The All Things Political Topic - As a Bright Lord bears Beacons of flame.

[BruceVC]

25 minutes ago, Gorth said:

You don't need to remain a member of the government to be relevant in politics. Trump isn't president anymore. I dare you to call him irrelevant in US politics.

True but being relevant in politics is not the same as being relevant in the ruling  elected government which may or may not  be majority in Congress 

So in other words what Flynn is saying should not be a major concern because its rhetoric and would require fundamental changes to the US Constitution to somehow have the USA becoming " one religion " ....Im  not even sure how you would do this legally? And this is not the first time Flynn has made absurd and controversial comments and nothing came of them either

So there is no need to be overly concerned 

[ShadySands]

Since we were talking about Harris some time ago

'Bitterness,' 'irritation': CNN publishes mother of all Kamala Harris exposés

Quote

It's been clear for some time that there's something going on between the offices of Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden given the unending leaks coming from the White House regarding Harris' job performance.

On Sunday, CNN published the largest behind-the-scenes exposé on Harris' time as vice president thus far, featuring interviews with "nearly three dozen former and current Harris aides, administration officials, Democratic operatives, donors and outside advisers."

According to CNN, there is a growing "bitterness" between the respective teams of Biden and Harris, and "the situation has become a back and forth of irritations" over a great many things. CNN's sources argued that Harris' team believes Biden's hasn't provided enough support while giving her tasks that put her in "no-win political situation" that will "only sandbag her in the future," while Biden's team believes many of Harris' issues are of her own making.

Full CNN article here

Edited November 15, 2021 by ShadySands

[Darkpriest]

Both ratings are running down the crapper. Bidens trajectory is worst for any POTUS since WW2 and Harris is even worse as a VP. Trump got beaten at something

Edited November 15, 2021 by Darkpriest

[Darkpriest]

Funny logic on the Rittenhouse case. 

By legally carrying a gun you provoke voilence against you. 

 

It's like saying wearing a short skirt to a park at night makes you provoke an r action against you. 

 

Sure, both actions are stupid, and not really responsible, but in both cases it is the assiliant that attacked first which is guilty and in both cases 'victims' have a right to self defense in all manners that they have means of, should their life be in danger. 

[Amentep]

28 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Funny logic on the Rittenhouse case. 

By legally carrying a gun you provoke voilence against you. 

 

It's like saying wearing a short skirt to a park at night makes you provoke an r action against you. 

 

Sure, both actions are stupid, and not really responsible, but in both cases it is the assiliant that attacked first which is guilty and in both cases 'victims' have a right to self defense in all manners that they have means of, should their life be in danger. 

I don't think that's the exact analogy that the prosecutors are making.  I think their argument is that you can't create a dangerous situation and then also get to use deadly force claiming self defense.

The clear version of what the Prosecution is arguing would be, Guy A punches Guy B in the face.  Guy B isn't phased by the punch, and goes with a punch of his own to retaliate so Guy A then pulls a gun and shoots Guy B.  I haven't kept up with the Rittenhouse case, so I can't say how much it does/doesn't apply, but I think its what the prosecutors are going for.

[Gromnir]

2 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Trump got beaten at something

you mean other than the recent Presidential election, yes? oh, and biden got an infrastructure deal passed during the first year o' his Presidency, which is a bit quicker than trump managed, seeing as how he never managed to do so in spite o' there being bipartisan support for such legislation as well as republican majorities in the house and senate during the first two years trump were in office. 

have mentioned previous am not a biden fan, but the conservative fascination with trump is kinda mind boggling. the guy were a c-list celebrity (but a world class grifter) who managed to get himself into near a trillion dollars in debt before deutschebank bailed him out. nevertheless, trump campaigned on fear o' foreigners and promised an impossible renaissance for the rust belt and somehow with the help o' right-wing media, he became the self appointed high priest in a manufactured religious war 'tween conservatives and liberals... american liberals is, compared to most o' the world's democracies, pretty freaking conservative. the trump campaign saw frequent and public violations o' the rule o' law, and all those diehard anti government patriots who screamed that they needed their guns to protect themselves from government watched impotent or cheered active as trump gutted the Constitution.

