativesoul
Uh? What century are we living in, boss? We're all citizens now, cops are all public servants, and we're all entitled to change just about anything about the law using the democratic process. Majority has more power sure, but unless you're a minority here that doesn't have a country somewhere where you are the majority (which everyone does) .. there's really no need to cry over spilled milk. Just enjoy the ride.
Are you suggesting there's some "secret group" of officers that are enemies of the Constitution and the United States of America? That'd be something. I hope you don't mean the idea of a constable, guard or "bobby" in general .. that's pretty fundamental to any civilized society.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rjMIoKEf9vJWAq3njMv9beyJfpd88b-2/view
Nice then, that at least the fight for racial justice(equal treatment under the law) has the additional benefit of shining a light upon other problems that are not just about race, but rather about abuse of power.
Some accidents are the result of trigger happy police officers. The problem is the warlike mindset of police officers during such raids. They are trained like soldiers and use the weapons of close combat, very similar to those used in recent decades as a means for apprehending terrorist suspects, except with domestic cases there is no emphasis upon capturing the individual alive.
Quoting Outlander
Not privilege. Power.
Quoting Outlander
Of course those are not fun thoughts to have. Being a police officer carries along with it the increased danger of losing one's life from dealing with certain people/suspects that are capable of killing officers. That is a very well known and accepted risk... it's part of the job. One who cannot deal with that increased risk without being able to distinguish between those who pose such a risk, and those who do not ought not become a police officer.
But you're missing the point here. Not everyone is an enemy. The overwhelming majority of citizens, including blacks, pose no such danger to the lives of police officers. Moreover, when someone is both unarmed and running away from the police, they cannot pose an immediate danger to the police.
Quoting Outlander
You're missing the point. The actual police training and weapons used by police forces is far too close as being the same as military training against enemy combatants. The job of law enforcement officers is to protect and serve the citizens of the community not defeat them in a warlike setting. Those two mindsets are incompatible, regardless of the century one lives in. One does not protect and serve the best interests of one's own enemies. Police officers across the land have been taught using military style mindsets and weapons. The no knock warrants are a prima facie example.
You're clearly not black. The spilled milk here is blood. The analogy is proof of the disconnection you have with the reality of being black in America. You simply do not understand, or do not care. I'll grant the former and be charitable at this time. Justice delayed is justice denied. It's been delayed for far too long. Your idealistic viewpoint suggests that we're all entitled to change what needs changed by using the democratic process.
The reality is that it is not nearly so easy. That's been the fight for hundreds of years. Now, however, it seems that there is an ever increasing white portion of people joining the movement. The majority is no longer divided upon racial lines, but rather upon empathetic ones. There are more and more people who have personal reasons to be deeply offended by the idea of having racists in power, because more and more average everyday white people have non white friends, family members, and loved ones.
The time for the right kinds of change has come. It is now.
Everyone poses a risk to you if they happen to be committing/guilty of a crime and it's your job to stop it or apprehend them. Just because someones standing around whistling with their hands in their pockets doesn't mean they're not. A person with baggy clothing easily capable of concealing a weapon along with excessive tattoos and referencing and or listening to violent or gang related music is high risk- whether or not certain groups of people have been indoctrinated to adopt this is a good question.
Quoting creativesoul
Unless the dudes naked there's no saying whether or not a person is armed or not. Sure, no immediate danger. Yeah I understand some black people think cops are going to randomly shoot them for no reason or plant drugs on them (which does happen.. hopefully less now w/ body cams) .. but what would be interesting to know would be how many people who randomly run from police are guilty of something/have something on them they shouldn't. We'll never know.
Quoting creativesoul
Quoting creativesoul
Buddy, so have the criminals, gangsters, mobsters, and crypto-terrorists. You'll be grateful when you don't have your small business shaken down or your favorite sporting event dirty bombed.
Quoting creativesoul
You're right I don't understand. There aren't more of me in the world then there are white people. I don't have one of the largest most beautiful continents on Earth everyone wants to do business in all to myself. Yeah, I'm not black. Let's just be real honest about what's going on here. There are true minorities who are oppressed that this whole 2020 agenda is shifting focus from. Tibetans for their lands (who I'll admit are probably just Asians, who are plentiful). Yemenis for their oil (I suppose the same can be said). Or how about the Native Americans for goodness sake? They all have one thing in common. They don't have enough people (power) for anyone who doesn't care about anything other than their indescribably inconsequential lives to even have the time of day for. Which is unfortunate because you get what you give.
Let's talk about black lives. Countless millions of blacks have been killed in religious civil wars in Africa- more than ANY other white person has killed here combined probably since Columbus. Far more. Yet nobody speaks about it. We're too busy worrying about a few criminals or associates of them who get all day coverage on the news. So who really doesn't understand or doesn't care? Keep your charity, please.
Not everyone poses an equal risk to the officer's life. The inability to effectively distinguish between those who do and those who do not is a huge problem and something that you've just put on display here.
Congratulations, and I am not your buddy.
More prima facie evidence of the disconnect.
Talk about Black Lives Matter. It is all about the racial injustices that black people are subject to under current American laws and law enforcement practices. Changing the subject is rather... uh... well...
You're right though, perhaps I was being far too charitable.
Do black lives matter?
"Leaked chat logs show Portland-area pro-Trump activists planning and training for violence, sourcing arms and ammunition and even suggesting political assassinations ahead of a series of contentious rallies in the Oregon city, including one scheduled for this weekend. ... [Fascist activists] also claim police cooperation in interstate violence, writing “Yes, going after them at night is the solution… Like we do in other states, tactical ambushes at night while backing up the police are key. You get the leaders and the violent ones and the police are happy to shut their mouths and cameras.” Melchi nevertheless recommends that members disguise themselves to avoid the consequences of homicide. “We must be ready to defend with lethal response… Suggest wearing mask and nothing to identify you on Camera…to prevent any future prosecution.”"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/23/oregon-portland-pro-trump-protests-violence-texts
Leaks thanks to antifa action.
The president has the power to deputize armed militia groups.
This can be interpreted wrong.
The fact is that whites won't be a majority. That is different, because whites still will be the largest racial group in the US. You see, everybody will be then "a minority", which only sounds confusing, as naturally you can divide people so that every group is under 50%.
But yes, some people are somehow worried about this. Call them whatever. In the most peculiar way, some portray Europe to go this route more rapidly even if the US is far more multicultural than the vast majority (if not all) of the European countries.
I always find this point unintentionally hilarious. I mean, gee, would it be like there's something... wrong about... how... minorities... are treated in the US?
Unfortunately the present discourse is meant to divide us, not to unify us.
Divide et Impera.
I would concur about much of it. No doubt. Some real big problems are left sorely unattended.
They use to be Operation Coldfront. If you look through their youtube archives they're actually doing journalism/reporting and they report antifa assaults on numerous occasions (some of these are captured on camera). Are you really going to try to push the thesis that the far left just never gets out of hand? Are you really ready to die on the hill that the far left just doesn't assault journalists, ever? What are they, saints?
Quoting Benkei
I don't defend the police 100% I think most of the country is on board with some type of reform whether that means more training or better oversight.... It's just a different discussion and tbh this discussion is already super long and I don't really feel like making it longer but I'm definitely on board with some reforms.
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Benkei
Alright, we've actually found a difference in values between us here. Even if Ngo is a verified liar and troll I'd never support initiating violence against him. In America we can sue for cases like this. I'm a little alarmed that you seem to support a mob descending on a someone looking to document the far left... but I don't know, if you're fine with mobs initiating violence against people - in this case a physically small gay minority - then I don't know what else to say here. I guess we can move on. Us arguing over the extent of his injuries is somewhat ridiculous. In America you're free to deny the holocaust. You're free to compare antifa to stalinist murderers. It doesn't matter - we don't attack people even if they're maliciously lying.
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Benkei
It's not about my preconceived notions, this is about how to best handle the word "antifa". I'm honestly leaving the choice up to you as to how to proceed: If you want me to use "antifa and the far left" because you want to doubt the extent of antifa we can do that. My general target here is really just the militant far left. I don't care if they have an antifa membership card or not.
I don't think antifa is a centrally-organized group. Maybe they have small, local organizations but if we're talking about who shows up at marches and who marches under the banner and who identifies with the ideology our conception of antifa can expand. I think it's best to describe it as more of a movement, with the black clad marchers as a part of the movement rather than an official member of an organization.
Quoting Benkei
I've never associated the far left with white supremacy or patriotism.
I think the evidence has been presented to you already, as statistics. The delusional are those who refuse to accept the evidence. A white man is likely to get punched for what is called "resisting arrest", but very rarely would one get killed in such a situation. The killing, if it occurred, would be accidental. But a person of colour is much more likely to get killed for "resisting arrest" than a white person.
The evidence indicates that your so-called "split-second decisions", when an officer is dealing with an uncooperative individual, are not split-second decisions at all, but premeditated acts. Deal with a white person with a couple punches, deal with a black person with a couple slugs. Don't kid yourself, the police know how to forcibly restrain, without killing.
I accept the evidence, just not your conclusions. I do not think we can deduce racism as a cause of death from the mere fact of the skin-colors of those involved, especially with the myriad other important situational factors of any police interaction. This reeks to me of correspondence bias. I need more than that.
I am as interested in police shooting disparities between races as I am between men and women, young and old, fat and thin, which is to say not very much. I say this because each police shooting has its own context, actors, environments, history. No amount of faulty generalization can be rid of them.
I think one can make reasonable assumptions about another’s beliefs. I just don’t think you’ve made any reasonable assumptions. Since you claim to know, and based on your pattern-reading, can you paraphrase a single racist belief or principle he holds?
Or 8 minute life and death decisions apparently.
Face it, the life of a black person is not esteemed in the same way that the life of a white person is. The ideology of equity is not upheld.
I never pushed that. I'm denying your allegation that Antifa as a group goes out of its way to target journalists. Apart from your really, really low standard of what consitutes a journalist. And let's put things in perspective here: https://www.rcfp.org/black-lives-matter-press-freedom/
Once again, the police is a bigger threat than untrained civilians.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yeah, he was totally hit for being gay and that's naturally the reason I'm not shedding any tears for him getting hit in the face! :brow:
I don't think Andy Ngo is blameless; a person that goes out of his way to pesker others, most likely even in illegal ways, precisely to get someone to do something illegal so he can push his "Antifa means the end of the USA" bullshit pretty much had it coming. Him being gay and conservative are totally irrelevant - it's about his behaviour. Don't act outraged if you actually get punched in the face when the subtext always was "punch me in the face" (so I can milk it and lie about it afterwards).
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And that barely exists pace every FBI report on the issue since the mid 1990s. The FBI recognises that the threat of "right wing" domestic terrorism is much larger than that of "left wing" terrorism.
Of course, we'll see the numbers of "left wing" terrorism blow up as long as Trump remains in office, as a result of him and Barr classifying vandalism during BLM as domestic terrorism. I trust you're not falling for that sleight of hand.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I know you didn't. So you agree the actual threat to the USA are far right extremists?
Yet it acknowledges the threat.
And as the FBI defines some animal rights groups and environmental groups as terrorist groups/criminal organization just as right-wing militias, the US authorities are quite unbiased and non-aligned in how they approach any group that thinks violence and breaking the law is justified. Which I think is a good thing. And which many staunchly partisan Americans hate, because for them only one side is a threat. This non-aligned approach is evident in the testimony of the FBI director Christopher Wray (from a year ago). He does admit that there are several terrorism investigation towards people that define themselves to be Antifa:
Just to give an example how the FBI really follows this approach that director Wray above tries to explain to the partisan crowd on Capitol Hill, here's a quote from few years ago (from FBI webpage):
The various kinds of terrorists we have:
The fancy, intellectual sounding Latin phrase escapes me at present but in short this is a trick question.
A person's life matters by content of character and not color of skin. Period. MLK said that. Someone who is vile, a menace to their own neighborhood and society as a whole, who happens to be black, does not get a "free pass" of their life automatically having value due to race- that's racist. Especially if that person decides to become a violent gang member who does nothing but terrorize their own community and play into the hands of those who would see black people enslaved and forever in chains that are socioeconomic rather than physical.
I don't see how talking about black lives being lost in larger numbers just because we're not using racial conflict to stigmatize another nation we're not fond of is "changing the subject" of black lives having value. Why do you? I get this is a largely non-American site but come on guy, don't be so transparent with it.
What about other minorities in America who don't have the numbers to shut down entire metropolitan areas when someone who looks like them is killed?
I'm sure we're familiar with the fact that a slight majority of people killed by police are white (52%) while blacks who are killed are 32% of fatalities. And of course the fact that with only 13% of the population that is grossly disproportionate (black Americans are about 3x likely to be killed that white Americans).
As usual we're spending all our time, energy, and emotion on the symptom of a problem rather than the cause- and there are some people who want nothing less- because then nothing will change. There is a cultural problem in black communities and what has been fed to them as "this is my culture". Unless you have a time machine and can go back in time and prevent slavery, there's no point in getting upset over what happened to the point you riot, commit violent crimes, destroy your own neighborhoods, and then get felony charges that essentially cripple you socially for the remainder of your life if you're not locked up for the rest of it- like some people want! Do you agree or disagree?
Guy, you don't have to be my buddy it just would seem from the position you attempt to convey on this forum you should at least be a friend to positive change (or simple logic) versus the same old status quo which as shown has failed time and time again to change anything for the better. Fix the culture, lose the violent music, embrace faith, education, and the law, and participate in the system that by intent makes all men equal- yes even if it's corrupt. You can't fix it from the outside- especially if in jail or with dozens of felonies. Choice is yours.
I don't think you're interpreting it correctly. The message broadcast by police brutality and murder is that the police can get away with it because black lives don't matter. However you might assess events on the ground, that's an impression shared by many blacks and whites: that black people are disposable, and that the only reason some cops are being held accountable is that cell phones can be used as video cameras.
So the slogan is a response to that.
Quoting Outlander
I understand this sentiment, but there's another way to look at it: there's no way to hold up everybody's cause at the same time. Lift your hands up for whoever is getting attention now. You know?
Quoting Outlander
Makes sense, but we can also look at why so many people feel like giving up on the system. A lot of people think the whole thing needs a seismic adjustment.
Perhaps you can name a victim from another race that produced riots and state funerals and massive corporate advertising campaigns. I can watch a video of a caucasian kid dying in nearly the exact same way as George Floyd. No riots, no international outcry, no renaming of buildings named after David Hume to his name, no protests.
That's not how belief systems work... racist ones notwithstanding, but since you asked...
He single-handedly used the powers of the presidency to keep confederate monuments in public space while simultaneously(within weeks anyway) using those same powers to end the hard fought for and won federal efforts at implementing socio-economic equity in both public and private enterprise. That move preserves, glorifies, values, and honors racist parts of American history, while singlehandedly reversing - and thus, fighting against - a centuries long progress on racial justice reform.
He openly and publicly degrades, discredits, and/or vehemently denounces those who exercise their right to peaceful protest when and if those protests are about racial injustice while simultaneously offering his personal support and/or defense to an individual that murdered otherwise peaceful protestors involved in that movement.
He moves to interrupt peaceful demonstrations if and when they are about racial injustice reform, but makes no such moves to interrupt white supremacist demonstrations, all the while calling individual protestors of the former all sorts of negative names, and the latter "good people".
He does not - perhaps cannot - even acknowledge that the current movement is not against law and order. Those protestors are all for law and order:They want equal treatment under the law. They want law and order to work for blacks(and other non whites) the same way that it works for whites.
When someone is suspected and/or charged with a crime, and/or heinous act, he makes it a point to openly and publicly extend the benefit of the doubt towards them even if they are well-known white supremacists and racists(when the crime is actually against someone in the movement) while systematically refusing to extend the same courtesy to blacks and those who stand alongside blacks(when simply charged).
He has shown us that "innocent until proven guilty" is reserved in his mind for white racists/white supremacists who support him, but "guilty until proven innocent"(and even after being proven innocent) is reserved in his mind when the suspects were/are black.
He uses the powers of the presidency to suppress the right to free speech and peaceful protest/demonstration, and does not - will not - even acknowledge the racial problems and/or systemic racism that still exists in the States.
He does not acknowledge the clear and actual distinction between looters and rioters(criminals) and those who are simply exercizing their right to peaceful protest/demonstration aimed at racial justice reform. Rather, instead he publicly mischaracterizes all of them as criminals, anti-American, anarchists, socialists, enemies of the United States, or some other derogatory devaluation or admonishment.
He refuses to openly disavow and/or criticize well known racist organizations and/or white supremacy groups, but instead offers his own public support for and of them, going so far as to listen and believe what well-known advocates of white supremacy say. He even repeats many of their misguided offerings by re-tweet/repeat.
Summary:
The president of the United States of America has spent the last four years fighting for and alongside racists and white supremacists, while simultaneously using the powers of the presidency fighting against the movement for racial justice reform at every turn, going so far as to singlehandedly reverse public policies designed to implement the necessary change.
He is racial injustice incarnate.
The fact that your interpretation of that simple question causes you to hesitate on grounds of suspicion ought tell you something. That is in no way, shape, or form a trick question.
Quoting Outlander
I don't think so. I mean, those words were not spoken by Dr. King, but I do agree that content of one's character is a much better standard by which to judge a person as compared/contrasted to the color of their skin.
Quoting Outlander
Well, no. That's not racist. One is not racist just because they value someone based upon the color of their skin. One is racist when they devalue someone based upon that. On my view, one's life automatically has value because they are a person.
That said, I agree with you that vile people who are a menace to society need to be removed from society and dealt with accordingly, regardless of the color of their skin. Sometimes, such people lose their life, particularly when they actually pose a threat to the life of an arresting officer.
