Politics 2020 - the gift that keeps giving

[Volourn]

You have defended their actions throughout these protests/riots constantly.  Sure, you have 'criticized' them but you defend them and BLm byu saying 'they aren't real organizations with no leaders'. L0LZ

[Malcador]

Seems like a waste of time by the DOJ,  rather hilarious assertion that

" that they are not targeting free speech rights, but rather "coordinated, criminal activity ... and violence related to riots, destruction of federal property and violence against law enforcement officers."" 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Malcador

[Gromnir]

2 minutes ago, Volourn said:

You have defended their actions throughout these protests/riots constantly.  Sure, you have 'criticized' them but you defend them and BLm byu saying 'they aren't real organizations with no leaders'. L0LZ

proof.

we have pointed out the inaccuracy o' vol crazy train generalizations of antifa and blm. is not same as defending the behaviours, and goals o' antifa. show where antifa as an organization supports rape as a tactic. you made such a claim and never backed it up with proof. 

constant recognizing the rabid and unsubstantiated gross generalizations made by vol concerning any number o' groups is not support o' such groups.

as an attorney, we represented gangs and white supremacists and religious groups with questionable motives (cults.) we made certain each such client understood how we personal found their organization and members to be repugnant gutter trash and if we saw 'em bleeding to death in an alley we would possibly hesitate before calling 911, so help us God. such personal disgust did not prevent us from defending their first amendment claims, 'cause even though we saw such clients as ambulatory human offal, they might nevertheless be victims o' injustice. history made clear to us how it weren't so long ago that naacp and homosexuals were treated the same way we felt 'bout the kkk and the crips and recent events should make clear to all that society may regress as well as evolve.

we criticized vol. is ez and is the right thing to do. criticize vol is not the same as supporting antifa.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Volourn]

 

"we have pointed out the inaccuracy o' vol crazy train generalizations of antifa and blm."

That's proof enough. Defending BLM and Antifa on any issue is immoral. I have seen many post from Twitter and the like from Antifa and BLM celebrating all sorts of violent actions. They encourage and brag when it happens to those they see as their 'enemies'. They celebrate when those who oppose them get serious illnesses (like that Kanadian professor). 

 

This isn't a court of law.  And, no, the KKK should never be defended. They are scum. PERIOD.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Volourn said:

 

 

 

This isn't a court of law.  

nope, but call out lies for what they are shouldn't be something we do only with a magistrate forcing us to do so.  lie 'bout antifa doesn't sudden become ok 'cause vol sees 'em as bad.

state allows pro-life people to put flyers on car windshields at a state fair but not a white supremacist group? why? what is the basis for the difference in treatment? if the chilling behaviour is based on the content o' the message, then is unconstitutional. no guilt for Gromnir.

we shouldn't need explain such.

late edit: am hopeful is an unnecessary clarification, but strict speaking we didn't defend as we were invariably the plaintiff's attorney and the government were defense.

HA! Good Fun!

ps the only clients we ever actual regretted defending were purveyors o' adult entertainment 'cause our efforts directly resulted in more exploitation o' women who were statistic vulnerable.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Gromnir

[Darkpriest]

So, any bets how this will be spinned? 

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-police-department-gangs-fbi-shootings/6397730/

[Gromnir]

19 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

So, any bets how this will be spinned? 

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-police-department-gangs-fbi-shootings/6397730/

spun? those who perpetrate unprovoked violence should be prosecuted according to the law. 

...

am suspecting an unspoken premise.

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:

So, any bets how this will be spinned? 

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-police-department-gangs-fbi-shootings/6397730/

Have seen it spun as terrorism and used to cudgel all peaceful protests. But these are pro-cop meatheads, though.

Seems like nothing really significant other than the gangs named are going to have the eyes of the CPD on them. 

[Orogun01]

5 hours ago, Gromnir said:

spun? those who perpetrate unprovoked violence should be prosecuted according to the law. 

...

am suspecting an unspoken premise.

HA! Good Fun!