am suspecting that selling fear was enough to buy the loyalty o' many conservatives, and the rest were embarrassingly complicit. 

btw, rittenhouse most assured was NOT "legally carrying a gun." might wanna check the facts on that. regardless, you are conflating separate issues. if rittenhouse had been legal carrying a gun, would it have made him more sympathetic? we keep trying to drive this point home, but there is a big difference 'tween legal and right. procure an ar-15 so you may cross state lines to confront protesters while brandishing your firearm is in fact legal in many places and in many situations in the US. 2nd amendment and local ordinances make such behaviour legal, though again,  such were not the case for rittenhouse. again, being "legal" doesn't make a behaviour more reasonable and less reckless. is no excuse for violence and fact rittenhouse were a derpy teen and a world-class dolt doesn't mean is ok that he should be subject to violence by civilians or cops or federal agents in unmarked white vans. so what? am able to decry violence AND recognize rittenhouse for the unsympathetic yutz he is and anybody shocked a clown like him with an ar-15 ended up in a bad situation is either a fool or lying. whether rittenhouse loses liberty for the shootings is gonna be separate from the illegal weapon charges he is facing, but such don't make much difference when considering whether or not rittenhouse is a shmuck. 

both left and right should be condemning the punk 'cause take your weapon to confront protesters is not the kinda thing reasonable people who is being complete honest is gonna claim is reasonable behaviour. dumb. foolish. reckless. etc. however, if dumb, foolish and reckless were the kinda thing which were making a person subject to criminalization, there would be more people in prison than not. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

Short skirts and AR-15 rifles are not the same thing. 

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:

It's like saying wearing a short skirt to a park at night makes you provoke an r action against you. 

You can't really think this.

[Darkpriest]

13 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

Short skirts and AR-15 rifles are not the same thing. 

Accusing victim of assault and a self defense action is the same though in terms of logic. In both scenarios provocatative behavior does not give a right to act voilently towards the 'perceived' provocation. In both cases of provocation "recklessly brandishing gun" or "having too short of a skirt in a dark place" the result can be a death or a permanent injury of the assiliant. 

 

That said, I agree with Gromnir that such a behavior is stupid and creates a dangerous situation, but provocation, no matter how stupid, does not give you right for initiating voilence, does it? 

 

[Gromnir]

36 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

Short skirts and AR-15 rifles are not the same thing. 

am suspecting almost nobody has died or been serious injured as a direct result o' mishandling a skirt or a wardrobe malfunction due to shortness o' the apparel. neither wearing a skirt or carrying an ar-15 is a valid invitation for violence, but such an observation is red herring material. 

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

46 minutes ago, Malcador said:

You can't really think this.

That's too optimistic.

[Hurlshort]

I hope I don't get strangled by any skirts when I attend my next pants protest.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Hurlsnot

[Gromnir]

keep in mind that in spite o' the bad history repeated by more than a few boardies, there were a time not so long ago when conservatives and the nra were in favour of gun control legislation. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited November 15, 2021 by Gromnir

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

6 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

I hope I don't get strangled by any skirts when I attend my next pants protest.

Just make sure you have a safe word and you'll be fine.

[majestic]

15 minutes ago, KP Cross Split Attack said:

Just make sure you have a safe word and you'll be fine.

[ShadySands]

1 hour ago, Hurlsnot said:

Short skirts and AR-15 rifles are not the same thing. 

Crap! I need to go change

[Gromnir]

15 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Crap! I need to go change

*nods*

tavor x95 is sexier.

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

39 minutes ago, majestic said:

There are no winners in this game.

Except for the forum software, who just had a bite lmao.

[Gorth]

5 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

Funny logic on the Rittenhouse case. 