Quoting Outlander
Black lives matter is all about the racial injustice in The United States of America, and the dire need for racial justice reform(equal treatment under the law). So, when someone responds by talking about something else, it is changing the subject. Pretty simple.
Quoting Outlander
What about them? Many people of all walks of life are active in the movement. That's part of the beauty of it all. Those who stand for racial justice reform and the movement are not just limited to standing up for racial injustice towards blacks. Rather, it's all inclusive. Solidarity. It is a fight against white racism and the residual effects/affects that persist in American society to this day as a result of a very long history of racist beliefs and practices.
Quoting Outlander
You're conflating a few different things here.
I agree that resorting to rioting and committing violent crimes essentially cripples someone socially for much, if not the rest, of their life. Violence is the language of the unheard.
I disagree that that is the cause of racial injustice and/or systemic racism.
Do yourself a favor, and spend a bit of time researching Jim Crow laws. Perhaps take an hour or two and watch 13 on Netflix or any one of the other readily available shows regarding the systemic racism in America. It may offer you a bit more historical insight on how we've gotten to where we are today.
Quoting Outlander
That is precisely what the movement is about. What do you think that that requires? I suspect when you say "fix the culture" you're referring to 'black culture', without ever acknowledging that where we are today has been directly influenced by racist public policies and racist culture.
I, being who I am and all, actually offered him the benefit of the doubt by overestimating his intelligence level and granting that he may have been strategically saying things to get votes.
What's happened since then removes all doubt.
He is most certainly a racist.
Isn't that a bit like saying it's OK if I'd call some black person a "stupid monkey" if I did it only to get some laughs from actual racists?
I'm not following this one...
Well, one could be knowingly saying racist shit, and perpetuating racism by virtue of doing so, without being a person who devalues another based upon the color of their skin. It's a stretch... I know... however... as I said, being who I am, I extended him the benefit of the doubt at first. He also said other stuff that he clearly did not believe himself for the exact same reasons(when he adopted Bernie's language because Hillary could not). I also suspected he was someone who would say whatever he believed it would take to get what he wanted, regardless of whether or not he actually believed what he was saying.
Oh, and it's not as if I condoned such behaviour.
My home country was among the poorest around 1900, I do myself come from those families, about 80% of my fellow countrymen did, many emigrated to the US. But there was a strong social democrat movement during, well, most of the 1900’s and the poor people became ... stable.
One wonder, is there such a way for the AA people in the USA? To come from poor conditions and criminality to a stable life? Supposedly a decent percentage of AA do have found the way, but seemingly, very many do remain in the lowest classes.
I come from a country no less with predjudices against different people, and I did for sure did not enter adulthood without racial predjudices. But then working multinationally for 20+ years changed all that. If you are well educated and come to a workplace the color of your skin matter for like 24 hour, and then its obvious if you are an asset or a hindrance to the team you are working with, and you will find that you have more in Common brainwise with someone from China or Eritrea than the people from your own neighbourhood.
But if you grow up where things are shit you will be shit. I am not without it, growing up in a humble suburb where everyone worked daytime or was unemployed. No slum but also no dreams.
I did good in school and in work, and landed in a rather posh area. My wife, my kids, all my neighbours have those dreams. And frankly, I am worse than them, even though I may score higher in work, our equivalent ov SAT and stuff. I am more dishonest, more greedy, tougher to my kids, pretty much like the mean father in Dead Poets Society. Not anything like Robin Williams teacher of dreams.
And well, living in the slum will probably do not do you better. Thats nothing racist, thats class. So - if a big part of the AA are Heidegger way thrown into the slum, how can they get out of it?
Because - if a lot of AA are in the slum, a lot of those guys will be bad people and that will increase racist feelings among middle class white people - with good reasons. So you do have to kind of break that evil circle in some way.
One thing - I dont think the gangsta culture do much to improve stuff. We see it here, amongst immigrant kids. I recognise it from my own childhood. Being tough gave kudos. But its to its root bad. Understandable but bad. Naively but still true - To contribute to society should be the only thing that gave kudos.
Me neither. If you enable the bad behaviour you are contributing to it. I'm maybe okay with certain things being done ironically for the sake of satire or historical accuracy, in a way that clearly demonstrates what the bad behaviour is through its narrative structure. Like white actors who play slave owners and slave minders who are scripted to say the N word before a whipping, in order to clearly show the harsh reality of slavery in an educational way. Even bystander apathy is a chosen act of non action. If Trump were saying nothing racist at all but still ignoring the racist problem while coning down on anti-racist sentiment in all it's forms, he would still be acting in a way that benefits racists.
Mass incarceration and demonization.
Go back further.
Republicans have been evil for a while now.
You put a lot of effort into your post, but none of it proves to me Trump holds racist beliefs or racially discriminated against others. Worse, it suppresses the evidence in favor of the smear.
No policy of Trump’s discriminates against one race or another. In fact, his policies, his proclamations, his speeches are explicitly pro-“African American”. Simply search for the phrase “African American” in his speeches, proclamations, policy announcements, and it’s nothing but praise and support. One can do the same with the term “racism” and find nothing but anti-racist sentiment. Exactly zero of his rhetoric expresses anti-black sentiment.
There is no evidence Trump has ever equated criminals, rioters, agitators and anarchists with black people. These criminals are of many races. It is in fact yourself who makes that connection, pretending that when Trump criticizes violent activity, looting and rioting, he is speaking about a race of people.
He has condemned white supremacist groups.
He has defended all statues, including the statues of the first African American regiment, abolitionists, and Frederick Douglass. He wants MLK, Harriot Tubman, Booker T Washington, Frederick Douglass, Jackie Robinson in his “heroes park”.
He won the Bipartisan Justice Award for justice reform.
His support and funding for HBCUs is more than the last administration could muster.
He has had many roundtables with “black leaders” and black supporters.
These are the actions of a racist president? Or have we left reality?
That was off the top of my head; no work really. That said...
To answer your question...
Assuming what you say here is true(that's probably a stretch, but for the sake of argument), sure those are the actions of a racist president. A racist president today cannot publicly admit it(yet), but will instead claim to support the black community in their fight for racial justice reform in public spaces while simultaneously doing all of the things I mentioned above. Which leads us back to that...
I offered nine different paragraphs setting out Trump's behaviour and the only reasonable conclusion drawn from what he has actually done. You neglected to directly address any of them, in lieu of proposing a defense for three charges that I did not make. Which paragraph, if any, are you claiming is not true?
You may be right. That's not the only agenda possible though. I'm certain that there are many who tolerate Trump in spite of his being racist and an imbecile due to their number one priority being profit, and the belief that Trump will pass through the system without damaging their interests. He's been a tremendous benefit to such people in some ways.
Have you ever heard of politics? Do you know how they work? Have you ever heard of manipulation? Do you know what it means to be politically naive? Tell me what Trump has done wrong? Has he done anything wrong according to you?
Quoting NOS4A2
No, these are the actions of a political president.
I agree, Donald Trump cannot be racist. He has defended black statues, some of which he has counted among his closest friends. He reformed justice, it's been reformed, so all the protestors can go home now. He has spent 45 minutes in the same room as several black people and has even shaken hands with some. Would a racist do that? Absolutely not. Donald Trump has said "Martin Luther King Jr." at least four times in his life, not including actual MLK Day. That's impressive. He has seen the first 30 minutes of Do The Right Thing (he realized he was in the wrong theater, he wanted to see Back to the Future II since he was told he was in it). Does anyone sincerely think a racist can do all that?
Your spin is not true, or at least born of fantasy. You could name a single racist policy, racist belief, act of racial discrimination, and we could examine whether that is true. I’ll let you cherry pick all you want.
Sigh.
Trump's thoughts and beliefs about racism and it's effects/affects, just like everyone else's, directly influence his language and behaviour regarding those things. That's how belief systems work. We need only to look at what he says and what he does regarding the current political movement to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump devalues the movement and it's participants. He is a racist. Hence, the evidence currently under consideration consists of his language and actions concerning it. What I put forth earlier were very brief reports of Trump's actual behaviours and language regarding that much. It was not a full account.
Here's some very inconvenient truth for you...
Trump's actual language regarding the movement for racial justice reform in the United States is chock full of statements, none of which offer support, or even acknowledge that there is a problem with racial injustice and/or systemic racism in America. There has never been a single statement out of Trump's mouth that honors the movement, honors the plight of black Americans, and/or acknowledges the injury black Americans have sustained throughout American history at the hands of racist beliefs and practices.
Not one!
To quite the contrary, all of Trump's statements about the movement for racial justice reform are against it... and vehemently so!
All of them!
What more evidence could anyone possibly need?
I still extend the offer to quote and discuss which, if any, of the statements within the nine aforementioned paragraphs you are claiming is not true.
What a fucking dipshit.
Trump's not the only racist currently in power.
This is not a refutation.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I agree that not every police officer is racist. But it ought to be the case that every police officer is not racist. And the general issue of police brutality and abuse of power is another problem, which can be understood as distinct from the problem of racism. The statistics show that both are problems, and they both tie in to the Defund movement. The two attitudes together, the one called racism, and the one which leads to an abuse of power, create a more complex problem. This is the problem we see when racists are in a position of having power, and enjoy abusing power. I try not to be sexist bit I think this problem is specifically associated with the male gender. It reminds of men who like to beat their dogs.
I don't believe antifa as a group goes out of its way to target journalists, but this partially just due to the fact that there is no "antifa as a group" on a large, national scale. Isn't it just a patchwork of local organizations? Just curious, do you consider any conservative journalists - say, Ben Shapiro or Ann Coulter - as "legitimate" journalists? Are there any smaller conservative journalists who you like/would consider a "real" journalist? Plenty of oppressive organizations may not have gone "out of their way" to target journalists but they still did.
I mentioned this last time but the police is a separate discussion. Conservative journalists don't really have links to the police. If you consider the police your opponent just because they do something wrong doesn't mean you therefore get to do it.
Quoting Benkei
I don't like right wing extremists and I have no interest in defending them. That said, my impression about right-wing violence in the US is that it's largely lone wolf attacks but if there was a unified group behind, say, the Dylan Roof shooting or the El Paso wal-mart shooting I'd be more than happy to target those groups but in the absence of there being those groups it's kind of a dead trail. For instance it's my impression that Roof got radicalized over the internet, but I don't know of any group behind it and what are we going to do, shut off the racism side of the internet? I guess the most present group is the boogaloos but you've got also pro-BLM and left wing boogaloo's so it's not that simple to just label all boogaloo's right wing extremists. They almost seem like more libertarian extremists if that's a thing.
I'm happy to talk about right wing extremism with you, but you've got to admit today the far left tends to be more visible today. I don't like either of them. It's not a matter of choosing to like one as a counterbalance to the other.
The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States
Read: "I'm a dupe for propaganda and recite the views fed to me by it, regardless of the facts".
So where are the organizations behind this? Lets go after them. Nobody likes right wing terrorism, but other attacks happen and we just don't call them terrorism. To the best of my knowledge, as I mentioned earlier, many of these "right wing" attacks are lone wolf attacks where the attackers were radicalized over the internet so unless you want to shut down parts of the internet I don't know what to tell you.
Thank you for the insightful response. I'll be sure to check with you about the facts before I post next time, comrade.
Everyone not on the Trump Train is a communist, right? The programing has really stuck.
Yes, they're radicalized by ignorant dipshits who buy into and sprout the propaganda you transmit like the good little pawn you are.
And it's not "right wing" in scare quotes - it's quite simply right wing violence perpetrated by adherents to a dogshit ideology which murders people on the regular.
And this to speak nothing of stochastic terrorism, stoked by racist cumstains like Trump.
Just another day of cops shooting autistic boys in the back. Threatened by someone more mentally stable than them, I guess.
Yes, I refer to all non-Trumpers as communists. It's just part of my programming as a non-liberal. Ya got me.
But hey, who would have known that in this particular instance it's actually right? Streetlight is very far left if we're going by the typical political spectrum and I don't think he would deny that.
Are you aware that there are pro-BLM boogaloos? There are left-wing boogaloos too, the only thing the organization has as a binding principle is that they're pro-gun and anti-government. You can say, like with antifa, that there are people within the movement that are bad but it's simply not true to label the entire movement as Nazis or white supremacists.
We often simply group anti-government activists as right wingers but this has never entirely made sense to me. I mean who's largely anti-police right now?
Department of Homeland Security had this to say:
In June 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) tweeted in reply to a Politico[49] article about the boogaloo movement that an intelligence bulletin released by the agency "does NOT identify the Boogaloo movement as left-wing OR right-wing" and stated that "they are simply violent extremists from both ends of the ideological spectrum".
A lot of American "right wing" violence, like Timothy McVeigh, is just anti-government. I don't know if it's fair to call this right wing and place it in the same camp as like Hitler. We could use some clarity here unless we just want to count everything from Waco to Hitler as right wing.
“Despite suffering the horrors of slavery and all that flowed from this inexcusable and cruel act against humanity, African Americans have been instrumental in building and bolstering our great Nation.
From enrichening our culture and enhancing our American identity to strengthening our economy and safeguarding our cherished freedoms, the remarkable courage and steadfast resolve of African Americans define the American spirit.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/presidential-message-154th-anniversary-ratification-13th-amendment/
“ And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump/
“ National African American History Month is an occasion to rediscover the enduring stories of African Americans and the gifts of freedom, purpose, and opportunity they have bestowed on future generations. It is also a time to commemorate the countless contributions of African Americans, many of whom lived through and surmounted the scourge of segregation, racial prejudice, and discrimination to enrich every fiber of American life. Their examples of heroism, patriotism, and enterprise have given people of all backgrounds confidence, courage, and faith to pursue their own dreams.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-national-african-american-history-month-2019/
You missed off the rest of that quote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogaloo_movement#Political_spectrum
I think a lot of our discussion just concerns what qualifies as "right wing." Traditionally the far right refers to Nazism or other extreme, racist, authoritarian, nationalistic movements but if we remove the authoritarianism and racism but leave the love of guns then what? I guess we can call racism "right wing" - sure, whatever - but there's a line made in the conservative movement between those who are more racial and those who aren't. I haven't defended racists and I haven't stood against going after violent groups regardless of political affiliation if they've been linked to violent acts. The sins of one group don't excuse the sins of another.
Deny that he's far left or a red fascist?
I think it’s safe to say that if right-wing mobs were parading through cities looting and burning we’d have a national discussion on the topic. Until then...
Far left. I don't know Streetlight's political position exactly but I'd wager either socialist or communist, thus the "comrade."
Quoting NOS4A2
No doubt about it.
So you don't know the difference between democratic socialism and communism?
Why don't we ask Streetlight what he is politically and from there I'll determine if "comrade" is appropriate? @StreetlightX
Unnessisay, the point is made, you're programmed to see things in a particular way regardless of appropriateness.
Left-wingers call each other comrade all the time. You could even call a democratic socialist "comrade" it doesn't matter. I wouldn't call a centrist Democrat "comrade" but then again I'm pretty sure Streetlight isn't a centrist Democratic.
I wouldn't call you comrade.
:strong:
Well shit...
I stand corrected. I guess someone did stuff a few nice words about blacks into his mouth.
:rofl:
Probably killed him to say them. He's such a great third grade reader too. Perfect cadence.
A racist president today cannot publicly admit it(yet), but will instead claim to support the black community in their fight for racial justice reform in public spaces while simultaneously doing all of the things I mentioned yesterday. Which leads us back to that...
I offered nine different paragraphs setting out Trump's behaviour and the only reasonable conclusion drawn from what he has actually done. You neglected to directly address any of them, in lieu of proposing a defense for three charges that I did not make. Which paragraph, if any, are you claiming is not true?
If someone pointed out that I was empowering divisive political rhetoric like a mindless puppet, I like to think that I would have the modicum of self-respect required to admit it rather than trying to weasel out of it with the stupid claim that it’s meaningless.
"Empowering divisive political rhetoric" - that's a good one. Nah, Streetlight and I are beyond rational political discourse with each other at this point. We don't seriously discuss politics with each other because our fundamental values are so different and I think we both know that. There's no real discussion to be had, so we either joke around or insult each other depending on our mood. "Comrade" is just me keeping things light.
Only two days ago:
But he was going to shoot bullets out of the back of his head at them. That's what these auterrorists always do. Better just go straight to execution.
Shithole backward country. Feel sorry for the decent Americans who have to suffer it.
Gonna go with 'not a fuckstick'. Otherwise imma sit here and watch you hash our your identity politics which you so enjoy.
And the underlying reason was systemic racism?
Or could we start calling this problem that the police is using excessive force in general and get's away with it in a biased judicial system?
Concentrating on the systemic racism part veers the focus away from the fact that excessive violence happens without regard to one's race. Where was the white priviledge of Linden Cameron?
Or do you think that this police officer was different from those other trigger happy policemen that have shot unarmed black people without any reason? Those were racists, but this guy was policeman was different, just inept to tackle the child, as the mother thought the policeman ought to respond?
So your answer is "yes" then. Good to know.
Sorry, to what am I saying yes?
Right. You go with your condescending own echo-chamber...
I'll assume that you didn't understand at all what I was saying and naturally didn't care at all.
Well, if your really lucky, you can continue to enjoy your bickering even more on how evil and racist white Americans are if Trump wins the election.
Well, I'm a Finn, so I shouldn't care either.
Unfortunately Europeans will start mimicking the trends from the US, the good ones and the bad ones, because I guess there isn't anything else to do. What I'm worried that your shit show of politics will come to be my shit show of politics later.
Turn your attention to something awesome.
I can see how it would be difficult to consider two facts together if you have a walnut-sized brain.
That is not excusable. Self-destructing when you're on the right side of the argument is not only unnecessary, it's outright bizarre.
That's certainly true. Bye.