Spin usually refers to the media, you know. Those unelected, unaccountable, unreliable folks that keep trying to tell us about the peaceful protests.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Orogun01 said:

Spin usually refers to the media, you know. Those unelected, unaccountable, unreliable folks that keep trying to tell us about the peaceful protests.

there you go... and weren't the media who did it neither. we knew somebody would not be able to help themselves and would supply the implied premise.

admitted, we suspected the muslim ban would be a bridge too far for most to actual defend, though you took a half-hearted stab at gaslighting. even so, we were having faith somebody wouldn't be able to control their more base impulse. congrats.

btw, spin, traditional, is referencing efforts by politicians, public officials or corporate entities to present stories to the media and/or public in such a way as to be most beneficial to their interests. in recent decades, the meaning has shifted a bit particular with the proliferation o' cable media "news" outfits having recognized/rediscovered that their audiences prefer stories which align with their already established beliefs and preconceptions.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spin doctor

edit: avoiding doublepost

keep in mind is kinda surreal to quibble over spin when we got one candidate routinely doctorng video, attributing false quotes to his opponent and spreading unsubstantiated snakes on a plane conspiracy theories. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 2, 2020 by Gromnir

[Orogun01]

@GromnirBuddy if the worst thing you have against Trump is that he didn't build wall or ban Muslims and behaved like a politician; then you might as well call him the best President we had in decades. For once we are not involved in a war and we might see a return of troops from the Middle East(That Obama promise), we might get lower medical cost because of executive action forcing Big Pharma to sell at the same price as they would overseas (That ObamaCare promise)

I would have hoped that a man that worked in the legal system would know for a fact that public pressure sways cases and the media spin has done that plenty of times. It must be sad going senile...maybe that's why you like Biden.

[Gromnir]

there is almost the exact same number o' troops in the middle east today as were the case in 2016. same foreign wars and near same troop levels. prescription costs actual went up on average this year. the wall were always a boondoggle... don't need a link. china were not paying for the trade war by having to meet us tariffs. etc.

and you are way off on what we think is the worst things trump has done, though am gonna once again admit that anybody who voted for trump after he made his muslim ban promise should be embarrassed and cannot make claims of having voted their conscience w/o appearing utter laughable.

and no, trump is not behaving like a politician. autocrat. we expect spin from politicians at the national level. as we noted, spin is traditional linked to political actors and their efforts to advance their own goals by presenting to media and public a version o' events most likely to benefit the politician. from even reputable politicians we expect the classic pivot. we also accept many broken campaign promises. however, the level o' mendacity and corruption from trump is beyond any expectations even we had back in 2016. false equivalency nonsense does not serve you in this situation. spin is what happens when politicians is bending over backwards to avoid the outright lie. trump has forgone any pretense o' honesty.

also, we never claimed the media is blameless insofar as spin and influence, so strawman yourself to death if you want to. imagine another Gromnir response and then respond to it?  that said, thank goodness the media need not be elected. we sure as heck don't want the media accountable to the electorate or to the government.  

“But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.”-- J Holmes, abrams v. united states (1919)

the idea behind the marketplace of ideas metaphor is that truth is more likely to be revealed if freedom o' expression is embraced. hardly a perfect system, and the internet is making increasing easy for people to avoid the market and instead loyalty buy, but the alternative is state run media which is swell right up until you get an administration like the current one.

Harry Belafonte Blasts Trump After White House Spox Posts Fake Biden Video

oh, and muslim ban. tell us again how it were never a promised muslim ban. tell us why it were ok for americans to vote for a candidate promising a muslim ban. fear? *chuckle* is exact what trump is trying to do in 2020. worse? this time is not fear o' foreigners but o' american citizens, and that should scare trump voters. it were middle east islamic terrorists and murders from beyond the southern border in 2016. today trump is selling fear he has costumed as radical democrats and blm protesters.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[Amentep]

Gentle reminder, dear readers, that we ask that the users of this board treat one another with respect, even when opinions differ.  Ad hominem attacks on fellow posters you disagree with is not really within the spirit of the forum guidelines.