By legally carrying a gun you provoke voilence against you.

I think you're the one with the funny logic here... if somebody comes at me and waves a gun at me, I would feel threatened. Both of the guys murdered by Rittenhouse were trying to take the gun out of his hands, because they themselves were unarmed when he pointed it at them.

Edit: Try to convince me that traveling to another state with a gun to a conflict situation spoiling for a fight, is not done with intent to kill.

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Gromnir said:

you mean other than the recent Presidential election, yes? oh, and biden got an infrastructure deal passed during the first year o' his Presidency, which is a bit quicker than trump managed, seeing as how he never managed to do so in spite o' there being bipartisan support for such legislation as well as republican majorities in the house and senate during the first two years trump were in office. 

have mentioned previous am not a biden fan, but the conservative fascination with trump is kinda mind boggling. the guy were a c-list celebrity (but a world class grifter) who managed to get himself into near a trillion dollars in debt before deutschebank bailed him out. nevertheless, trump campaigned on fear o' foreigners and promised an impossible renaissance for the rust belt and somehow with the help o' right-wing media, he became the self appointed high priest in a manufactured religious war 'tween conservatives and liberals... american liberals is, compared to most o' the world's democracies, pretty freaking conservative. the trump campaign saw frequent and public violations o' the rule o' law, and all those diehard anti government patriots who screamed that they needed their guns to protect themselves from government watched impotent or cheered active as trump gutted the Constitution.

am suspecting that selling fear was enough to buy the loyalty o' many conservatives, and the rest were embarrassingly complicit. 

btw, rittenhouse most assured was NOT "legally carrying a gun." might wanna check the facts on that. regardless, you are conflating separate issues. if rittenhouse had been legal carrying a gun, would it have made him more sympathetic? we keep trying to drive this point home, but there is a big difference 'tween legal and right. procure an ar-15 so you may cross state lines to confront protesters while brandishing your firearm is in fact legal in many places and in many situations in the US. 2nd amendment and local ordinances make such behaviour legal, though again,  such were not the case for rittenhouse. again, being "legal" doesn't make a behaviour more reasonable and less reckless. is no excuse for violence and fact rittenhouse were a derpy teen and a world-class dolt doesn't mean is ok that he should be subject to violence by civilians or cops or federal agents in unmarked white vans. so what? am able to decry violence AND recognize rittenhouse for the unsympathetic yutz he is and anybody shocked a clown like him with an ar-15 ended up in a bad situation is either a fool or lying. whether rittenhouse loses liberty for the shootings is gonna be separate from the illegal weapon charges he is facing, but such don't make much difference when considering whether or not rittenhouse is a shmuck. 

both left and right should be condemning the punk 'cause take your weapon to confront protesters is not the kinda thing reasonable people who is being complete honest is gonna claim is reasonable behaviour. dumb. foolish. reckless. etc. however, if dumb, foolish and reckless were the kinda thing which were making a person subject to criminalization, there would be more people in prison than not. 

HA! Good Fun!

After Trump won I spent about 3 months  understanding what were the reasons many Americans voted for him. His victory was a complete surprise and the  data and polling was also inaccurate which is very rare

Now I was able to not overreact to the Trump victory and I realized the data was wrong because  the normal analysis of US voting patterns had been corrupted or clearly misunderstand and that meant to me I had now spend time with Trump supporters to learn  why they voted for him

I now understand most of the reasons Trump was supported and if you interested I can share them and some you know but I really think most Democrats still dont realize that Trump was supported because he represented certain real and irrational  realities and concerns that many Conservatives have about the US  and Trump also cleverly did raise issues that I would personally be concerned about so he represented different things. But you use to vote Republican so its more important you understand why people voted for him who have similar views to as an ex-Republican

I want to avoid Trump running in 2024 because if things continue on the current path Trump will win and even thought I respect the will of the people I am at all excited about another of Trump 

And what I mean by current path is not Biden fault because he gets blamed for certain things that arent his fault and his successes are forgotten like playing a huge role in  changing the impact of the pandemic which mattered and required a different approach

But when the Democrats cant agree on their massive bills like infrastructure  and the current issue with inflation  to be stabilized these  reflect badly on him overall. So inflation in the US is not Bidens fault but a result of several things like supply chain problems and the economy coming back and shortages of certain goods  but the reality of oil price also adds to it 

But most people will blame Biden and Democrats for these problems as thats how citizens are in any country?