Like I said, I disagree with all of your spin. I don’t think any of it is true, just like your statement that Trump has never said anything about the plight of “African Americans”, where you had to keep pushing the mental goalposts to make room for your ignorance.
As for some more news:
Trump $500B Black America plan designates KKK, Antifa as 'terrorist organizations'
“Both wear masks and both burn black businesses”. So good.
Cultural imperialism. While they openly hate America and incite anti-Americanism they gobble its most ridiculous ideologies. The read that a university in Scotland renamed the David Hume building to George Floyd.
Well, as I said... I stand corrected on that. He has made a few(scripted by others) remarks about that. The facts proved me wrong on that, just as they prove me right regarding the aforementioned nine paragraphs that you've refused to directly discuss.
All good.
If we place Trump's nice remarks on one side of lady justice's scale and his derogatory negative devaluations and actual behaviours regarding racial justice reform and the ever-growing movement for it on the other, it's quite easy to see how he leans...
Yeah, what a horrible thing to do. I mean it's not like there's any need to focus upon systemic racism, institutional racism, racial justice reform, abuse of power, or Black Lives Matter. I mean, what a ridiculous ideology. Such people who focus upon things like that act as if something is wrong with the way things are...
I mean, even the president hopes there's not a race problem, or so he says. He doesn't have a problem.
That says it all, doesn't it?
Well that certainly proves you read right-wing trash. Not that there was doubt.
It's not true?
Well, shit. I thought it was cool that they would do so...
Sorry, it's not. That might be a bit much. There's a broader movement in the UK away from celebrating persons involved in the slave trade. Hume, it is claimed, is such a person. The university has temporarily removed his moniker pending review, and is now known simply by its address: 40 George Square.
No worries. It would be cool though.
I don't agree. George Floyd has no relationship with Edinburgh University and them using his name would be exploitative of his death imo. He was a victim of a particularly American cultural problem. The people who need to see their sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters grow up in a place that honours George Floyd are people like NOS. And may it break their cold hearts.
I meant as a show of support for the movement itself. I doubt anyone would take offense for that.
My mistake. The university cites the killing of George Floyd in the same statement regarding the renaming to George square. I made a false connection.
Good to see the GOP spending their time upon what's most important right now...
Nevermind eliminating and/or at least easing all of the economic, emotional, and physical injury to everyday Americans as a result of the pandemic, which was not at all a result of anything that the average citizen has done, but is most certainly the result of government.
Sometime soon... perhaps in the next week or two...
Wonder who - exactly - will be granted such access. Is "My pillow" building a factory there?
That is certainly true of government. Except it is state, local and tribal governments that set their own health policies. The federal government is limited in its ability to mandate a centralized action plan by design. So if we are to blame governments and politicians, let’s be sure we blame the correct ones.
It is only the federal government than can relieve the injuries. Don't kid yourself. They have not. That's the point.
I don't think the fears are crazy. He expressly doesn't want to commit a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the vote and can get away with it. From the Atlantic piece @Maw linked earlier:
As I understand it: the play they're making is based on the idea that in person voting is deemed to skew in favour of Republicans (hence all the mail ballot lies, and GOP reps asking if people voted early @frank), and giving the Democrats a choice between breaking the transfer of the presidency in a huge way that will probably skew Republican and a more minor way that will probably skew Republican... The Democrats being forced to choose between radically breaking procedure and compromising their power with a slightly milder break of procedure, their track record suggests they will choose procedure over power any day of the week. "You go high, we go low!"
The narrative seems to be that mail in ballots "rig the election" in a close call, so that launders support for the Republicans making that anti-democratic power play. Why anti-democratic? Spelling it out explicitly; it looks like either the GOP has made plans to ignore some of the votes or all of the votes, and if that wasn't enough it's entirely for reasons of power. Ignoring votes for reasons of continued power - not good.
The rest of the fash stuff is also there: federal troops being deployed to crush protests, unmarked officers disappearing people in vans, outright endorsement by state law enforcement of protester murder by white supremacist militiamen.
So I don't think the fear is crazy, no.
I don't doubt a close call election can be stolen; it seems to me that's already happened. But who cares? If Trump loses by 1%, that's still an electorate too stupid not to deserve Trump since despite all evidence that he is a moron and a criminal:
Quoting fdrake
who've been on a race to the bottom for decades (Reagan, Bush Jr, Trump... next up, a lump of crusty mucus). If he loses by 10%, there's no way you can turn a loss into win. Republican judges are still judges. If the evidence says that Trump lost and there's no wiggle room for interpretation, Trump lost.
The problem is an electorate that can see what's happening and still vote him into a position where he can contest an election and the SC potential could read the result as a win for Trump.
Well, there's more than one problem then. Whether people are stupid is a different concern from encroaching fascism and the risk of it.
We had a similar thing in the UK with Brexit. The leavers won 51:49%. Because David Gammeron was too thickly cut to consider the possibility that the majority might be comparable to the sort of result variance that would be time-averaged out, we were stuck unable to contest what ought to have been a highly contestable result.
But this is a very goal-centric view. Ultimately, half the country wants to self-destruct in the name of a white Britain. That's the real problem, not the one percent either way. Same with Trump. I don't see much difference, in terms of the pulse of the populus, between him losing by 1 state and successfully contesting the result and him winning by one state, and I don't see even Republican judges voting outright for fascism by overturning the result of state after state. The root problem is you have half of the population who do not believe that their President need be lawful, moral, intelligent, competent or effective, that such imperviousness to outcomes might be relied upon by those with fascist inclinations like Trump.
The system could be better, but I think it protects against outright fascism, although it's easy to see how that can be inverted over time. If and when fascism properly takes hold, it won't be some dark coup: the people will vote it in. That's what I'd bet on were I betting man.
It's not a normal election year. A lot of people are still self-isolating to protect themselves and their families. Voting early would be ideal for the majority and the government of my swing state has been sending out ballot request forms. I received three of them along with text messages encouraging me to fill out the forms. I did receive mine and I had it witnessed and ready to take to the post office when a Republican canvasser (plus fdrake) inspired me to look closer.
I've since discovered that fear about early voting is pretty widespread. People think there's a risk that mail-in ballots will be thrown out.
So if Republicans didnt do anything else, they have already succeeded in creating fear and confusion which works in their favor. They have given some the impression that it's either risk getting covid (which will be death for some) or don't bother voting. As Hanover points out, it's politics.
:up:
If and when it happens? Tesco's law of fash encroachment: every little helps! Muslim ban, state endorsement of white supremacist militiamen vigilantes murdering people, undermining political process and news institutions, unmarked officers disappearing dissenters in vans, the president calling for more violence against immigrants and dissenters in speeches, planned heightening of voter suppression, planned electoral disruption, federal troops dispatched to quell dissent... There should not be an ellipsis here.
I think this regime's well past the ur fascism stage. It looks to me like more of a tipping point. If enough consent for all this can be manufactured, it will get worse. It keeps getting worse. Remember when having a president that committed sexual assault was news? And when the Republicans blocked the appointment of a supreme court judge for purely partisan reasons? And when armed far right militiamen blocked the entrance to a government building and received an endorsement? Seems like a tamer time. It was. We're getting desensitised.
That's part of the encroachment I think, things that were scandalous a few years ago are not now. We've got a new frame for what is normal conduct.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Yes. (Also, the physicist is strong in you)
Quoting frank
Win win really, they'll have to suppress less votes!
Yes, Cameron was naive, he didn't realise how much anti-EU sentiment had been developing beneath the surface over the previous 12 years. He was Boyed up with the arrogance that he had won the Scottish Independence referendum and would win the Brexit referendum in the same way. There was little thought of losing it and what the consequence would be. It was a fatal flaw to leave to a simple majority, it should have been a super majority of 60%, or more for a win. Once the referendum was called the right wing populist machine went into overdrive and forced the vote through on paranoia, misinformation and false promises.
Now we have an equivalent to Trump in the UK, with the same worrying trends emerging. Even today it has been leaked that Paul Dacre the disgraced former editor of the Daily Mail, is being groomed for chairman of Ofcom. And a former editor of The Telegraph for director general of the BBC. With Government Ministers on the media this morning saying that it's time for right wing biased media in the UK. This administration is gunning for the BBC in a big way.
My take on it is that the economy has been in trouble since the financial crisis of 2008. People are starting to think of alternatives to free market capitalism, which has spooked the Conservative base and the big money backers of the party. They have all feathered their nests for a generation and now the rot has set in to the economy and the country, they don't want to give away any of their wealth to help put it right and the younger generation is turning left on mass. The Conservative party is heading for oblivion, which will allow socialists into office. Once that happens the game is up and the wealth will be clawed back for the good of the whole country. The solution in the eyes of these Conservatives is a lurch to the right with maximum acceleration of rightwing ideology and policies to force the country to the right and hoodwink the population into believing it is the only way to govern. It is high stakes and combined with the disastrous Brexit situation there is going to be much gnashing of teeth and upheaval over the next few years.
P.s. I have copied this into the Brexit thread.
I agree with this. Casting doubt on the election result at all prior to the election constitutes election meddling. And Trump is a fascist, that is clear.
But is the concern here that smart Democrat voters will be safe and vote by mail knowing this is precisely what will be under attack, while stupid Republican voters will be dumb and vote in person? And that the SC will vote to institute fascism using this and a claim from the most unreliable and overtly criminal President in history as a basis, forgetting their entire careers just to make a delusional manbaby happy?
I don't buy it. If the postal vote is more significant this year, I think that makes it much less likely that the SC will dismiss it.
But worse case scenario there's 4 more years because of this. At least 100,000 dead Republicans won't be voting ever again.
A Republican acquaintance thinks the GOP will be looking for technicalities that were overlooked in years past. She will vote in person because she wants to "make sure they get my vote." I think a conservative SC would steer clear of the bigger picture and focus on minutiae.
I wonder how they'll rationalise fending off any challenge to Trump's election, which would be the obvious response. The use and misuse of voting machines in 2016 was astounding.
Rationalizing is their superpower. The best challenge to Trump's election would be some C4 in a ballpoint pen. :fire:
It is common to blame Trump in undermining the trust in the integrity of the upcoming elections, and, consequently, destroying democracy. It is impossible to deny that Trump plays politics of fear and replaces rational political conviction by the appeal to inchoate feelings and emotions. Yet , we must admit that another side shares equal responsibility. Thus, Hillary Clinton called Biden not to concede ‘under any circumstances'. Also, on August 3rd, TIP, primarily pro-Biden institute, published report. It should be considered as the self-fulfilling prophecy information operation: any result of the elections will probably be regarded as illegitimate and lead to civil unrest.
“"Planners need to take seriously the notion that this may well be a street fight, not a legal battle; technocratic solutions, courts, and a reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here."
"Groups, coalitions, and networks should be preparing now to establish the necessary communications and organizing infrastructure to support mass mobilization."
"If there is a crisis, events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived leaders will be asked to make consequential decisions quickly. Thinking through options now will help to ensure better decisions"
The Dems also maintain the narrative of the illegitimacy of the possible elections results.
What are you saying here? That when the POTUS declares he will contest the election if he loses, he intends to discount votes that don't tend to go the desired way, he even incites his own voters to commit voter fraud, everyone else has to pretend that it's going to be business as usual?
I am not saying that it is going to be business as usual. I am saying that all sides play politics of fear and affect: there is almost no place for reasoned positions built around rational interests.
Well, that's true. Media thrives on fear and politics, and politicians thrive on media. But when you have a POTUS who is vocally attempting to subvert democracy, that does seem to be a reasonable thing to panic about.
You're not the only one that made the mistake, some newspapers seem to have made the error also. The building is is next to George Square and hence it is named 40 George Square, which is right next to 50 George Square.
Yet perhaps this is a great example of the "decolonization" of philosophy: Hume encouraged in a letter Lord Hertford to buy a plantation in Grenada and lent money to another person that did acquired plantations in the Caribbean. Hence David Hume seems to be the one of the ideological pillars of the slave trade by these acts, at least according to prof Waldmann:
(See article)
Hume was indeed a racist, even if some scholars point out he was against slavery (see here). And just how widespread was the denunciation of slavery at that time, I'm not sure.
How do these views effect the other things Hume said? After all, there's a huge quantity of non-interesting stuff that prominent philosophers and scientists wrote that we don't read and refer to. Yet the cheap but typical rebuttal in our time would be to disregard Hume "But he was a racist and I don't like racists". So off with the racist Enlightenment!
You and others didn't get my point, but anyway, must be my walnut-sized brain.
Yet hard to understand why this urge to divide people, to make an event that had widespread condemnation at first into a polarized issue. It only serves the present power structures to stay intact.
You don't even live in America
Many don't, that participate on the PF. (Even if I did spent few years in my childhood there and last time I was there was last year.)
Yet that's the argument what people can discuss?
Fuck off you rat, you're the lunatic whose first reponse to having mentioned the riddling of an autistic boy with police bullets was BuT hE wAsNt BlaCk! Don't pretend to be above this shit when you perpetuate it.
No I just question how saying a random Finn on the internet has a "walnut-sized brain" because he thinks that an American cop shooting an American 13-year-old white kid entails that systemic racism in America is an inflated concern (if not an non-issue) "divides people" and keeps American power structures intact. I can assure you, nothing I say to you will have any effect whatsoever on American power structures.
Did I say it's inflated or non-issue? No, absolutely not.
It's quite apparent that with American police the racial profiling and how they differ in their response according to a suspects race is beyond comparison to many countries, for example (from a large number of examples) shown with how police approach in video a white man carrying a rifle and a black man carrying a rifle. (The white young male is stopped and asked what he is doing while the black man is ordered by gunpoint to hit the ground with more police patrols being deployed to the sight.) So yes, race is a factor. However the simple fact is that it isn't everything and race and racism doesn't explain everything.
Just pointing out the bias towards blacks and thinking that this is an issue only with blacks and minorities makes the argument about police being racist, which leaves behind the fact that the police uses excessive force towards the majority whites too. Not so much, but still does. Similarly the system protects the police in these cases also. In a country so filled with guns the police simply resorts to lethal violence. Yet is behind everything just racism?
The argument could be also made with income: that poor people are likely to be shot and rich aren't as usually, in every country actually, the "customers" of the police are indeed on average poorer people. Then accuse "the rich" and divide the people by simply their income level. If the people belong to one race, then the division could be made so.
Yet in both cases, be it by race or by income, we are dividing the population into two groups where one is the victim and where one is the accomplice to police brutality as somehow the police working for one group and not for the other. As if it wouldn't be people in high crime areas that need good policing. We don't look at the issue as the police using excessive force and the legal system being biased and protecting the police as a problem for the whole country. We don't emphasize that that this can happen to anyone in and try get people to think of the others. The other people are privileged and it isn't a problem for them, so they somehow make it possible. And we hear everywhere dog whistles and see hidden racism. When one imagined part of the people are accomplices, then there is no need to seek allies or broaden support to get reforms. And that of course prevents large reforms of happening, when popular outrage isn't used to create a larger agreement on what to do. That there is less racism now than fifty years ago hardly matters.
And does making those accusations on others that are fellow citizens help? No, but it keeps the citizens, the people, disunited. And that divide keeps the status quo of the present.
Quoting Maw
Of course not, but perhaps I do get to understand your point.
There's our Aussie moderator doing his job of moderating a Philosophy Forum.
Police brutality does not apply to just blacks. Don't think anyone who's the least bit knowledgable on the subject thinks that it does. There's overlap though, and disproportion...
Pointing out examples of white victims misses(or devalues) the point in much the same way that "All lives matter" does...
Quoting creativesoul
Well that's too bad because if you're trying to effect change it might come in handy to show those largely (but not entirely) white suburbanites that police violence actually effects people like them.
No one suggested this is an "issue only with the black and minorities" you dumb fucker, we've spent this entire summer alone watching cops unleash unrestricted brutality against protesters regardless of skin color.
So better to not point out that there are white victims too? Is even mentioning that some kind of dog whistle?
Just as someone even referring to colorblindness is a racist? Yes, some racist can use the phrases. But what is wrong in trying to judge people as individuals and never judge as groups of people by race, nationality etc?
Quoting ssu
Quoting Maw
You might want to just not engage with people who are talking to you like that. I, for one, don't.
Then why not simply police brutality and what we do about it?
When those interested in philosophy cannot exchange ideas with each other, all is lost. Sounds dramatic, but there's a truth to it.
(And I still have confidence on the administrators following the rules of the forum equally with everyone.)
Quoting ssu
Sure, but I would ask myself whether those who use that type of language are actually interested in a discussion or if they're just more interested in venting.
Anyway, you do you. I can't help but notice that the insults here always seem to flow from the left to those on the right though.
There is no absolutely no difficulty in understanding that Black Americans are disproportionally targeted by police numerous ways and that police have been militarized in American which effects all Americans regardless of skin color. The preponderance and reaction engendered by the former (e.g. Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake), in fact, helps provide credence to the latter, as evidenced by the fact that there is no major protest as a result of a 13-year-old autistic boy being cut down by cops.
Oh, many know and thus also realize that pointing to white ones as a means to divert from black ones is rather beside the point.
I think the only thing wrong is that the very notion of justice threatens their collectivist project, that “treating equals equally and unequals unequally” renders guilt and innocence by association completely useless. That groups are composed of individuals makes collectivism founded on a base of shifting sands.
I would not say that. If the context is police brutality or abuse of power, it would seem appropriate. If the context is the disproportion, it would not.
Claimed a $72k business expense for doing his weirdass hair. Not a great deal, if you asked me.
We’ve learned he has great accountants.
We’ve also learned that they couldn’t drum up any evidence of ties to Russia or paying off stormy Daniels.
Nothing-burger so far, though they promise more stories.