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Gromnir said:

t

oh, and muslim ban. tell us again how it were never a promised muslim ban. tell us why it were ok for americans to vote for a candidate promising a muslim ban. fear? *chuckle* is exact what trump is trying to do in 2020. worse? this time is not fear o' foreigners but o' american citizens, and that should scare trump voters. it were middle east islamic terrorists and murders from beyond the southern border in 2016. today trump is selling fear he has costumed as radical democrats and blm protesters.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Gromnir if you honestly want  a   reason why anyone would vote for Trump after the Muslim Ban that is easy and its the same reason I gave you last time, it wasnt  a ban on all Muslim countries therefore it wasnt  a real Muslim Ban. If I was a Trump supporter I would only be concerned if it was a ban on all Muslim countries ...so no issue there about voting for Trump again if that reason is a real concern?

I agree the  ban was not logical and it was inconsistent with application in certain countries like Nigeria, Myanmar and Venezuela because these countries pose no risk of people attacking the USA due to Islamic Extremism ( Boko Haram operate in forests and very impoverished rural areas....they dont catch planes and go attack the USA ) but all other countries are definitely anti -American, brutal dictatorships  and or do have links to Islamic extremism so its justified to ban them  because these countries cannot guarantee adequate security checks at airports or simply just dont have stable internal government security forces to do enough to prevent the potential of people using the country to attack the USA in a myriad of different ways

 So you  can criticize the Muslim Ban heavily but not because its  a sweeping ban of all Muslims, its selective and in some cases justified 

[Amentep]

17 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

 it wasnt  a ban on all Muslim countries therefore it wasnt  a real Muslim Ban.

What Gromnir is referring to is what Trump talked about when he was Candidate Trump not his executive orders as President Trump.  This is what was posted to his website, as a candidate -  

Quote

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.” - Donald J. Trump

 

Emphasis mine.  This text was later removed, but Trump stood by it IIRC during the trials for the Executive Orders he issued that were a series of bans of people from majority Muslim countries (and it took three tries to get a version that the Supreme Court didn't knock down; as I recall the third one went through due to a provision added that would allow people to go around the ban, or be waived of its effects).

[Guard Dog]

I don't think it's fair to say Gromnir supports Biden. In his case Biden is a lesser enough evil to make him palatable.

Can't say I'd agree Biden is a lesser evil. Especially since it's looking likely a Biden win comes with control of Congress. That should make all of you VERY nervous. I'd say he was a different evil than Trump. Better in some ways. Worse in others. 

Voting for the bear over the lion is only choosing whose dinner you become. But, there are other options on your ballot.

[Volourn]

Biden has been politics for decades, was VP for 8 years, he has not proven to be an ally to to blacks. His VP choice all but called him racist (yeah, she said I ain't callin' you no racist... BUT...) LMAO He's done way more damage to minorities than Trump has done even when you take into account some of Trump's iffy racial policies as a 'businessman'. then again, Trump also got rewards for being 'pro minority'. Go figure. Mix messages.

 

They are both trash. Neither should get a moral person's support. Vote for neither.

 

That said, I still expect Biden to win, but I kinda hope Trump does because that will create more butthurt.

 

If Trump loses, he'll vanish into the night and his 'followers' won't do much (except maybe some extemists). Or the Dems will play politics and have him hung since that is their end goal to show they 'won'.

If Trump wins, holy moly, will the next 4 years be a fun ride. LMAO

[Malcador]

32 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I don't think it's fair to say Gromnir supports Biden. In his case Biden is a lesser enough evil to make him palatable.

Can't say I'd agree Biden is a lesser evil. Especially since it's looking likely a Biden win comes with control of Congress. That should make all of you VERY nervous. I'd say he was a different evil than Trump. Better in some ways. Worse in others. 

Voting for the bear over the lion is only choosing whose dinner you become. But, there are other options on your ballot.

Why would it make us nervous? Well, you Americans anyway. Can't be much worse than Trump and the utterly servile Congress he had for 2 years.

[BruceVC]

23 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I don't think it's fair to say Gromnir supports Biden. In his case Biden is a lesser enough evil to make him palatable.