I wanted to avoid the Kyle case but its very symbolic for many on the right who believe he has been  unfairly prosecuted  when he was defending himself as he felt his life was in danger. He may  very well be found not guilty ?

I asked on Codex about why he was in a state he didnt live in  on one of the normal political threads about Kyle  that is supported by people who  definitely think he is  innocent and this case is nothing but left and liberal overreach. But I have  come to understand that you ignore the insults and extreme ignorance of some people on Codex and  I chat to people who respect my view about the principle of debate and  asking questions is because you dont know something. So I get interesting responses from people who are Trump supporters but they share perceived facts about kyle and why he  actually did nothing wrong ...I dont know if  its true or not but its data and not rhetoric and its makes an interesting case. 

[Hurlshort]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59212355

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59212355

Its a good news story about the reality of much of the US that I have experienced. The US is not some failed state where  there is only failure from its elected political parties, the current discourse and the way some people reflect on the political intolerance tends to embellish the more positive things that work in the US 

But this town is not unusual for me in the sense I know their are many examples of places in the US where recent immigrants who have come from truly terrible benighted places like Yemen are grateful and happy to be living in the USA

I am not sure talking about Islamophobia is necessary when it comes to any Muslim who has immigrated to the USA in the last 5 years because as I mentioned to Gromnir the US is not  really seen as country that is Islamophobic by many Muslim countries at all? No one who is a Muslim or a black  person is going to apply to immigrate to the USA if they believed that ?

And sometimes well meaning and liberals and some on the left will say " the US  becoming  a racist country because of what Trump said " and it never helps when some BLM activists are claiming the USA is a country " that was created and its wealth was built on slavery and oppression " and then they are expecting US citizens to admit this 

Of course the US has people in it  that are bigots and believe inaccurate and offensive things 

But this type of story is a good reminder of the reality of what works in the USA and this should  be a positive ? But it made me laugh the part about the LGBT flag being taken down.....the communities are from Poland and Yemen. Poland is not well known for LGBT and in Yemen homosexuality is the death sentence like most ME countries 

 So immigrants are getting use to these things in a country like USA  and once its explained that LGBT is how you born in 95 % of the cases and you cant change who you are attracted and why should you ? Many people think its a choice but I can promise you its not

[Gromnir]

6 hours ago, BruceVC said:

stuff

why would we read codex when we can go and read the comments section o' fox news stories? makes one feel dirty afterwards, but we highly recommend reading fox news stories AND the comments regular if you want to understand what conservatives is willing to admit when the believe they is protected by the anonymity o' the internet. 

the rittenhouse defenses from near all conservatives is rationalizations and not genuine arguments o' merit. am suspecting bruce sympathizes with the codexian pov on some level 'cause am worried he embraces the conservative bunk which tells us that the blm/antifa rioters made rittenhouse response not only reasonable but admirable. we should applaud rittenhouse 'cause he were standing up for the victims o' blm rioters. sure, he acquired a lethal fire arm illegal, but he wouldn't have needed do such if the libs weren't out encouraging lawlessness and mayhem. etc.