No. What we've learned is that Trump is getting away with doing everything in his power to stop any and all investigations into him. What I hope is that he loses, because then he will no longer have that power...
I could be wrong about the pardon.
30+ investigations, an impeachment, the most scrutinized man in modern history. And this is all we’ve found? At what point does this become political persecution?
The officials in charge of those investigations are in the positions they hold for the very specific reasons that such institutions were first created. Trump has done everything in his power to remove and/or replace those officials. Sessions would not do it. Barr has.
Oversight and accountability measures are the only means we have to prevent too much power from being in too few peoples' hands(abuse of power). That is required in order to uphold one basic principle underwriting the birth of the nation itself; Liberty. The division of power in the federal government is required and designed specifically for the preservation of liberty of the minority(and/or smaller states). That need to separate the powers was so carefully considered immediately after the Revolutionary War, that it resulted in the formation and/or continuation of the Continental Congress in the years prior to the drafting of actual Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights.
You speak here as if those investigations have been allowed proceed uninhibited and/or unobstructed. They most certainly have not.
So, to directly answer your question...
As soon as Trump stops obstructing justice and getting away with it, I'll gladly accept whatever the findings turn out to be. As long as Trump does everything in his power to impede any and all investigations into himself and/or his friends and allies, the charge of "political persecution" is a distraction. A rhetorical device meant to discredit the investigations themselves.
That's another well-established pattern of Trump's behaviour, by the way. The deliberate aim to discredit any and all who disagree with him and publicly speak about it, simply because they do.
Which actually is named after George Floyd. It is confusing.
Quoting ssu
Is your suggestion here that if police brutality is disproportionately aimed at black people specifically and other minorities generally, the correct thing to do is pretend it is aimed at white people equally? Is it so hard to see why that is racist?
He owes the IRS over 100 million and you’re saying that he has great accountants?
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/09/28/a-national-nightmare-whoever-owns-trumps-enormous-debts-could-be-running-the-country/
https://www.businessinsider.com/former-fbi-agent-says-donald-trump-is-compromised-by-russians-2020-9
Would explain why he is so deferential to Russia, even siding with Putin against his own intelligence agencies.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310342791336284160.html
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MichaelCohen212/status/1310346564582477824[/tweet]
Is it really aimed? You really think that this isn't a problem in very poor white communities in the US?
Blacks make up 13% of the US population yet of those people arrested each year, over a quarter (in 2018 27%) are black. So is this really an issue of police brutality being aimed at somebody or the police using excessive force generally when arresting people? I have said myself that yes, there is an obvious difference how the police approach suspects based on race, but is this really so huge that we can say that police brutality is aimed at a specific racial group? If so, what is the intent?
If the real issue is that police uses excessive force and has a low bar to use deadly force, wouldn't the procedures themselves be worth to focus or do we look for a segment that the brutality is aimed at?
Where there is disproportionately more crime you will find more contact with the police. And with more contact, there is the possibility of excessive force. Since it's an obvious fact that poorer communities have more crime than prosperous communities, you could thus also make the argument that police brutality is aimed at the poor. The statistics would support that. Yet defining this an issue of either racism or income or both doesn't actually focus on the obvious and that is how police operate, how they approach their job and how the legal system protects the use of excessive force. One is making a larger accusation on the society itself, which many people might have different views. I think this problem needs support from as big as possible segment of the population.
That's just not true. Focusing upon the need for racial injustice reform sheds light upon all sorts of things, including but not limited to, law enforcement issues like abuse of power/brutality.
It's the only reason that so many people have become painfully aware of the lack of accountability...
And I would argue on the way how to communicate the latter issue correctly is important. If we divide the people by race or income and say "the police works for you, not for me!", it's not hard to see that it will turn off some people who otherwise would agree with you that the police uses excessive force and starts confronting criminal suspects as enemy combatants, which is really a bad thing.
I do understand your point. Yet how do you approach these injustices is important. Do you make accusations and divide the people (as happens) or do you make the case that the country simply should live up to it's values and try to find the broadest support to do so? I would argue that there is a dedicated effort to keep the people divided in the US.
Well, the Forum isn't a "safe space" and simply going away isn't an answer.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Philosophy students are usually leftists. Yet increasing amount of members here are what would be called centrist or even on the right, I think.
I would concur. While the issues of racial injustice and the unaccountability of law enforcement officers are problems, and I'm glad that they are being discussed more and more, they are not the only issues. The economic issues are on the back burner. Justice reform has built bridges that socioeconomic reform can walk across... the time is closer than it was ten or fifteen years ago when those underlying problems were not given any attention by the general public.
This is making the exact same fallacious remark again. Because it also happens to white people, it isn't systematically happening to black people twice as much. But it is, so...
Quoting ssu
Factually, the former. White people die in police custody too. But black people particularly so. They are twice as likely to be killed than white people. We also have plenty of documentary evidence of deliberate killing of black people that goes beyond heavy-handedness. Even someone as dumb as a cop has seen enough to know that choking someone for a solid 8 minutes is a good way to kill them. The 'heavy-handed' defense when it is quite clear that these murders go well beyond heavy-handedness (e.g. shooting someone in the back and planting a gun on them) really does suggest that racists will say literally anything to deny there is a problem.
:clap:
:up:
Quoting creativesoul
I suspect Putin's covIDIOT Bitch will resign instead some time after the election (Win - to avoid another impeachment, then Democratic Senate trial & removal - or Lose) but well before Biden's Inauguration so that Pence can pardon him and his children (and maybe a few select stooges).
And that's why I think discussion is important. And yes, the obvious elephant in the room, the economic situation, is forgotten.
My country doesn't have riots on the streets or similar problems as they now have in Sweden, yet I have to go just to the generation of my great grandparents, and Finns were killing other Finns in a civil war. I don't think my generation or the younger ones aren't much different from them. Social cohesion and respect for people who have opposing views is important for any democracy to function. And understanding that things can get really much worse and very quickly is important. When the worst happens, the vast majority of people can just be left thinking of what insanity has taken over the country and their fellow countrymen.
In the US you already have the emergence of such an ugly divide forming up, and a spark can happen in country filled up with guns when a Kyle Rittenhouse type meets a Michael Reinoehl type in a protest filled with people. Will after a bloody shooting the discussion be more easy? Will reform happen or will it be the new President invoking the Insurrection act? I don't think so. Later people just want to move on and forget the whole dismal time.
Actually, I'm more than good putting the racial justice reform on the front burner and the political corruption of American government on the back. The coalition is growing.
Well... that needs quite a bit more qualification. The US is not a democracy, nor ought it ever aim to be. Mob rule denies liberty to minority. Social cohesion is as good an aim as any. Some views, however, are completely unacceptable.
And also twice as likely to be arrested, even more likely to be incarcerated and have higher crime rates, yet also poorer and higher unemployment numbers. So why the former?
This the argument that it's a Republic? I guess democracies are usually republics, even if some are technically monarchies.
Well, it's a republican form of government with strong democratic tradition. But...
No. That's not an argument at all. It's a true statement.
For reasons already given but seemingly ignored. This isn't the 80s anymore. You can't just ignore evidence and claim it's a mystery/non-issue.
Quoting ssu
You do realise that those murdered on the streets don't end up incarcerated. That's not an overlap, that's an additional injustice.
More and more
Based on statistics, the incarceration rates of blacks is the statistic that isn't in line. Likely here the biggest reason is the war on drugs (see the stats). Yet the percentage of offenses charged is quite close to the percentage of deaths due to use of lethal force by the police.
..........................................white..black
Percentage of population: 63......13
of total offenses charged : 69......27
Deaths Due to Use of Lethal Force by Law Enforcement: 54......32
Inmates in prison by race: 57.....38
Please explain how that third statistic is in line.
:rofl:
32% differs from 27% by 5%, which is noticeable, yet 38% (percentage of inmates) differs from 27% by 11%, which is huge.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/dscc-simon-order.pdf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
And yet they're not. And even if they were, that would not be evidence of no racial bias. Black people are more often pulled over in stop and search, and black communities are much more heavily policed. You are far more likely to get charged with possession of marijuana if you're black, for instance. The statistics are rather damning, and it's difficult to squint the sufficient amount for them to come out even.
It’s not a news report. But you’d know that if you watched it.
Our resident lawyer will believe anything so long as it conforms to his preconceived worldview. If you want to take advice from a commie go read Zizek.
No wonder this fucker is how he is.
Quoting ssu
A better naive hatchet job of the numbers would at least adjust for per-capita rates by making an odds ratio. The percentage of the population numbers are right there.
63/13 gives you about 5. So the left column numbers should be about 5 times the right column numbers under random assignment of outcomes given that ratio. Instead, the left column numbers are about 2.6 times then 1.7 times then 1.5 times the right column numbers.
Every one of the left column is about under half of what it "should be" under the assumption of random assignment. And the bottom two are the most out of line with that assumption, not the least.
That's the "are there racial disparities" question.
Rereading your post, I saw a different claim. That instead of adjusting for the per capita percentages, "total offences charged" should be conditioned on for calculating whether there is a disparity or not in deaths due to use of lethal force by law enforcement. Outside of the issue of whether the causal chain:
X is charged with an offence -> X is killed by police.
actually makes sense as an explanation here, which is the modelling assumption underlying that conditioning. adjusting for that does make the numbers more in line. Whether that's a numerical coincidence or not remains to be seen; though it's certainly plausible that whatever variables cause the police to charge people with an offence being racially loaded explain some of the effect of the racial disparities in police killings. If you gotta be in contact with an officer to be killed by one, anything that raises officer contact probability raises officer killing you probability; so it could be be a preferential sampling thing (read; racial profiling + police effort + economic variables + other demographic variables).
Conditioning like that doesn't explain this kind of thing though, taken from the paper you referenced:
Which suggests that the simplified causal chain X is charged with an offence -> X is killed by the police is over simple. I believe it suggests that because the racial disparity from preferential sampling is already conditioned on (the people in question have encountered the police) and yet there's a disparity in the application of lethal force.
X is charged with an offence -> X is subject to lethal force -> X is killed by the police
If race also influences whether X is subject to force in an offence charging encounter, it'll have an effect over and above the preferential sampling effect. But at that point, we really need to start talking about models, rather than comparing data in a naive hatchet job way.
Should also consider whether being charged with an offence is an adequate way of representing an encounter with police that may turn lethal - Breonna Taylor says otherwise. But that's also a question of proportion.
Not from what I looked at for the above.
Aye.
Relevant report.
Thank you reading and understanding my point correctly, and as this was done in a simple google search, it surely wasn't meant to be a thorough statistical inquiry. Only that where there is more crime, there are likely more police encounters and likely more excessive use of force and this should be taken into account.
Quoting fdrake
And of course there also is the question if "total offences charged" has in itself already a bias that makes charges made more likely towards blacks than white, which could be the case. The question that comes up to me is how big role does the war on drugs have to play with this.
Quoting fdrake
What that encounter is might differ, but as I've said there's an obvious difference and there is a statistic that shows it.
Quoting fdrake
Before models, best to understand underlying issues like the impact on war on drugs, as I mentioned already, or how broken communities really go into free fall in the US making a huge divide between the prosperous and poor communities. Poverty goes through racial lines still in the US.
You'd enjoy the report I linked to frank above. It's actually adjusting for economic variables in the context of police killings.
I'll read that.
https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-trump-campaign-strategy-to-deter-millions-of-black-americans-from-voting-in-2016
Oops, Maw beat me to it.
Quoting NOS4A2
Hey can a third party here point out where I said "suppress" or "suppression"? Can't seem to find it!
But not the long history of racism in the US, Lord no!
My mistake. I thought “deterring people from voting” meant “voter suppression”. It does mean that in regular parlance but perhaps not in your world.
Deter (verb): to discourage or restrain from acting or proceeding:
Example Sentence: Trump campaign strategy to deter millions of Black Americans from voting in 2016
Your mistake indeed.
Apparently it's impossible to influence someone's decision to vote and so political campaigning and buying ads is a waste of time and money. They'd achieve the same results if they just sat at home all day and waited until after the election. :roll:
Trump will accept loss if A.)it is too great in both popular and electoral votes to be contentious, and B.)he believes it will somehow benefit him(that it's best for him to concede/resign). A Biden pardon in private conversation used as a carrot would do the job.
I do not believe that the spineless Republicans are willing to continue feigning support of Trump if he loses by a wide margin. Rather, I suspect that there are many who would be more than willing to abandon his ship as it's sinking.
:victory: :mask:
The U.S. Military doesn't back him. The U.S. Intelligence & National Security establishment doesn't back him. The FBI doesn't back him. 24 Democratic Governors and, by extension, their State National Guards don't back him. Chief Justice Roberts won't even hear challenges to lower court rulings the way Chief Justice Rehnquist had broke precedent in 2000. And if the election is inconclusive and gets thrown into the U.S. House, the next (117th) Democratic-controlled Congress no doubt will Impeach & Remove him. A shitshow - amid a pandemic & depression which he's overwhelmingly blamed for? Fuck yeah. But, absent the essential elements as well as other mounting legal, political, & diplomatic impediments, any wannabe "coup d'etat" has already failed.
I hope this analysis is correct. Lots of emotional people ready to pounce, they want a fight so they can express and therefore relieve some of their anger. The story will be that Trump lost because of the most massive voter fraud in history, therefore he didn't really lose, and must stand up against this fraud to save American democracy. This is how narcissists roll.
I can only hope that there are some brilliant apt professional advertising and/or political campaigning experts out there capable of flooding the airwaves with soundbites consisting of nothing more than Trump's own words...
The key is getting all the people who want Trump out to vote.
That's all it would take.
Strong points, hopefully this populist experiment in political anger is about to come to its end, and hopefully it will take the entire Republican party down with it. These have been brutal American years, full of suffering for so many people.
I think that this is a crucial consideration. If only the retired generals would come out together publicly and condemn his use of military as a means for suppressing freedom of speech amongst other things such as his being a national security risk to the nation itself.
I guess the civil rights groups who said this was voter suppression made the same mistake. Nonetheless, one cannot deter someone from voting, or suppress a vote, by showing anti-Clinton ads on Facebook.
So, why do it then?
You're such a chump.
Why campaign on facebook? Ask the winner of the last election.
All the more reason we should avoid having our data stored in the US or even handled by companies established there. The only protection is to make sure your data is encrypted in transit and in storage.
Now we know where the real fake news was.
It already happened to EU citizens didn't it?
Facebook lets you target people based on ethnicity. It included it as a targeting demographic explicitly in their ad workflow for clients thingybob. Despite that, it does not elicit ethnographic the information from users on their profiles, it merely infers ethnicity from their usage. If you can target ads to anti-semites explicitly, they will target based on how you're classified by their algorithms. You may be able to elicit ethnicity information by designing a survey that elicits it, then it gets stored and identified with the user etc...
Christopher Wylie's on the record saying Cambridge Analytica used essentially the same targeting methodology for Brexit campaigning as for Trump. Same Facebook data mining and targeting bollocks.
I thought the same thing... having watched a few documentaries.
How the war on drugs has been implemented can be argued as part of how systemic racism continues, but anyway...
Why ain't anyone taking a good hard look at Trump's tax stuff and reporting back? Isn't this kind of relevant for a leader of a civilized society? :brow:
Unfortunately my country is run by geriatrics who, when given the opportunity to press, criticize and make these types of demands of tech industries, would rather ask Zuckerberg why their grandchild won't friend them on Facebook.
Biden is debating because the American masses need their fill of circus performance. Two clowns on stage, can you not be entertained?
Debates are typically good for the underdog, and bad or neutral for the guy on top. Biden's on top, so he could possibly lose votes. On the other hand, he might have lost more votes if he ducked the debates.
What I hope Biden does is to behave like an adult. The contrast will be stark, and the stylistic difference may sway a few undecided voters.
That's hilarious. The Left always think Trump is going down. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if he won the election.
[quote=John Lee Hooker][i]Well, Bernie he gone, he been gone two nights
I ain't seen Bernie since night before last
I want to get drunk till I'm off of my mind ...[/i][/quote]
We're fucked...
It's a halfwit against a nitwit, and one of them is going to be president.
Yup. I enjoyed some of Biden’s terminology though, like “Putin’s pup.” Glad that I wasn’t completely sober while watching.
Was the ad standing in the way of the voting booth or something?
Biden is better off patiently waiting with an incredulous stare when Trump is being Trump. Although, if the only reply to the insistent interruptions and rules violations were "Will you just shut up?", that would be appropriate as well. His mimicking of that juvenile behaviour was ill-advised.
I thought this just happened on CSPAN tho.
I think Biden has it in him to not be dragged into the mud. I hope he exercises better self-regulation in the next two, because the facts are quite simply not on Trump's side here. If it's even remotely about the character of the candidate, it's an easy win for anyone who can just stay above Trump's emotionally unregulated outbursts... the spoiled five-year-old mentality that he has.
Trump interrupting again, and Biden saying
Quoting Joe Biden to Donald Trump
:D
Should be played every time Trump rambles?
Perhaps ethnicity is inferred from other data, so this data was never disclosed and that might be how this was avoided but still. Bloody insane. Can you still select your race in Facebook? 15 years ago when I was still using it, that was still possible. I quit it because of all the privacy issues already surrounding Facebook then.
I really hope they will quit the EU. Parasites.
To those of you who watched the whole thing, did they mention nuclear weapons even once?
Another part of me thinks that plausible deniability is just too convenient.
I’m reminded of a thought I had about Boris Johnson a while back, when it seemed to me that Boris was pretending to be a Trump-like idiot as a manipulative strategy, which makes him seem smarter than Trump since he’s only pretending to be an idiot. But then I thought: I can tell Boris is pretending. If he was a better manipulator, I wouldn’t be able to tell. He would just seem like a genuine idiot... like Trump does.