Can't say I'd agree Biden is a lesser evil. Especially since it's looking likely a Biden win comes with control of Congress. That should make all of you VERY nervous. I'd say he was a different evil than Trump. Better in some ways. Worse in others. 

Voting for the bear over the lion is only choosing whose dinner you become. But, there are other options on your ballot.

 

GD you know you can sometimes be depressing, I would strongly advise  you not to accept a new job doing something like " motivational speaker at a high school around  the prosperous and bright political future the USA  has "  ....please think of the kids before taking that type of job 

[BruceVC]

11 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Why would it make us nervous? Well, you Americans anyway. Can't be much worse than Trump and the utterly servile Congress he had for 2 years.

Because if the Democrats control both the House and Senate I assume they could  pass realistically any bill or law ..or attempt to pass?  At the moment no one party controls both the House and Senate. And there are real concerns around extreme left populism that could severely impact the USA economy and or implement laws that lead to further divisiveness and acrimony between left and right ...and I can think of several, concerning extreme left laws or new bills  that concern me immensely 

Edited September 2, 2020 by BruceVC

[Malcador]

11 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Because if the Democrats control both the House and Senate I assume they could  pass realistically any bill or law ..or attempt to pass?  At the moment no one party controls both the House and Senate. And there are real concerns around extreme left populism that could severely impact the USA economy and or implement laws that lead to further divisiveness and acrimony between left and right ...and I can think of several, concerning extreme left laws or new bills  that concern me immensely 

The Democrats are extreme left, now ?

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Malcador said:

The Democrats are extreme left, now ?

No but there are  important Democrat members, like Sanders  and Warren, who could influence both Harris or Biden, mostly Harris, to implement well meaning but intrinsically, socialist and or damaging  policies that do real harm to the USA and what defines being American

This is a real concern to some Americans, and others globally because of the global impact,  and shouldn't be automatically dismissed

[Malcador]

Just now, BruceVC said:

No but there are  important Democrat members, like Sanders  and Warren, who could influence both Harris or Biden, mostly Harris, to implement well meaning but intrinsically, socialist and or damaging  policies that do real harm to the USA and what defines being American

This is a real concern to some Americans, and others globally because of the global impact,  and shouldn't be automatically dismissed

What policies you think will endanger that which "defines being American" ?  What, they're going to stop them for being loud, vulgar and ignorant ? And I think you're overstating the influence Sanders and Warren will have over a Biden administration - baby steps would be the most one could hope for. 

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

23 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

@KaineParker

Yeah, just to be clear, there is absolutely a good chance Biden doesn't win. That's not in any way guaranteed. The problem is the writer is a blatant hack. "NATE SILVER TWITTER MELTDOWN", "Nate Silver predicted Hillary would win!", "Nate Silver points out obvious criticisms with trash reporting and is therefore a hack", etc. Who do you think you're convincing (besides other already "very good"-brained people) when you write ridiculous tabloid-esque garbage like this in the face of all evidence and reason? Out of serious poll aggregators, 538 was the only one that gave Trump a chance (~30%, IIRC) and cautioned Democrats against presumptuously declaring victory - I literally remember looking at their model and them saying the exact thing that happened (that he'd be very unlikely to win the popular vote, but that there was nevertheless a realistic chance of a few close Trump victories in key swing states that would give him an electoral vote victory) could very well happen before it ever did. 30% is the equivalent of rolling a 1D10 and getting a 1, 2, or 3. Anyone who's ever rolled a die at any point in their life (or has even the most rudimentary understanding of statistics...which I guess is not nearly everyone these days) should know that that is not very unlikely at all.

I got you.

The segment of the right that I assume this guy is playing to (alt-light/alt-right and paleocons) are rooted in an internet culture obsessed with defeating enemies on the battlefield of ideas instead of critique or analysis of ideas. This translates to a tendency of attacking people they see as representation of something they don't like, hence we get NATE SHILLVER BTFO when something he predicted having a 70% chance of happening didn't. To me it's more boring than anything, it hasn't changed in over a decade.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

4 minutes ago, Malcador said:

What policies you think will endanger that which "defines being American" ?

They'll force Americans on a vegan halal diet.