*snort*

we got a pretty god idea what made trump popular, though is good to remember trump popularity were different in 2015-16 than it were in 2020 or is in 2021. even today there is a considerable number o' republicans and independents who will choose trump over any democrat as a lesser o' evils, which in light o' the trump presidency is bizarre but appears to be genuine. is also a mistake to assume folks explaining why they voted for trump is being honest with you, pollsters or themselves. almost nobody believes they is a bigot. most trump supporters ain't gonna shout their support o' proud boy behaviour, but many conservatives is afraid o' immigrants taking their jobs or the possibility such persons might be secret living as terrorists next door. and 'course most conservatives don't see selves as racist 'cause they no doubt has met black people who is well-spoken and have good jobs-- not like all the drug addicts on welfare a few (at least one) o' our board mods deride. conservatives tell us they is not racist, but that you cannot deny that minorities is committing all the crime, right?  etc.

our job taught us to listen to what people weren't saying. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited November 16, 2021 by Gromnir

[Chairchucker]

Hey there internet friends

 

Rittenhouse is probs going to see zero legal consequences for being a massive tool. The most that he is probs legally culpable for, in my extremely unprofessional opinion having paid very little attention to the story, is illegally carrying a thing he shouldn't have been carrying or whatever, which he's also not going to see any legal consequences for because the judge appears to be extremely not good.

 

I'd love for him to go to prison except that I think the US prison system sucks and makes slightly awful people into even more awful people, much like ours probs tbh. I'd love even more for him to stop being a terrible person but hey, realistic goals, right?

[BruceVC]

56 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

why would we read codex when we can go and read the comments section o' fox news stories? makes one feel dirty afterwards, but we highly recommend reading fox news stories AND the comments regular if you want to understand what conservatives is willing to admit when the believe they is protected by the anonymity o' the internet. 

the rittenhouse defenses from near all conservatives is rationalizations and not genuine arguments o' merit. am suspecting bruce sympathizes with the codexian pov on some level 'cause am worried he embraces the conservative bunk which tells us that the blm/antifa rioters made rittenhouse response not only reasonable but admirable. we should applaud rittenhouse 'cause he were standing up for the victims o' blm rioters. sure, he acquired a lethal fire arm illegal, but he wouldn't have needed do such if the libs weren't out encouraging lawlessness and mayhem. etc.

 

I dont consider much of the Codex Conservative views to be even remotely similar to mine. I am active an  Codex for gaming news and interesting advice on older games like Wizardry, I generally avoid political debates or any SJ unless its really significant so for example I openly supported pro-choice and LGBT rights and that alone has some people dislike me immediately for being  a ' typical, leadbelly  liberal " or some absolute irritating, bigot from South Africa saying " Im probably an English **** and typical cowardly race traitor and its obvious from CPT because everyone hates us " .....and this is because I pointed out in detail that SA is not a failed state and black people have not destroyed everything. And I explained that the new SA is a Constitutional Democracy  and irrespective if  we succeed in our economic goals nothing  will ever be compare to saying Apartheid was better ....and thats true. So I am clarifying that my Codex interaction on politics is about some topics  and I have met people who are Conservatives but they engage in a constructive way and dont try to insult me and these members post their views based on "facts " so its aleast something I can read in a normal way 

Most of  the political comments are extremely derogatory and generalizations about things I know arent true. I only engage on the political forums on things I am concerned about like defunding of police and most people think BLM protests  are often violent and that concerns them like me, but then our similar views end because most people on these debates will say all black people are criminals and are incapable of doing anything right so I dont share much with them

But I wanted to understand what was the reason that they felt Kyle was innocent because I am not following all the details. So this  is what one of the guys said and without soundly judgmental he is clearly educated and does have real knowledge on certain topics and its important to me people can make points about Kyles innocence based on actual real events and not emotional generalizations ....and I am not saying its true but he spent time posting details so I would at least know  his view from the right 

BruceVC the agreed-upon facts of this case (I mean this in the courtroom sense, not in the sense of a general consensus of the media/public):

- The Defendant's background: Kyle Rittenhouse is a then -17 (now -18) year old boy, living in Antioch, Illinois with his mother and sisters. His dad (divorced) and many friends lived in nearby Kenosha, Wisconsin, which is approximately a half hour's drive. His summer job as a lifeguard was in Kenosha.