I don't have an account any more. I had a look, it doesn't seem like an attribute someone can fill in on their page any more. Regardless, would making the account and filling out the ethnicity information count as consent?
This was probably the wildest bit about the whole thing. And message received, it seems:
*Joe Biggs: Proud Boy leader and supporter of date rape and violence against sexual minorities.
Regarding the debates, I decided not to watch (I mean honestly, when was the last time any actual content was stated in a debate?), but rather watch the part that matters.. the fallout.
In politics the cause is of less value than the effect; thus fallout is what matters. (Dogs will wag.)
So far my take is that the candidates must have acted like typical modern Americans, locked in a battle of egos, simply yelling at one another in a very rude and disruptive manner in an effort to dig divides and foxholes even deeper... for the sake of the greater good.
I take it for the viewing public this was simply a '(not so) fun house mirror' being held up to the general pubic and they seemed not to like their own reflections. I'm not too sure how this should be considered disappointing and I think it could be a good thing, but I have to wait for the spin to be spun; thus hope dies eternal.
2020 has been really weird. I'm not happy about Covid-19, but I am happy it cancelled my trips to the USA and I hope that I have no reason to compel me to fly over that way anytime soon.
I know I never supported the notion of a wall being built by the USA, that Mexico was suppose to pay for, but honestly I could get behind the rest of the world financing a dome over the entire USA to keep America's shit held within. A live video feed from inside the Dumber Dome would be entertaining... kind of a 'Hunger Games' meets up with the 'Purge', but with the cast of 'Idiocracy' rather than 'Mad Max'.
Let's face it... it would be funny if it wasn't real, but America, with it's built in sense of denial of whatever is uncomfortable and inconvenient, isn't really well suited for reality TV.
Anyway... thanks for the thread and all the 'information'. It helps keep my travel advisory updated. ;)
Yes, although I reckon they got that message a long time ago. Probably the only thing Trump is honest about is his support for white supremacists and neo Nazis. And Republicans love it. Strange world.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/drippydrank/status/1311131580518277120[/tweet]
You could see it in real time, the cogs turning - "how do I not do this?"
Before, of course, eventually settling on telling said white supremacists to stand by. Brave little contrarian, he is.
Presidential debate. One of these guys will have the power to destroy the world. We can't be bothered to talk about that, and neither can they.
tr45h encourages white supremacist terrorism:
[quote=Putin's covIDIOT Bitch]Proud Boys? Stand back and stand by.[/quote]
What is necessary to count as explicit enough?
In any way, the whole debate was not very presidential.
He wouldn't condemn Proud Boys, a far right organization, but, to be fair, it has liberalized since its founding. Its original rules banned masturbation among its members, but it now permits it once monthly. One area where they might wish to consider reforms is in their admissions process. They currently beat their applicants while making them recite the names of breakfast cereals, and I wonder if there is a better screening method for determining quality members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys
Seriously, though, I am deeply troubled by Trump's refusal to condemn the fringe racist groups, and it makes any defense of Trump not being racist difficult to make. Pragmatically, it also makes no sense to protect those groups because they offer him very few votes (Proud Boys has only 160 members), and it's not like a condemnation will cause them to vote for Biden. At any rate, I don't think "Republicans love it," at least not me, and I'm very much hoping he will attempt a correction at some point by openly condemning racism and racist groups. If not, it could cost him many Republican votes.
Is this a reference to something, or are you just being you?
It's from the Wiki article I cited above:
"According to David Neiwert, they recruit with emphasis on right-wing 15–30 year old white males who come primarily from suburbs and exurbs.[54] The Proud Boys say they have an initiation process that has four stages and includes hazing. The first stage is a loyalty oath, on the order of "I’m a proud Western chauvinist, I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world"; the second is getting punched until the person recites pop culture trivia, such as the names of five breakfast cereals; the third is getting a tattoo and agreeing to not masturbate; and the fourth is getting into a major fight "for the cause."[20][31][55][56][57][58]
The Daily Beast reported in February 2018 that the Proud Boys have amended rules. Prohibition against cargo shorts, use of opioids and crystal meth. The article states restrictions were not placed on cocaine. The masturbation policy was modified to read: "no heterosexual brother of the Fraternity shall masturbate more than one time in any calendar month".[59]
Women aren't allowed to be Proud Boys[42] and the unnamed president of Proud Boys Los Angeles told the Los Angeles Times the group only admits "biological men".[60] In July 2018, the group had 160 members and up to 300 pending applicants, according to the unidentified president.[60]"
So gay and bisexual men are exempt? That's discrimination.
Perhaps it allows the gay men to masturbate because there might be another provision (and I've not had a chance to read through all the rules) that proscribes man on man sex, which would then leave non-straight men an inability to ejaculate, which would be understandably frustrating, thus the unlimited monthly ejaculatory allowance. Makes sense.
I've been studying. So there's Cocoa Puffs, Apple Jacks, Lucky Charms, Fruity Pebbles, and Count Chocula. I just hope I remember them while they're kicking me in the nuts.
Is adding new states as simple as an act of Congress?
I don't think the answer would have been much different if the example had been the KKK. He's fascist (rather than conservative) at heart and any walk back would be engineered by his advisors and disengenuous. I think we both know that. Anyhow, I hope you're right that Republicans have there limits. I'm just not seeing much evidence of it.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iv/clauses/46
We might admit the UK. Other than changing flags, it shouldn't be too much of a hassle. Remember that it's "color" and not "colour" and stuff like that and we should be good.
How's it looking for you at this point? Are you going to vote Trump while gagging or Biden while gagging?
Biden on the other hand, totally missed the opportunity to have fun with Trump's dourness. A sharper, more instinctual leader would would used Trump's boorishness against him. Biden just tried to play indignant exasperated uncle instead.
Shame Kanye missed the deadline to get added to Georgia's ballot. I reckon he would have been Hanover's first choice.
First off FWIW, I want Biden to win the debates and the election (since Sanders got shafted. But that’s another scary story). It’s kind of “his game to lose” IMHO, so to speak.
But from the first segment (usually the most important in setting the pace), Trump is clearly gaining an advantage. He never smiles or laughs, not that I saw. This is actually an advantage. Trump then comes across as more “serious”. Biden keeps giving that goofy grin which seems clueless and self-satisfied. Stop smiling and grinning, Joe! It comes across as even more smug than Hillary, who at least didn’t giggle and titter like a drunken senator. (Grin after winning if you must).
And keep your head held up, Joe. Lowering the head while listening looks weak. Turn towards Trump more often, as unpleasant as that may be. Quit staring at the camera when not talking. Looks like a deer in the headlights. And talking into the camera while speaking (at least the way he did it) and waving his hands seems like some kind of bible preacher. “You have to believ-vah! And you will be HEALED!” Lol.
Did Joe actually say “I AM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY” and “I BEAT THE HELL OUTTA BERNIE”?? Way to go, big guy. :roll: You are going to break your arm if you keep patting yourself on the back.
Keep it up Joe, if you want to pull a Hillary and grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. In this boxing match, Trump was dancing circles around you (who seemed anchored in concrete) and throwing a dozen jabs at a time. Of course, it contained lies and exaggerations. Duh. For better or mostly worse, that is the Trump modus operandi. But to me, Trump seemed like the hungry and angry contender, challenger, and underdog. Biden looked like the “champion” gone soft with success.
But change your approach JB, and change it quickly. This is more Fight Club than your daddy’s debate club. (If you want more of my advice, you have my number, lol).
Edit: No one would have had to tell Bernie Sanders absolutely any of this if he were the candidate. Sanders can effortlessly appear smart, tough, AND respectful simultaneously. Trump would’ve been cornered, instead of drooling and licking his greedy chops over an easier foe. But whatever... Biden is the DNC’s boy.
I could go on record as now announcing I'm voting for Biden. It'd be a breaking news story that could cause a little excitement around here, but maybe I'll tease this one out for a while, leaving the masses wondering what Hanover might do. It's good for the ratings.
The truth is that I've never been a big Trump fan, mostly because of the buffoonery problem he suffers from. I was relieved that the dementia narrative about Biden was untrue. He did seem engaged and did well in the sandlot fray, but I'm not completely sure that's what we need in a President either.
Then there's the Kanye option that was pointed out. If I have my facts straight on him, he's kind of bipolarish and he sings songs I've never heard, but he gets props for fucking a Kardashian. Maybe I'll vote for him. What's his position on the KKK?
Kanye/Kim Kardashian 2020?
Document
A lot of huffing about Trump on social media today, especially regarding his so-called refusal to condemn white supremacists. Though Trump has already condemned white supremacists, Wallace and Biden pushed the canard that Trump must continue to do so for some reason, even if a high profile white supremacist such as Richard Spencer threw his vote behind Biden. Wallace’s loaded questions and distortions favored Biden.
Alleged, alleged, alleged...
Amazing?
Bullshit.
Distraction.
In fact:
Intel chief releases Russian disinfo on Hillary Clinton that was rejected by bipartisan Senate panel
I guess that settles it then!
Also, Trump Would Be Richer If He'd Have Invested in Index Funds
Instead of being worth $13 billion, he's $1.1 billion in debt.
It doesn’t settle it because “the IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.”
But given that the Steele dossier was largely sourced from suspected Russian spies, and payed for by the Clinton campaign, it appears that any “Russian collusion” to dig up dirt on an opponent was a Democrat affair.
Since then, numerous different officials heading up numerous separate investigations, many of which came out of the Mueller report, have been replaced by Barr/Trump. At Trump's request(undoubtedly) there have been a number of investigations into the Mueller investigation itself, as well as many of the officials involved. In addition, an investigation into Trump's political opponent(Biden) has been going on despite the fact that the Biden concerns were already investigated and dismissed. Trump has publicly discussed the idea that the findings would come out prior to the election, and Barr has used his influence to speed the investigations along, resulting in some officials resigning instead.
There has been no wrongdoing found by any of these investigations. None. What is a "witch-hunt" once again???
So now...
Trump leans on the fact that there are investigations(witch-hunts) into the Mueller report and/or his own political rivals - without ever mentioning the fact that he is behind them all - as adequate ground for concluding what... exactly???
:brow:
Judge orders DOJ to publish info redacted as privileged from Mueller report
Knowledge of which would certainly directly answer any questions about why Trump was not charged by Mueller and his team as well as verifying/falsifying any public pronouncements made by anyone privy to the original(un-redacted) report about that.
They have to produce it on or before the day before the election.
Who are the plaintiffs?
Hmmm...
Interesting.
PS as much as I wanted a candidate like Bernie, I actually appreciated how Biden talked about getting psychologists with cops when dealing with people having mental issues, so force didn't need to be used.
Should be getting psychologists with Trump too.
Sounds familiar to the case in California earlier this year.
California rejected 100,000 mail-in ballots because of mistakes
According to polling, almost twice as many Biden supporters as Trump supporters say they’ll vote by mail this year. Over 500,000 mail-in votes have been rejected this year, far outpacing 2016. Perhaps this is why Democrats have pivoted away from championing mail-in voting.
Again contempt for the electoral system, contempt for society, a rat in the Oval Office
"Top GOP officials have reportedly been sent into a blind panic after seeing numbers showing that Democratic voters in key states are returning mail-in ballots at much, much higher rates than Republican voters. According to The Washington Post, the Democratic lead in mail voting is so extreme that it’s led to urgent discussions among senior GOP officials. “It’s astronomical,” said one unnamed Republican strategist, who added that he was left “horrified” by the numbers. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has reportedly twice met with Trump to urge him to stop bashing mail balloting, and is said to have told others he’s worried that the president’s rhetoric could stop Republican voters—especially elderly ones—from sending in their ballots. Republican National Committee spokesman Mike Reed insisted there was no panic, saying Republicans “will come out in droves to vote in person” on Election Day."
:rofl:
I hope Trump and his little sycophants keep pushing this line of mail-in ballot fraud - the only people stupid enough to believe it are the people who would otherwise vote for him. And it seems to be having the lovely effect of energising everyone else.
Yet your DNC fellow-travellers are beginning to see the error in their ways.
But you have yet to get the memo. Only about one-hundredth of 1 percent of in-person votes are rejected, whereas rejection rates of 1 percent are common with mail-in votes. If your ballot is rejected your vote doesn’t count.
And rejected ballots are on the rise. There go all your votes to the trash bin. Brilliant.
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-ap-top-news-oh-state-wire-az-state-wire-mi-state-wire-881c098ab2847dea9d87604bab9568d6
:mask:
Great. So if Trump would win the Democrats could argue that the Republicans manipulated the mail-in votes. The same kind of switcheroo that Republicans had with the FBI and Comey as we have seen. Or whatever :shade:
Good luck with that! Trump's own application was rejected when all he could recite was: "Person, woman, man, camera, TV".
Quoting Hanover
For some reason I doubt that those types of cereal meet the exacting standards of the Proud Boys.
Rejected ballots do not necessarily get trashed:
The vast majority of these ballots were rejected because voters made a mistake or failed to fill out the witness information, according to state records. A rejected ballot does not necessarily mean the voter is denied his or her vote: North Carolina allows for a process called “vote curing,” where voters are notified that there’s a mistake and given a chance to fix their ballot. But that’s not an option in every state. And even that isn’t foolproof. In Nevada’s statewide primary in June, for example, 12,366 ballots had a missing or mismatched signature, but even after voters were notified to fix it, only 45 percent were successfully cured.
This was from this fivethirtyeight article, which the Axios article linked to.
This highlights the need to educate people on how to correctly fill out their ballot, if they choose to go this route. In the future, we should push for "vote-curing" in all states.
Personally, I'm voting in person on election day to ensure my vote is tabulated on that day.
I’m not sure how they could do that when the place and manner of federal elections is regulated by each state.
That’s a good idea. I fear that the whole “it’s dangerous to vote in person” idea is a form of voter suppression, and it’s good to see someone unswayed by it.
What's the problem? It's common practice to dig up dirt on political opponents and to utilize whatever dirt is available (consider Trump's use of Wikileaks, not to mention Stone's coordination with Assange). It WOULD be a problem if the formal Russian investigation by the FBI and Mueller were a product of a political witch-hunt, but the IG has already assessed that and indicated it was not.
Suppose the only thing Clinton ever received was Steele's work, and decided to use this against Trump. That would be about as bad as Trump using the low quality information Guiliani obtained from Ukraine. So if you're going to cry foul in the hypothetical against Clinton, you should cry foul in the actual against Trump.
Has anyone actually pushed it being too dangerous to vote in person? I haven't seen any. If it's there, it's been drowned out by the bogus claims about fraud.
That said, the Axios article was useful. We shouldn't just enable people to mail in ballots, we need to also be sure they are filled out correctly.
Harris county has a population of 4.7 million. They get 1 drop-off box. Republicans sure like to make it harder to vote.
Santorum saying the quiet part loud.
I remember Tom Perez, chair of the DNC, suggesting that Republicans are “going to keep forcing millions of Americans to choose between their safety and their vote.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/493224-republicans-put-lives-in-danger-to-try-to-steal-an-election-now-they-want-to
But there is always more:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/the-democrats-vote-by-mail-conundrum/616535/
Crossfire Hurricane was set up to investigate whether individuals associated with President Trump's campaign was coordinating with the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The problem is that they investigated the wrong campaign.
They’re idiots, as far as white supremacists go. They don’t even realize that their leader is a black Cuban.
Wikileaks published information provided by Russians. Roger Stone coordinated with Wikileaks and lied to investigators. That's pretty strong reason to investigate.
Quoting NOS4A2
What evidence is there of coordination between the Clinton campaign and the Russians?
They've got one of those Dave Chapelle, black white supremacist scenarios going - the black Cuban is obviously blind and doesn't know he's black and the proud boys leadership make sure to cover his head everytime he meets with the other proud boys so they don't know.
In all seriousness though the term "white supremacist" as well as "racist" - racist especially - have become absolutely meaningless these days. It use to mean actual Nazis and KKK, but now it's basically just all conservatives and probably libertarians. It's really a shame what's happened to political discourse lately, it's barely worth it anymore. I'm worried about someone just being labeled a racist for whatever reason and therefore being denied a platform. It's the ultimate insult today. Shut them down. Don't let the racist speak.
Trump successfully derailed the debate and made Biden appear weak. He repeatedly insulted Biden, insinuating that, whatever bad things have happened during his administration, under Biden it would have been even worse. He did the way of the bully - make himself look big by making others look small. His strategy was, the best defense is an offense. Just attack, attack, attack.
Unfortunately one of the problems with Biden was that he had a limited range of emotional expression. It was boring to look at him, his voice had no inflection. Trump was good at getting and keeping your attention. I watched Trump more than I watched Biden, even when Biden was talking, so I wasn't always really listening to what Biden was saying. Biden can say facts but as long as nobody is listening and is paying attention to Trump instead, it won't matter. Biden was almost just background noise at some points. He would laugh and look down when Trump went on the attack, just passively taking it. He hardly ever looked Trump, and it made it seem like he was scared of him.
On the other hand, Trump used the two minute segments to cram as many sound bytes in as possible, just strings of tangentially-related ideas that frequently spilled over into other unrelated topics. He would grip his podium and glare at Biden when he spoke, which made him seem physically dominant. Trump tried to make sure he was the last person to make a point, so that his point would be the one you remembered, not Biden's. That Biden for the most part did not interrupt Trump, and the fact that there was no fact-checking or mic muting meant that Trump had the spotlight. Trump can be entertaining to watch, what's he gonna do next, what's in his bag of tricks? He can also be funny, he made Wallace chuckle several times.
I do not endorse Ben Garrison's political views, however I felt his cartoon more or less summarized how I felt the debate went:
By the last quarter of the debate though I was pretty fed up with Trump's antics. Trump seemed to be exhausted. This was when Biden seized the opportunity and finally asserted himself. Fucking finally man, goddamn.
If we define "winning the debate" as "garnering more support than the other candidate does", then after my first watching of the debate, I thought Trump "won". I'm relieved to see I was wrong - according to this, it seems that Trump's approval rating went marginally down, while Biden's went marginally up.
I look forward to the upcoming debates, which appear will be handled differently. Hopefully reason will be able to be heard.
If the next debates are gonna be the incoherent mess that it was two days ago, then people are just gonna tune out which would probably just help Biden since he's in the lead and Trump's the one who needs to change up the race.
Every time Trump has to speak in long-form (as with the Axios interview a few months back), he shows up for what he really is: a complete moron. What usually allows him to get away with it are the short, soundbite formats where he can quip then change the conversation. He's a meme president. He speaks in memes.
These 'debates', for all their general worthlessness, demand ever so slightly more than that. Which is why he's trying so damned hard to turn into a wild compilation of soundbites. The man literally cannot speak for more than 15 seconds before his brain juice short-circuits. 90 minutes? You get the shitfuckery of debate, and everyone knows who is responsible for it.
That’s remarkable for someone with 3k+ posts on a philosophy forum, if that suggests valuing truth and reason. I just rewatched the first two segments of the debate after reading your post to see if I missed something. The first question about the SC nomination went reasonably well, no interruptions by either debater, and to be honest Trump’s position and presentation was stronger, I felt. On the second question about healthcare Trump began interrupting badly, like the privileged man-child that he is, and had an extremely weak position (no plan after 4 years! and meaningless executive orders). Biden had the last word and a stronger believable proposition.
Don’t have the stomach to review further.
For some reason I have encountered a lot of resistance by suggesting that the opponent may have won. People seem to take it to mean that I wanted the opponent to win. In fact I hope the next debate proves to be a smackdown for Trump. I wanna see him cry.
Kind of curious as to what you mean exactly by "garnering more support". I don't think that Trump has ever tried to expand his base much, focusing on just feeding red meat to his cult of supporters. That explains why his numbers have never moved much during his entire presidency.
If you mean who came off as being more aggressive then certainly Trump did, but I think he took the whole thing way too far to the point of turning off most people so I can't say that it helped him.
But Trump also tried to make Americans feel like they didn't have a choice in the matter and that they are stuck with him whether they like it or not. I mean with the very first question of the debate (re: the Supreme Court nominee), Trump basically just said that even if the majority of Americans would prefer to wait until after the election, it's too bad for them, democracy can suck it. Later, he talked about election fraud and how mail in ballots are insecure. Then he urged his base to become his brown shirt poll watchers to intimidate voters.
This makes me think Trump isn't really trying to get more people to vote for him as much as he is just trying to stop people from voting in general. Make things as uncertain and chaotic as possible so enough people get paralyzed and don't vote.
Got my hopes dashed by Bolsonaro tho, so no expectations.
:up:
Maybe we should send him some.
:smirk:
Quoting Maw
Uh huh. It is what it is, ain't it?
:death: :flower:
Anyway. For the +211,000 Americans negligently mass murdered since the 'February 7 tape', a song to mark the occasion ...
Not enough 'Floyd references here abouts...
Fortunately, Donald and I are not acquainted.
Oh, fuck, don't encourage me, man!
Excerpt from the (1977) soundtrack to *America: The MAGA Years*.
:victory: :mask:
I hope Biden says no (I thought that after that shitshow the other night). But now the Harris-Pence VP Debate next Wednesday will probably be the only rodeo in town. Blood on the horns for sure - no matter how civil, I can't imagine the spectacle will bore anyone (though gnashing of teeth & some tears from the tRumptards are to be expected).
:sweat: Poor Mike. (Fuck him!) Can't wait ...
Had to check. The Clown is on my six month old COVID Hit List. (0 indicates a COVID-19 survivor.)
There's a new book out on this particular clown - Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck's Blood and Oil, which you might be interested in.
I know there's been a lot of pain caused and a lot of harm done, but can we please show some compassion? I mean, I'm just not sure COVID deserves this.
Consider this... he probably has it, but what if it's a stunt?
It just 'proves' his invulnerability and makes Covid-19 seem like nothing, as well as gives him an excuse to no longer have to debate Biden.
If he dies from it, well, blame it on the 'deep state' as an assassination.
If only Melania dies, well he gets the divorce he wants with a plus of public sympathy and he gets to finally date his daughter.
Hey... we're talking Republican campaign strategy.
At worst he fakes his death, then suddenly reappears after 3 days.
It's been done before and mankind has suffered the consequences for such fake news since over 2000 years.
Popcorn anyone?
Indeed... I feel sorry for Covid-19. That poor disease is now infected by a bigly badly case 'Agent Orange Julius'. I hope the disease can recover soon.
Perhaps I should send Covid-19 my 'thoughtless prayers'?
:lol:
It's a hoax. Fake news.
Boris did in a way. It made him realise more the importance of health and so he started a weight-loss campaign, despite previously having been against anything like that.
You think Trump is lying about having tested positive?
Quoting Michael
Insofar as covid itself is a democrat hoax, there is nothing he could have been tested positive for, see.
-
Also maybe this is why he was such a grumpy bit of flab at the debate the other day. Under the weather and all.
Good luck with your November tragicomedy.
Thanks!
I'm sitting at a rather safe distance of 6 time zones.
As I view the hot mess of which I'm not obsessed...
"I'll say it again, in the land of the free
Use your freedom of choice
Freedom of choice
Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom of choice
In ancient Rome
There was a poem
About a dog
Who found two bones
He peeked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
Then he dropped dead
Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want"
@VPOTUS goes to church every Sunday.
touche
You're asking why must it be this way
As we're heading for our dying day
In a hole you'll be lying in
In a hole they all hurt in sin
All dressed up and ready to go
I wanna fly like an eagle...
It's not your fault you're the living dead
Cos you were taught just to nod your head
Race of Man is a dying breed
Race of Man is a burning seed
INDEED!
... and this too:
Honestly I feel like that's gonna backfire on him more than anything. People would just be more motivated to kick him out then they would before. That's the main reason why they're voting for Biden honestly.
Just wondering if he gargles with that does it count as anal bleaching?
President Kamala!
I think that’s understandable because by claiming that Trump won the debate suggests that you value his “stream roller” strategy or that your prefer a bully to a moderate. It was certainly a winning strategy for his base, but then he doesn’t need to win them. He already owns them. I think Biden probably did a better job at reaching the undecided, but who knows.
That's good.
Harris and Pence negative.
Speaking of which, I guess the Hitlarian rile-ups will be put on hold for at least two weeks. Ouch. :grimace:
He’ll get more done in quarantine than Biden has done in 47 years.
You can add record joblessness, record debt and record social and political instability to that. Tough act for Biden to follow.
The problem is the attention span of the Trump rally-goer is probably about the length of a gnats, and that’s why he’s forced to do so many of them. In his estimation they must all be losers so it’s doubtful he enjoys their company.
He hasn't Tweeted in 15 hours.
Quoting StreetlightX
Life [s]imitates[/s] outdoes The Onion.
Same day:
Quoting The Onion, Wednesday 12:35PM
:rofl:
Hard for me to feel guilty about knowing that the world is better off without some people in it. While I would not wish or hope death upon anyone, I certainly would not lose any sleep and would undoubtedly feel an odd sense of dark joyfulness should some people die.
Jane's Addiction said, "Some people should die... that's just unconscious knowledge"
hmm...?
Interesting responses....
Be very careful what you wish for...
I felt it was more along the lines of: shut up and stop spreading doubt even if you feel that way; now is not the time to doubt the candidate or point out his flaws, because it's too late to fix anything.
The debate was supposed to be conducted based on agreed-upon rules. Trump blatantly violated and disregarded these rules, and Biden barely did anything about it. Instead he complained to the moderator and the crowd and said a few meek comebacks. Where the hell was his resolve? Where the hell was his strength? Watching the debate unfold was a chilling experience where I thought: holy shit Biden is weak.
Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I came away from the debate feeling two things:
It was like waiting for the cavalry to arrive only to see a few ponies instead. Fuuuuuuuuck.
Maybe I should just shut up about this until the election is over so I don't inadvertently help Trump.
Right- if watching FOX during every waking moment can be considered "getting things done".
Pretty incredible. Only the military officers have systematically masks while I count about three other people wearing masks. And lots of hugs and handshakes. Well, if that's the attitude towards a pandemic...
Biden did the right thing. Had he acted as badly as Trump, he'd have shared equal blame and shame. The net result is that Trump's performance was the only thing memorable about the night, and it is not a positive memory. Trump gained no votes, and Biden didn't lose any.
I hate to wish pain or death on anyone, but the Trump supporters may actually learn to take Covid seriously if a bunch of infections arise from this event.
I don't think Biden people had such high expectations. It is quite enough that he out-lasted the personal pressure of lies and insults that melted Trump's republican rivals in 2016. If Biden is old, Trump looks about as old.
A long prison term would be more humane.
Yet still blows my mind that people act in this way. Heck, I haven't shaken hands or hugged anybody (except my family members) since the state of emergency was declared back in the spring, even if I attended a funeral of a very close friend. But perhaps it's easy for Finns to stay away.
Is this verified? Who's reporting this?
The White House reported it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54396670
The lack of respect/concern for the pandemic is the direct result of false and/or irrelevant belief about it. That is in no short supply. The effects/affects of Trump are more than evident. Elections have consequences.
I just traveled to another state for a week to visit a dying family member, spending the nights in a hotel alone the entire time. Picked that hotel as a result of all the complaints in the current reviews. You see, all sorts of people were complaining about how strict that particular hotel was regarding the covid regs. Yep! That's the one I want! The one that at least attempts to enforce social distancing measures. Unfortunately, the usual breakfast spread was a no-go. Boo.
:wink:
The lack of general concern(or perhaps understanding) of the people in the area regarding the seriousness and/or danger of the pandemic was astounding. It is a Trump stronghold. He was actually there at the airport the day before my departure. Glad I missed him. I carried clorox bleach disinfectant wipes everywhere... just in case some of the Trump supporters wanted to take his words to heart and swallow them. Kidding. I did wipe down everything everywhere as if I was some sort of compulsive germaphobe; changed my mask often, and practiced social distancing nearly all the time.
I also had to exercise a considerable amount of restraint while there. I so much wanted to take a baseball bat and knock down as many Trump/Pence signs as I could, and then take pictures. I refrained.
:smirk:
I'm now in the middle of my own quarantine. Adjusting to accomodate all the regs was a cumbersome but necessary safeguard. I'll be glad to touch my better half a week from now. She is currently staying with her family who lives nearby as a result of my possible exposure. My immune system is strong. I've no symptoms at all, but that does not mean that I have not contracted the virus. I could be one of the forty percent or so of people who are asymptomatic. So, I'm happily quarantining to protect others... her especially. She's at much higher risk.
By the way, in my state we've had multiple family gatherings turn out to be super-spreader events. There are very big and close-knit families here! That's where people are most likely to be hugging and in close contact. It was very hard for me to refrain from hugging my own family members as well, especially given that that may turn out to be the last time I see one of them, so I hugged him with all I had.
Negative ads? Pfft.
How about using truthful ones regardless? It's not as if the Trump campaign is going to stop. What sort of sense does this make?
I wish Trump a speedy cremation.
Ah tits.
Do you too have the notion that folks who wouldn't wish something bad like this on their absolute worst enemy are people who have never actually had an absolute worst enemy?
Well, I oppose the death penalty, so it's only fitting that I don't want someone – anyone – to die from a sickness, whatever their character and culpability.
Dying from the death penalty, a government sanctioned punishment, seems to me to be very different from a disease.
Not a sense thing but a feel thing, I imagine, to the Trump supporters. Empathy can be a powerful ally.
Advice I bet the Donald has regretted not taking since 2016.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
:rofl:
Minimizing that is why I want Trump and those like him out of office.
If Trump getting sick gets him out of office, that's great. Otherwise, it's pointless suffering for no good.
I hope he recovers fully and lives a long comfortable life in some private capacity where he can't create problems for anyone else ever again.
That's a nice way of saying prison.
He spoke directly to the camera, notably, and I’ve seen reports that it was very positive with undecideds. I don’t think Trump is capable of that approach.
I get what you’re saying and think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Biden is uncomfortably feeble both physically and mentally due to age.
Trump is the guy whose example and vocal support encouraged people to not wear masks, and ridiculed others (e.g. Biden) for wearing one.
Perhaps Trump's suffering will get more of his supporters to take COVID precautions seriously. That would be a greater good. Of course, it's possible Trump will have a very mild case and start encouraging mask use, but I'm skeptical. There's a good chance his bravado will increase.
I wasn’t thinking specifically of that, but yeah, that would do.
You can always spot a liberal from how as soon as things stray from any sense of what is 'normal' and polite, all they care about is that things go back to 'normality'. Hundreds and thousands dead and countless lives ruined is just a statistic in a game to be played within well defined boundaries. Anything anomolous, and it's mask-off solidarity with whatever fascist-wannabe. Had Hitler got sick in the middle of a fucking putsch they would wish him well.
Streetlight, what is it exactly that you want in terms of government-type? You're not a liberal, but you say you're not a fascist either. Do you support democracy? Do you just want very considerable restrictions on free speech?
If rationality prevails, one of the biggest concerns is that 45% or so of the population who support Trump will still be with us, as will the virus and climate change. But equally important: so will conspiracy theories and the rapid spread of general misinformation.
Not only do the Democrats need to win, and win big, but once they're in office they'd better very quickly start passing New Deal-level reforms, or we're essentially doomed.
Doomed it is, then.
Probably. But even passing Green New Deal legislation is something. Whether they abolish the filibuster, pack the court, etc., who knows -- but I hope they do.
This is true. We’ve known for quite some time the evil in some people’s hearts. It’s like getting mad at a snake for being poisonous. The embarrassing part, I suppose, is that their evil exceeds that of the one they hate.
The same GND of which Biden explicitly said "is not his plan" and which he "does not support" just 3 days ago?
Doomed? How?
True, but it's ambitious enough and influenced by the GND.
In countless ways, but climate change being the major one.
The only thing worse than not instituting the GND is using its name ("GND legislation") to institute some milquetoast 'reforms' and coopting [s]progressive[/s] sane energy to pretend like it's making a difference.
That all said it would still be good if Trump choked to death on his own spittle.
The US puts out less than 20% of total human generated CO2, so we aren't in control of that. Nobody is.
It would be great if we followed China's lead, which would mean following through on the agenda Obama laid out a long time ago.
The US is the most influential nation on the planet and the fact is Trump pulling out of the Paris Accord and leaving a vacuum of leadership on climate action has led to other countries following suit. Even if they won't outright admit it, they see the US's inaction as an excuse to not do anything themselves as seen in last year's COP25.
I don't know how far Biden would go to implement legislation on climate change but at least he would be better on the world stage than the guy who thinks we should rake the forests to stop forest fires.
The US is influential by virtue if its military, it's economy, and it's culture. The US has no special influence over CO2 production.
Meanwhile China has committed to becoming CO2 neutral by 2060. However repelled we may be by dictatorship, we have to admit that in the face of climate change, it works better.
The reason we should drop talk of "doom" is that it isn't based on science. When that's the primary message coming from climate change acceptors, it undermines their cause. The climate is changing. We will change with it.
Quoting Mr Bee
Controlled burns are used to clear fuel on the ground. California didn't do controlled burns this year because it was too dry.
California has always been dry. Forests have always burned. Climate change made the problem worse, but it didn't create the underlying conditions that gave rise to fires.
SO dictatorship is better than oligarchy? Where does Democracy sit?
I'd say given it's leverage over such matters like the economy that it has alot of influence over things like the emission of CO2.
Quoting frank
Unfortunately I have to agree there. It's hard to solve a long term problem like climate change when people keep electing idiots like Bolsonaro and Trump into power every now and then. Of course's there's also the nightmare scenario of a dictatorship which is dead set on denying science and making bad problems worse, which hopefully the US doesn't fall into.
Quoting frank
Though I do think that a more positive message on climate change and adopting more sustainable technologies and practices would be more effective, I wouldn't say that the talk of "doom" is unwarranted since the scientific projections right now are incredibly bleak. We're already past the point of no return and humanity is gonna have to bear the brunt of their actions to a certain extent. It's just a matter of how much they can mitigate it right now before things get better.
Not liberal, not a fascist, dubious taste for democracy, and a dislike of free speech. I got it...
I was being facetious of course.
Things that make you go hmmmmmm......
No pretty straightforward: liberals would rather attach themselves to fascists than socialists.
Bernie is one such person(whose been inhibited). I admire his participation in the general this time around.
People like Trump and his supporters who deny this reality are the new flat earthers.
Doom is appropriate because it is also scientifically accepted how easily humanity descends into anarchy and war when the pips squeak.
I don't want to veer off into climate change here, but if you remember this was discussed at length a couple of years ago in a climate change thread.
To be fair to the flat earthers, at least their ignorance isn't causing the destruction of all life on earth. I would have no problem with them otherwise if they're not affecting me or anybody else with their beliefs. There's being stupid and there's being dangerously stupid, with climate deniers and anti-vaxxers I'd categorize in the latter.
Are we doomed to experience turmoil? Yes. If that's how you read "doomed," fine.
What exactly would the consequences be if that happened? Let's try to do the calculus.
1. Pence becomes Pres.
2. The Republicans nominate a younger more dynamic stand-in for the trumpees
3. Republicans sweep the elections
Also please quadruple dose of hydroxychloroquine.
As millions have already voted, likely the election would result in the tragicomedy and a full shit show.