- Late last year, Kyle decided to go with a group of his friends to protect a group of car sales lots from rioters. Kenosha had recently experienced a riot after nightfall, during which a different car lot was targeted and hundred of thousands of dollars in inventory were destroyed. The group's goal was to protect the property and lives of those being targeted by the rioters.

- Kyle borrowed a rifle for the night from a friend. He understood (correctly) that this was not in any way illegal. He also took his medical kitbag (he was trained in basic first aid due to his job- I believe he was qualified as an EMT-B but I'm not sure).

- During the day, Kyle and his group set up their supplies and coordinated their duties and responsibilities guarding the car lot.

- Once night hit, the riot started. Rioters moved to destroy the car lot. They met Kyle and friends. The rioters were angry and combative. Kyle and his group refused them entry to the lot but otherwise left them alone. Kyle himself took the time to offer basic medical aid and water to anyone, friend or rioter.

- At some point during the night, Kyle was separated from his group by the leading edge of the riots (I'm not sure what happened, it may have had something to do with rioters clashing with police, or he may have wandered afield offering help to people and got cut off), and attempted to link back up with them at the car lot they had protected earlier. While doing so he saw rioters attempting to burn a different building down. He rushed over to put out the fire.

- The rioters now became angry at Kyle, personally. About half a dozen in particular began yelling various threats and obscenities, including their intention to "kill you". Kyle started running. He began shouting "friendly, friendly", trying to let the rioters know that he wasn't interested in a fight.

- While Kyle was running away, Dead Rioter number 1, Joseph Rosenbaum, threw a bag filled with various items at the back of Kyle's head and attempted to tackle him from behind. Kyle evaded the tackle and kept running. He continued shouting "friendly".

- Rosenbaum then chased Kyle between a pair of cars. At this point, another rioter pointed his pistol into the air and fired off several shots (I could be wrong here. I think it was 2-3, but it could have been a single shot).

- Kyle turned with rifle up, saw Rosenbaum charging him, and shot him four times. After Rosenbaum fell, Kyle started running again.

- The rioters began chasing Kyle in earnest. Dead Rioter number 2, Anthony Huber, caught up with him and smashed the back of his neck/shoulder with a skateboard. Kyle fell to the ground. An unidentified rioter then kicked him in the head.

- Kyle got his rifle in position as Huber was moving in for another swing. Kyle shot Huber one time, after which his rifle jammed. Huber fell.

- Enter BTFO Rioter, Gaige Grosskreutz. Short background: self-proclaimed "Antifa medic". Had previously attended several riots providing aid to other rioters. Had a license (expired at this time) for carry. I believe this night he was carrying openly, but I could be wrong on this point.

- Gaige ran up to the fight as Huber was shot. He was within 10 feet or so of Kyle when Kyle became aware of him. He swung to face Gaige while clearing the jam from his rifle. Gaige stopped within about 5 feet of Kyle and raised his hands in apparent surrender. Kyle continued watching Gaige and finished clearing his rifle's jam, but did not move the rifle to aim at him.

- Gaige then dropped his hands in the general direction of the rifle and made a lunging motion. Kyle shot him in the arm, whereupon Gaige began screaming for a medic. Kyle got up and began jogging (  ) again.

- Kyle saw a police caravan and walked up to it. He had a short conversation with a police officer in which he attempted to surrender to them. Instead the officer shooed him away.

- Kyle eventually linked back up with his group, and was picked up by his mom and driven home, where he contacted local police.

Now I've gone to the trouble of typing this up, it's your turn. I want you to read that list of facts, and imagine you had never read, seen or heard any other media on the subject. You have only this list of facts. There is no other conjecture, context, or opinion available.

What conclusions would you draw vv Kyle and his actions, based solely on the verifiably correct facts shown above?

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by BruceVC