Likely the Republicans would argue to change their dead candidate with the vice president (then the acting president). It would be really difficult to pick any other than Pence. Only if Pence would resist being the President, which is unlikely for a Vice President.
And Biden winning a dead candidate? Sounds like a matter that many Republicans would not forget.
... if Trump does become incapacitated, what's Mike Pence's golf handicap?
Pence is basically a walking hamburger. The idea that he could in fact be elected is laughable.
That kind of depends upon one's perspective regarding the 'US trolley problem' or is it a US variation on 'Killing Baby Hitler'?
I'm sure there are some utilitarian debates here that would not rule out the death of Trump as well as some that would strictly forbid it.
If only there were some utilitarians in the USA to 'think' about it and hash this one out for us.
You can't be tolerant towards the intolerant, that's just your basic Karl Popper /s. Next logical step is hoping all your political opponents choke on their own vomit or come down with AIDS because they're like basically Nazis. I mean besides conservatives like don't even care about black people or whatever.
Trust me it's all good philosophy.
:broken:
Random nobodies on the Internet aren't going to influence anyone so I think it's pretty harmless. It's just people expressing they really don't give a shit about Trump and it has nice shock value with Conservatives (which is ironic as Michael points out). I suspect exactly 0 people here would shoot Trump dead if given the chance.
That's a good question. I don't have an immediate answer. If we're just going to wish leaders dead every time they do something suspect or enforce a policy that we don't like or believe something that we consider offensive then all leaders are to be wished dead. This would go very well beyond Trump.
If Trump is indeed either committing treason or something along those lines I'd rather see him on trial though.
I am serious as I can possibly be. I've lost loved ones to COVID-19 and my husband did NOT have COVID BUT was on a ventilator for 24 days this May and I was not allowed in to see him, at all, EVER, except for 2 minutes after his emergency surgery with a security guard waiting at the door to escort me down to my kids who were not given that 2 minutes.
I wish I could say that it was day by day but it was minute by minute for 21 days and then it became hour by hour.
It's all said in jest, until it's not funny
Everything in life is okay, until it isn't
Life could be better until a loved one has a medical crisis and then nothing but their very survival matters.
This isn't calculus this is just make-believe. Pence doesn't have the support of the GOP base that Trump possesses, and he certainly doesn't have enough time to form a solid voting coalition.
And who would this backup cult leader be? The MAGA cult are mostly in it for Trump.
The other day Trump mentioned that corona only affects the elderly or “virtually nobody,” so if these virtual nobodies (including the elderly Trump) are on one track and our big beautiful economy and the precious American Dream are on the other, he seems to suggest that there’s virtually no dilemma.
Perhaps Enrique Tarrio?
He seems to be a modern day match for 'MAGA values'.
I was comparing his haters to a poisonous snake, in this case those who signal their virtue by wishing death on the president.
I for one can separate my feelings from my rational decision-making. I enjoy hearing about Trump getting sick the way I enjoy a villain in fiction being hoisted by their own petard. It makes me smile and laugh. Those are my feelings and I didn’t choose them, though neither do I feel guilty for them.
But I don’t actually think he ought to suffer or die, because nobody ought to. If I were in a position to be caring for him medically I would do everything I could to help him recover. I do hope that his illness will somehow have a positive impact on the election and so consequentially be a good thing, but his suffering in and of itself is not a good thing even in that scenario.
Considering that moral values in the all too Randian USA are determined by pure economic factors, these elderly and the actual 'virtually nobodies' are simply worthless and cost intensive commodities; thus Covid-19 seems to be a solution to a very American problem.
Kind of reminds me of this scene:
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20201002-PartyMembership.pdf
I don't think it's probable that anything necessary (revolutionary) gets passed, but we have to try to push them to. If we give up, it guarantees nothing gets done.
Yes indeed. Well said.
Hey look, it’s the founding principle of my entire philosophical system.
Compete nonsense. You haven't been paying attention. And it's exactly this kind of attitude which will accelerate the problem. True, maybe some kind of human existence can survive...is that an argument?
And yes, the US is the world leader. What it does matters enormously on the world stage. That includes climate change.
We could honor the fallen as hero’s but for the well known sentiment that those who die for their [s]country[/s] economy are losers and suckers.
I have to say, I'm more in favor of him dying. I don't care whether he suffers. Sounds terrible, yes, but from my point of view it would (possibly) benefit the future of the human species. I feel the same way about Americans who continually vote for him - their dying off is a good thing in general.
To 'give up' on Biden and his cronies is not to 'give up', unless your horizon of action is as narrow as a prick.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Olivianuzzi/status/1312429131079057409[/tweet]
I wonder who the anonymous source is? It's a mystery.
Yes, it is giving up. No matter how much I dislike Biden, if we don't continue to push for legislation, we're guaranteeing nothing happens. This is true for any administration.
It's an easy position to take - this way we can look superior from behind our computers while doing no work, like most political hobbyists. You're welcome to it.
You might as well support offing the libertarians as well you wouldn't want those kind of ideas floating around.
You've demonstrated, over and over again, that you really don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Use your super-edgy, adolescent cynicism on someone else. Or better yet, keep your mouth shut.
I'm not suggesting killing anyone.
:yawn:
Sure, you just want them to die and don't care if they suffer or not - understood. After all it's for the good of humanity.
No, I don't care if Trump suffers. I prefer it if others didn't suffer.
We should all do what you do: write like an angsty teenager on a philosophy forum. I.e., nothing.
Dime a dozen. :yawn:
The opposite of the boy who cried wolf.
Well, he has brought a new level to the phrase 'trumped up', so with Covid-19... why not take 'bat shit crazy' to a whole new level as well?
Adults are talking. Quiet.
Indeed.
Yeah, because your solution - doing nothing, while complaining like a teen - is the "real" solution.
Stick to Twitter. ;)
Narrow as a prick.
:gasp: How edgy.
You're truly the Trump of the forum.
:kiss:
I am curious what other options you're thinking of specifically.
Those who look to the state to do their political work for them and deny other avenues of action are useless and complicit.
How will Biden act? Will he shine a spotlight on the consequences of Trump's poor judgment?
Politically, his illness (not to mention the many others who were with him that got infected) can't be helpful to Trump. The question is: how much will it hurt? Obviously, his base will remain loyal, so I think the consequences will be to solidify some of the "soft" Biden supporters, and perhaps sway a few additional. IOW, I expect polls conducted in the next couple of weeks to reflect a slight downward level of support for Trump.
That's true. I did feel that Biden did a good job with speaking directly to the American people. Trump seemed to be almost entirely oblivious.
If I were a democrat I would advise Harris to insistently point out that Trump is the devil incarnate.
His supporters support him and his haters hate him, not much changes from what Trump does.
But of course what is obvious is that he wouldn't have been gone to hospital if it wouldn't be serious. A mild cough you rest at your home. And the Trump White House, as usual, doesn't keep any secrets so, from the mixed statements tell something.
According to "fake-news" CNN:
That's happened twice so far, and here we are.
Civilization may be doomed to collapse (though we truly don't know if it will). Humanity isn't doomed.
Go further than that and you're peddling misinformation that's more dangerous than that of any CC denier.
Please remain humble for none of us are immune :flower:
And we will rise again :sparkle:
You support the guy whose lies resulted in 200,000 Americans dead. Not one complaint about that from you. So, crawl back under your rock, please. It's disgusting that you think you have any moral standing here.
My view on all this is I want Trump to survive, be defeated, and imprisoned.
:up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up:
I'm praying for him. (factor in the fact that I'm an atheist)
I quite agree, but I can add this:
If he lives... whatever.
If he dies... whatever.
I don't waste my concerns where there is honestly nothing worthy of that concern and he has certainly proven time and time again to not be worthy of concern, so sympathy or empathy won't come from me for that man.
My only desire ('wish') is that he is no longer in a position of power to govern.
If he is imprisoned... that's not my call or concern, so ... whatever.
Not sympathy from me either. But I am interested in seeing some justice served on this piece of garbage and his corrupt crime family.
When people feel morally right and think others are totally wrong, nearly evil, why be humble?
Anyway, I think that your country will survive this just fine just as Arizona will do also. I said to my children that remember this time as when you are older, so you can tell about how it was as a child during the 2020 corona-pandemic. Those stories may get younger people listening, but who knows.
Then you know more than I.
I don't support Trump any more than I support the infantile behavior with which this thread is filled.
Realize that this type of aggression towards anyone who even looks like they might have a different opinion than you, is exactly the reason figures like Trump get so much support.
Hadn't even noticed this.
What I find disgusting is that these words are coming from a moderator of a philosophy forum that has no less than 10,000 posts made. That's a lot of time spent with very little wisdom to show for it.
Funny thing is Trump has been on my radar as a con man/grifter and a epic asshat since the early 80's.
All the warning signs were there (probably so many some couldn't see the trees for the forest), but as being faithful isn't really that different than being gullible he found an easy mark to manipulate in America and form a cult of personality.
My current feelings on the matter have been the same for decades now and was reflected in what came out of the Donald Trump Roast some 9 years ago.
“Donald, I’m not even sure if you’re aware of this, but the only difference between you and Michael Douglas from the movie Wall Street is that no one’s going to be sad when you get cancer.” — Anthony Jeselnik
I didn't wish him to get Covid-19, but I'm certainly not sad about it. (The irony is thick, but he and his klan might think that has to do with an iron deficiency, so there's no point in explaining it.)
If justice is served or not... well... it's America , so I don't expect much. They elected this guy, so hey... you got what the system coupled with mass gullibility allows, so take ownership of it. I'll simply settle for him being out of a position of power.
You were one of the slimeballs downplaying this disease. I'm calling you out for what you are. Own it. 200,000 dead. Trump and scumbags like you who lied about the disease have no place in any moral conversation.
I’m sure that I’d be tempted to accidentally trip over a power cord or three, but, I probably couldn’t do it. Damn it all!
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
Like I said, scum. (Some on the right may have just got it wrong btw, but you, I believe, are a deliberate politically motivated liar, along the lines of @NOS4A2).
You have relatively influential people saying, repeating, and so instilling this idea. Do you really think he knew in all absolute terms he was repeating a lie and not just what he believed as truth? Even so, you may not know.
My understanding is as follows, coronavirus is "the flu", an evolved version sure, but this version is not even necessarily more deadly in an intrinsic sort of way simply it is pragmatically due to the fact it is more resistant to what would stop earlier versions of the flu in it's tracks- or at least slow it down tremendously. Basically, it's only more deadly due to the fact the recent immunity built up over generations doesn't "defeat" this evolved version as it would earlier versions. If I'm mistaken about any of these assertions please tell me as it's simple ignorance. And if not, aside from ignorance (ie. just being wrong), and flat out lying (which I couldn't imagine why an average person would do so), if someone is less advanced than you, whether in mind or logic, I mean. What's with the name calling? lol
A bacteria evolved in Japan that eats plastic. It was found at a plastic bottle recycling plant.
But true, this time will be different. I agree there's a lot regretable things happening. That doesnt change the story though. We're probably too far in to hold the temp increase below 2 degrees. We need to start long range planning for a different world independent of fossil fuel (as China is doing).
You clearly have a misunderstanding. They are not even in the same family.
One expects the person who wrote the forum guidelines to be consistent with them.
I've never been a supporter of Trump, yet what I think feeds the support for Trump is the condescending and hostile attitude toward his supporters. Or now I guess it's also those that don't attack him viciously. In the larger picture the hostility just increases the polarization, which just plays out to those in power. Better have the voters deeply divided and hating each other for the status quo to limp on: cannot have the opposition uniting! And you are sure your supporters will be on your side, as they hate the other side so much.
Yes, Trump is a very incompetent president and his actions (or rather inactions) has made it worst, but I wouldn't assume all deaths in this pandemic to him. If the US would have been as successful as Canada in the fight against the pandemic, about 83 000 Americans would have now died. Which just leaves 130 000 or so to the administration response. But if you couldn't use the Obama or Bush playbooks what to do at a time when a pandemic hits, then you couldn't.
Oh, see. There you go. All you needed to say.
I mean, for debate sake I will point out it's unlikely you're a virologist with access to an advanced laboratory or hang out with people who are and do but, yeah that's your source and obviously there are plenty. Misunderstandings are to be expected.
Turns out I was right. Overblown hysteria, fueled by corrupt media.
Nice of you to prove my point that you're a politically motivated liar and not just simply ignorant. Here's the context, the post you were responding to.
Quoting Punshhh
A million dead.
Anyway, as I said, done taking out the trash.
The flu is responsible for 290,000 to 650,000 deaths per year. There have been 1.03 million COVID deaths since the first death 9 months ago, and that's with extensive lockdowns, quarantines, mask-wearing policies, etc.
It's not overblown hysteria fueled by a corrupt media. The pandemic is serious and (most) governments are taking it seriously for a reason.
By this logic, I wonder where the South Koreans put the pandemic with their little death toll of 420 deaths from covid-19 in a country of 51 million population. If the Netherlands would have been as "successful" as the US, you would have now over 10 000 dead from the pandemic and not just over 6 000. Where would that put the statistics?
As said just above, If the ordinary seasonal flu kills half a million or so in the World annually and we are already at over one million deaths with covid, could we stop using the "it's as bad as the seasonal flu" argument?
Humans can't survive if the earth becomes like Venus.
True.
Ive started to realize that the people who broadcast preductions that no climate scientist supports will continue to do so because they don't care about the truth. That's true on both sides of the issue.
Definitely there are some people who say things contrary to science because they don't care about truth. But I think the vast majority are just idiots. Never underestimate a stupid person who thinks they're smart.
That covid isn't the killer virus that everyone had expected is painfully clear here, and the only ones still maintaining that it is, are in the sitting government who is being torn to shreds by the opposition for it. Meanwhile, the population has been in a state of lockdown for half a year, and legislation is being passed which gives the government power over people's private lives which is simply unconstitutional.
Go (re)read Edgar Allen Poe's "Masque of the Red Death" and see for yourself how the [s]Amy Coney Barrett[/s] 'super spreader event' at the WH on Sept. 26, clearly in hindsight, was a farce (Hegel) imitating art. :mask:
For over a year, before COVID-19 and before Impeachment and even before Mueller's public testimony, I've contended here and elsewhere that the 2020 general election would be a referendum on the incumbent, as it always is (no matter who the challenger would be), and not a "choice" between candidates like 2016, etc. No matter 'the status quo ante, neoliberal, shitshow' that follows, I look forward to the defeat, disgrace & demise of this incumbent (Russian asset), who is the clear and present "greater evil".
Quoting Tzeentch
You're either a blissful ignoramous or disingenuous tRumpy troll. :shade:
Here is a sample of apples-to-apples comparative facts illustrating how deadly a novel virus that's highly infectious, lacking therapeutics, three to five times mortality rate than influenza, inflicts lasting acute injuries to major organs in about one in ten survivors, and for which no reliable safe vaccine will be available for years (if ever e.g. HIV):
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/445016
Kijk eens wat verder dan het NOS journaal.
These are the official numbers shared by the National Institute of Public Health.
No amount of loud bleating is going to change these.
No amount of stupidity is going to make you right.
Not caring about the truth is insufficient. What was mysterious or conflated with political and economic short-termism in the context of climate change denial has become less ambiguous and much scarier in the context of Covid. Anti-maskers and people who spit and cough on strangers, world leaders who know that lifting lockdown will kill thousands and hurt the economy lift it anyway.
What's become apparent to me is that not only do people not care about the truth, their truth is always how they want the world to be. You don't want to be at risk in a deadly pandemic? Don't want to wear a mask or socially distance? Then your truth is the virus is a hoax. You want to drive an SUV and not recycle and buy all the pretty things? Fine, then climate change is a hoax. Want to have a hard border between you and the EU and no border between you and Ireland? That's completely reasonable. And God forbid anyone reference things like facts that say otherwise, tantamount to spray painting a target on your own back.
It seems that almost 50% of the world is living in a completely different reality, something akin to a Twilight Zone episode in which a petulant, tantrum-throwing child has the power to bend reality to its infantile, ignorant, selfish will. And these mentally unstable manchildren vote and are really energetic on social media.
This doesn't make any sense as this is a global event with a global response to it. This isn't a Dutch issue only, it's a global issue.
You have totally different political situations in different countries, hence to assume a single political narrative is absurd. For example, in my country the opposition isn't taring to shreds the administration on the Covid-19 response BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES DEMANDED tough lock-down measures to be implemented and the young women in charge of our leftist administration did do exactly that. At least opposition politicians here are consistent enough that they are fine if the administration accepts their demands and hence they are not against their own demands later.
You know Tzeentch, it's one thing to say that corona-virus is a non-issue seven months ago especially when the WHO hadn't declared a global pandemic. Yes, there have been earlier numerous epidemic breakouts that the news media have followed which luckily have ended with only a few deaths. Yes, the media usually makes everything a more bigger threat than they are in reality to get people to follow the news. However, to assume now that Covid-19 isn't a killer is simply false. If someone said it would kill tens of millions and this didn't happen (because of the huge response), that surely doesn't make it to be a hoax of some sort.
And as pointed out, this is still underway.
This made me laugh. I think you're right.
Quoting Punshhh
I understand. More misinformation just leaves people not trusting anyone or over reacting. Better to not shout at all than shout untruths.
It's both sides. It's not truth vs lies. It's battle of the bullshit.
False equivalence. Environmental concern is overwhelmingly backed by science, that is, the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of climate action. The other "side" of this debate is that science is a hoax, that everything is fine, that all climate change is to do with natural cycles of the Earth and Sun, and that we can safely increase fossil fuel consumption. Sure, you can point to some lunatics on both sides, but to conclude from that that the whole argument is bullshit, that each side of that argument is as bad as the other, is irrational. Like Trump saying that violent white supremacists and BLM protesters are as bad as one another just because of opportunistic thuggery on both sides.
Quoting creativesoul
:up:
A few lunatics representing environmental concern is not responsible for incidence of depression and suicidal ideation surrounding climate science as evidenced by reddit.
It's that some well meaning person suggested we should take seriously the threat of the earth becoming like Venus. It's that someone failed to explain that "tipping point" does not mean doom. It just means we cant go back.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I dont want to wake up this forum's psych ward, but theres misinformation on both sides of political issues as well.
It is very much characteristic of the [bullshit] side of the argument to conclude that, because the dangers of unconstrained fossil fuel consumption is bad, that means that the argument for climate action is bullshit. That's effectively saying that if facts make us feel bad, they aren't facts any more, which is a whacked way of reasoning.
The reason why climate change is depressing is not because people are presenting facts, or even that the occasional person exaggerates them. What is depressing is knowing that, even armed with all the facts, we can't do anything about it because the majority of us would rather believe the guys who tell us it's okay, it's a scientific hoax, and you can just keep burning oil forever with no consequences.
There is every reason to feel depressed. It is a depressing situation.
My Indians are listening quite intentently and in many cases are already leading us home. :flower:
Climate science and economic policy recommendations are still a bit different from each other.
I lost all hope after following the debate on nuclear energy in Europe decades ago. Something where energy policy and environmental policy cross ought to be topic where facts should be the real factor, but no. Even then, both sides had totally different facts to show, which were totally opposite to each other. The simple fact is that when anything reaches such political controversy and becomes a hot potato, facts at some level fade to the background and political attacks and accusations take over the discussion.
Best to discuss issues where politicians haven't taken the center stage. Then solutions based on facts can be found.
I hope I'm reading you incorrectly, and you're not saying we should not discuss climate change on grounds that politicians cannot discuss it well.
I'd take that grain of salt when a matter comes to be the focus of politicians. Only that.
But of course, politicians are there to solve the moral dilemmas of policies...a judge cannot simply read the law book and make his or her verdict.
Ah. If a politician promised to follow the science, I would remain sceptical until she demonstrated it, but at least relieved they were not promising to ignore the science. Again, even in the most pessimistic situation, there are better and worse outcomes.
I dont know anybody who reasons this way. I think you're making stuff up.
“Panglossian falsehoods convene the crowd, discouraging truths disperse it.” ~Thomas Ligotti
:mask:
Pence is also a stable genius but from another stable.
Right now it's the best I can do :flower:
Forests and trees maybe.
Observing my religious family members, it’s pretty clear to me that that is the reason they are religious: because it would be just awful if God didn’t exist, therefore he does.
These various “truther” movements, who think that they alone are aware of the secret truth that THEY don’t want you to know, are effectively proto-religions already. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that they choose their beliefs on the grounds that it would be too awful otherwise, too. Even beliefs about malevolent cabals controlling the world etc, because the alternative to that is that evil is banal and omnipresent, and nobody is really in control of anything, which is much scarier than just a few villains without whom — if only the good guys could defeat them — everything would be just fine.
I said its better to avoid spreading misinformation. You disagree?
Quoting Punshhh
They do controlled burns for the fuel in the ground. Trump was apparently briefed but didnt understand everything that was said. If you think the forest fires are caused entirely by climate change, you're as wrong as Trump.
:up: :cry:
Well, you know I have the truth, sir
While all you have is lies
Put on the special glasses
See the reality behind
You know that I'm awake, sir
While you're asleep and blind
How do I know? They told me so
In capital letters in a book I got signed
(Seven Ascended Masters)
A scientific issue that creates political discussion usually means that the topic has a) opposing economic interests at hand or b) some moral issue linked with it that has made a lobby / pressure group to act. Usually politicians don't rock the boat because science. What they are interested is in voters.
The fact is that a majority of issues hardly appear in the media if both the administration and the opposition have nothing against it (and no powerful lobbies create discord), things go through without even notable interest from the news media. And this [i]does happen[/I].
A telling example is ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project started by both US and USSR and other nations in 1985 and now has as member states China, the European Union, India, Japan, the Russian Federation, South Korea, and the United States as members of the project (Australia and Kazakhstan as additional members) working together. The project has cost about 20 billion dollars. To put this into context, the International Space Station has cost over 50 billion dollars and the space shuttle program with it's five shuttles and 134 flights (and two failures) cost a bit over 200 billion dollars. Yet that the US, Russia and China are working together isn't well known... perhaps for the best, that Trump isn't aware of it.
(Reagan and Gorbachev decided in 1985 in Reykjavik "emphasized the potential importance of the work aimed at utilizing controlled thermonuclear fusion for peaceful purposes and, in this connection, advocated the widest practicable development of international cooperation in obtaining this source of energy, which is essentially inexhaustible, for the benefit of all mankind.")
(And now in this Milennium, the experimental fusion reactor taking shape in France.)
This is along the lines of Jungian shadow, isnt it?
Indeed, hence the default scepticism. But ultimately I don't much give a shit whether a politician acts on scientific advice for moral reasons or for votes. The sad thing is that voteworthy policy isn't likely to include effective climate action, since a-holes aren't going to vote for the person who says you can't drive your 4x4 or have 24-hour delivery anymore because climate change. Maybe the issue is less with politicians than the a-holes who vote for them. After all, if the majority thought that climate change was a priority problem, cynical politicians would adopt climate change policy just to get elected and be judged by their effectiveness on that platform.
The controlled burns would only ever be effective over a tiny fraction of the area concerned. To use the complacency in carrying out these controlled burns as the cause of the extensive wild fires of the last few years is a form of miss information. Anyway, I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of ecological crises, that is for the climate change thread.
My point was that a leader in a position of power through ignorance is spreading misinformation about climate change and worse still has pulled out of the Paris accord and stopped funding the WHO, for petty personal reasons. In the meantime the Co2 emissions are still accelerating.
Fortunately industry is starting to make the necessary changes, which is a step in the right direction, but it does need political change if we are going to move quickly enough.
Labour under Corbyn did an okay job against Theresa May. Next to Corbyn, the Green Party are centrists. People aren't avoiding the Green Party because of their social democracy views, given that the second and third largest parties in England are also social democracy parties. They don't vote Green because they don't give a crap about the world their great grandchildren will inherit: that is far too abstract and long term for your average Brit. That, and no one's beer-bellied dad ever said "This is a Green Party house and that's the end of it."
Did the Trump kids know that they'd been possibly exposed to Hicks and refuse to wear masks anyway at last week's debate?
That scientists are concerned that the earth will become like Venus due to AGW. That's not an exaggeration. It's flat out wrong.
Quoting Punshhh
Where did you get your forestry degree? I Reckon University? :joke:
Quoting Punshhh
I agree. Dictatorship is needed. Hope you're having a wonderful October. Are the leaves changing there?
LOL! President Biden's first order of business should be to sign an extradition treaty with Yemen.
:rofl: :up:
It's to early for the fall here as of now, we've just had a week of rain, we get battered by the cyclones coming in off the Atlantic at this time of year. I'm looking forward to a nice autumn in front of a log fire. My qualification at the University was on how to make things out of trees, I'm a cabinetmaker.
I haven't seen the last couple, but I always used to before every election. Always voted Green locally, never at a GE though. I just skimmed their latest manifesto. What do you think is alarming? Or is it the scale of the reformist ambition, rather than individual policies?
Physician Swipes At Trump
In theory, these SS agents should now be quarantined for 14 days, for an act whose sole purpose was to feed Trump's ego.
How can this stunt possibly be given a pro-Trump spin?
An increase in the greenhouse effect isn't a danger to human life (as far as scientists know). Primates originally evolved during the PETM, an event where the earth became so warm that rainforests extended to the arctic. We can deal with that.
It's the volatility that's going to be a challenge. Our species has survived extreme climate volatility in the past, but we had a very small population and whatever social structure we had, it was apparently sufficient to handle all the migration that would have been brought on by events like the Younger Dryas.
Will civilization as we know it survive the coming changes in coastlines and in the location of arable and inhabitable land? In short, can human civilization adapt to a more volatile climate? Climate scientists don't know. All we can do is speculate. I think the form a person's speculations take will reflect their basic outlook. Pessimists will lean toward "no." Optimists don't even have to think about it. They're sure we'll adapt.
I've come to doubt that the US government, as it is, can deal with the issue effectively. I think push will come to shove in the US and our adaptation will happen as the crisis is unfolding, as opposed to China, which is starting now to deal with it. It's just the way it is: democracy doesn't weather crises very well.
What should we do until then? There isn't a whole lot the average individual can do to influence things one way or another. If you want to position yourself in a safer place, move away from the coast and head north. Otherwise, enjoy life to the max. Life is short.
Wow! Do you ever make custom furniture?
As easily as you’ve given it an anti-Trump spin, except without having to use another’s opinion to form ones own.
He is waving thank you to loyal supporters.
I would say though, that I am referring mainly to older voters, the politics of the younger voter is probably far greener.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/presssec/status/1313138387994509313?s=21[/tweet]
In your summary of climate change, I think you missed out the consequence of the mass extinction event we're presiding over. As an example, trees are struggling these days, there are lots of exotic diseases being imported from other parts of the world. We are currently watching all our Ash trees die of Ash Die Back disease, along with Horse Chestnuts trying to survive a voracious leaf minor. There are worrying reports of Oak trees being in trouble next, which will be devastating, as the Uk is populated with a large population of ancient oak trees.
Link?
Quoting Punshhh
Never mind the deforestation, the collapse of environment, the loss of the most fertile farmland, the mass extinctions , the loss of pollinating insects, the expanding deserts, never mind the radical change in society to become carbon neutral, how we going to deal with sea-level rise, and the climate refugees it will be producing?
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-refugees-seas-home.html
The Greenland ice sheet has passed the point of no return and will all melt. That's a sea level rise of 6 meters locked in, not counting Antarctic ice and mountain glaciers.
Yep. My favorite tree is the Dogwood (childhood associations). They're under attack from some virus and are expected to be extinct soon. The North American Chestnut would be extinct if it wasnt an object of fascination for foresters. Not global warming though, it was some imported organism. As it turns out, just about any plant from Asia loves North America, so we have an on going heartbreak from watching native species being edged out. I'm making peace with it. Sorta.
This issue is distinct from climate change. Why are you wanting to fuse them?
Could you post a picture of your furniture? I love handmade furniture. I have a couple of tables I traded for paintings back when I knew a bunch of wood workers.
Same way we deal with anything, the best we can. There's some psychology to discuss regarding how people react to the threat of disaster and profound change (for people who are intrigued by that sory of thing). See the movie Melancholia if you haven't.
UBI is also backed by the Glib Dems. I think that's going to be a mainstay of the progressive platform in the near future; 51% of voters support it. Thanks, Covid! The Glib Dems in 2010 were also a big reforming party.
Obviously we're both guessing, but I honestly think we'd find more support for UBI than for cancelling road investment and replacing it with public transport and cycle path investment. That shit just doesn't fly. It really should.
OK, give it to me. Play the role of Kayleigh Mcenany (before she tested positive) and explain what's good about Trump being driven around by a Secret Service man (risking his exposure) and waving at supporters. Also let me know if you think this positive spin will gain him votes.
I know that's what he did, but why should voters think this was a good thing? It's undeniable that it exposed the secret service men to some unnecessary risk. Explain the positive that offsets this negative.
The negative view is that it's another example of his poor judgment - the same poor judgment that contributed to the infection of a number of White House staff and other supporters (like Christie).
The negative spin will not turn any strong supporters against him, so the net result of the "spinning" is only relevant if it has some persuasive power to an undecided voter; ie. the positive spin needs to be more powerful than the negative for relevancy.
I'm sure his strong supporters will cheer this, but that alone won't get him votes. Trump's #1 political weakness has been his perceived response to Covid. It seems to me the net result of this incident is to cement that negative perspective.
Putting on my tinfoil hat, it's another stunt to distract us all from the GOP working to make sure 2020 will be the last free election in America.
There was here a good article of this as one doctor referred Trump's actions being result of a cortisone psychosis (see here), unfortunately in Finnish (behind a paywall). Add there that Trump was obviously fuming at chief of staff Meadows saying that "the next 48 hours are critical" and the fact that likely Trump is using all kind of drugs already, his actions 100% Trump.
In my view, he is simply not fit for the office. Perhaps he could be made "Tweeter-in-Chief" of the USA, that would be enough.
A giant paper machet Trump will be waving to adoring crowds from the roof of the White House
The GOP as a decent chance of holding on to the senate, despite trailing the democrats by more than 5 points nationally. There don't seem to be any signs that their support is collapsing. If anything, it's more highly mobilised than ever. In terms of pure power politics, the last 4 years have been phenomenally successful to the GOP. They've been fighting a rearguard action for decades now, and yet they're arguably more powerful than they've been in a long time.
They know a crash is coming eventually. The question is, how far do they go to avoid it?
Trump's tried and tested tactic of obfuscating one scandal with a new unrelated stunt (distraction) is basically his only manoeuvre, and the timing after the debate is just too convenient. Now he can say that he suffered alongside the America people, and then turn around and downplay "the China virus" because he survived it. The fact that he seems to only have spent a couple days in the hospital (and was being chauffeured around by secret service all the while) makes me additionally suspicious. (I also wondered whether or nor he caught it back in March and just concealed the fact, as many would have advised). That would explain why he has been so fearless regarding masks.
I know I'm being a dick for insinuating that Trump is a liar and the the current White-House Administration are more than happy to chew their own lips off about this, but can we so easily and quickly forget the sheer volume of lies and bull-shit of the last 4 years?
It let’s the people know he’s ok. The man is running the country, after all, and he’s in the at-risk category. It also has the added bonus of revealing to everyone how ridiculously his opponents will twist anything he does. A wave from a car can send them into fits. Now they pretend to be worried for law enforcement after months of dismissing wholesale violence against police. It’s a thing of beauty.
:rofl: What a shitcunt.
That sounds like an interpretation that would appeal exclusively to Trump supporters. Surely you're aware that he's perceived negatively on his COVID response (irrespective of reality - just look at the polls). This stunt doesn't seem likely to improve that perception. That was the point of my question. This doesn't seem that it can help his chances, only hurt (neutral at best).
I imagine you also believe Trump won the debate. If so, wake up to the fact that he probably gained no votes from his performance. Your positive views of the man does not translate to any more votes than the one you cast.
I believe Biden won the debate and even said so.
As for his little ride and wave, I just do not possess the same anxiety towards his actions, and I actually liked what he did. The response sounds like grasping at straws to me. I could care less if they translate to votes.
Obviosly you're guessing.
Yes, the general public wouldn't countenance either. You really should examine the ideology of your average Tory, Lib Dem and a good proportion of Labour's supporters. Who would laugh UBI out of town. The British public has bought the ideology of no one gets anything for nothing, someone else who's working hard will have to pay for it and that people on benefits, are lazy scum. Do you really think that half the population would welcome wholesale hand outs to the whole population when they think that?
(2) I also see no reason to doubt that the covIDIOT-in-Chief was treated this past weekend in Walter Reed Medical Center for 'COVID pneumonia' with a number of powerful pharmaceuticals (but no HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE) & various suppliments, including an unapproved experimental drug for which "he" signed a compassionate use waiver.
(3) I see no reason to doubt that he bullied his way out of the ICU isolation in order to return tonight to the White House prematurely and while still highly contagious (depravely indifferent to the lives of Secret Service agents and WH staff) and at grave risk for stroke due a powerful steroid (usually reserved only for use on 'gravely ill' COVID-19 patients) his doctors have given him just in order to produce & stage propaganda videos for his (IMHO) already-lost reelection campaign.
(4) Lastly, I see no reason not to expect that this "October Surprise" will not surprise (trick) or shock (treat) most, except, of course, MAGA-sheeple & trolls: the covIDIOT-in-Chief's condition will 'take a turn for the worse' in the coming days or weeks, requiring that bloated, crashing, corpse to be medivac'd back to Walter Reed.
:mask:
I'm 180 Proof and I approve the following messages:
[quote=Anand Giridharadas, The.Ink (excerpt)]
He is a weak man who has always longed to be a strong man, and he is a weak man’s idea of a strong man, and right before he got sick he made it clearer than ever that he intends to be a strongman. Some, knowing their history and knowing the pretensions of weak men and strongmen and weak men who become strongmen, have warned us about this potential from the beginning. But others, more cautious, more trusting in the power of institutions to save us, waited until recently to begin sounding the alarm. This is how democracy ends, they began to whisper. This is how it happens. He is attempting to do this right before our eyes... [/quote]
https://the.ink/p/the-illness-he-is
*
re: "Il Duce" Cheeto Trumpolini :point:
Antifa must be the super majority in 28 days at the polls like Allied troops were 76 years ago on D-Day. The road to the eventual ruins of Neoliberalism (i.e. plutocracy via keynesian militarism), etc goes through ceaseless resistance to and the destruction of Neofascism (i.e. trumpism via oligarchic, white nationalist, populism) now, today, tomorrow and, especially, the day after tommorrow.
https://youtu.be/2zLpaUcubHM
Even broken clocks - e.g. ex-GOP operatives & hacks - are right twice a day; and now they are right - do you know what time it is? :fire:
I'll post something in the Get Creative thread.
Oh? You get your knowledge that
Quoting Punshhh
from divine revelation, I suppose. If you're going to be an idiot, I'll leave you to it.
Thanks. :up:
:100:
Has Project Veritas ever uncovered anything that's true, or is it all just them making shit up?
Do you care if his actions translate to infections?
You're saying that the benefit (you and other committed supporters liked it) outweighs the negatives (exposure of the SS agents to the virus and the loss of votes of those who feel this cements their view regarding his poor response to Covid). That sounds narcissistic...and/or crazy because I'd think you would want him reelected.