Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - rightleft22

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 32
51
General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: September 30, 2020, 03:22:04 PM »
Its not ironic he supports Trump, its ironic he somehow associates the destruction of his shop with Biden's "weakness" and Trump will "protect" people like him. It wouldn't be ironic if Trump wasn't the incumbent.

Thanks for clarifying that. Your comments make some sense in that case, but I think it's not too complicated to assume the shop owner blames the left in general, with Biden being (in his opinion) someone who would bow down to violent protesters. So while it's technically counterfactual that Biden was personally responsible, maybe the idea is more that he would have just let it happen whereas at least Trump tried to stop it. I get your belief that Trump himself exacerbated the violence, but if we're weighing Trump's response vs Biden's probable lack of a response, then it becomes a pragmatic evaluation of which would be more effective at protecting businesses, rather than an ironic misunderstanding on the part of the shop owner.

If we're weighing Trumps responses - which exasperated the situations, and Biden probable lack of a response -, based on WHAT?
Its this type of reasoning that's the problem. Based just on Biden's personalty he is much more likely to have responded in a way that would have calmed protesters then endorse riots. But sure Biden would "probably" do nothing, no not just nothing but change the laws to make looting the destruction of property legal.   It the Law and Order Trump, who consistently flaunts laws, who will protect them.

Its not ironic that the shop owner trusts the fire fighter that starts and or throws fuel on the fires its playing the useful idiot

52
General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: September 30, 2020, 02:10:52 PM »
Your arguments are reasonable, forgiving the right of all accountability. If only the left could nominate a better candidate. No thought on if the right might want to stand behind a better candidate. "We can expect no better" so why seek it out? Not our fault.

You might want to go back and reread what I wrote, since this comment is already addressed above. The RNC did not support Trump or want him to be their candidate. Unless you mean what NH wrote, that they should have disowned him in this current election and ran a new Republican primary?

Not sure what I'm missing when I read over you comments. Perhaps its a disagreement on statements like "RNC did not support Trump or want him to be their candidate" Which is true at the start but were soon going all in. Who gets to be responsible for that?

NH said what I was trying to communicate better.  2020 no excuses or turning a blind eye. 

53
General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: September 30, 2020, 01:29:58 PM »
If Trump wins the right will have only themselves to blame for standing by and supporting a man who says and does some very dangerous things providing support for organisations that should not be given that support.  Blame that on the left if you will but those who support Trump support what he stands for. All of it.

There is no need to assign blame to only one party in this, so you don't need to play the "if I blame the left then I'm supporting the right" game. The left has completely made their own bed on this, as they did in 2016. Actually it's worse now than then, because in Hillary's case I kind of got it: she was a legacy candidate that was being groomed back in Bill's Presidency. In Biden's case I was floored 6-7 years ago when they were floating the idea of running him against Hillary. My reaction was something like "why would anyone vote for him?" I was fairly convinced at that time that the polls showing strong support for him were baloney. But if you want to blame the right then go ahead, their pools of candidates have been pathetic for the last two Republican primaries as well. But do recall, in case you forgot, that the entire RNC *did* oppose Trump the entire way through the 2016 primary, and simply failed utterly to stop him winning the candidacy. Only after he was the general candidate were they forced into the dilemma of "supporting him" (i.e. trying to win the election) or, what, shilling for Hillary, their most hated arch-nemesis? At that point there is no value in any mention of 'supporting' him.

It was you that brought up blame I brought up responsibility. Your blaming Trumps election on the left while taking no responsibility for the support being given to what Trump represents and what he 'encouraging'.
Your arguments are reasonable, forgiving the right of all accountability. If only the left could nominate a better candidate. No thought on if the right might want to stand behind a better candidate. "We can expect no better" so why seek it out? Not our fault.

2016 you may be forgiven.  For 2020 those standing by Trump are making a statement about what they really stand for.
 

54
General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: September 30, 2020, 01:01:21 PM »
Very reasonable and forgiving coming from a place were you don't realistically expect better from a politician. Its a great way to avoid any personal responsibility about who one might support.
History is full of understanding people not demanding better and then when  "this is not going to end well" happens wonder how did this happen. Wasn't me

My advice on this issue has perennially been to never support a politician you have no respect for, or who is a bad candidate. It's others who are stuck on the tactical voting necessity where stopping the evil villain justifies voting for someone who shouldn't be President. That is what gets us where we are. As I mentioned in another thread, it just devolves into voting for R or D, and you might as well erase the candidate's name from the ballot. In any case, my point above wasn't to vote for Trump, it's what if Trump wins the left will have only themselves to blame for permitting a candidate like Biden to "represent" them.

If Trump wins the right will have only themselves to blame for standing by and supporting a man who says and does some very dangerous things providing support for organisations that should not be given that support.  Blame that on the left if you will but those who support Trump support what he stands for. All of it.


55
General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: September 30, 2020, 12:27:00 PM »
Then there was his refusal to denounce white supremacy.  He already has that vote locked in. Would denouncing violent actions by specific white supremacists depress that vote more than the votes he would make up elsewhere (I'm thinking of those suburban women again)?  Of course, it's possible that the zero sum game of denouncing one part of his coalition would be seen as backing down to the bogeyman of "violent blacks", which would more broadly affect his electoral support, presumably.

I think it's a bit partisan to ask why Trump wouldn't denounce people voting for him, when you could surely detect Biden likewise refusing to say anything negative - or even anything at all - about some of the radical voter base supporting him. Check out his 'answer' to the BLM question. Realistically one cannot anymore expect a politician to take sides against part of a coalition supporting them, it's all too power-oriented with no conscience on either side.

But seriously, this sounds like post hoc rationalization.  If he didn't respond, he would have been labeled 'weak'.  If he had verbally fought back in exactly the same way, he would have lost the high road of being the only sane person standing on the podium.

What in the world to do in response to Trump's tactics is exactly what he had to be prepped for. Unless we're willing to grant that Trump's 'debate' tactics are unbeatable, surely there would be some method of self-presentation and response that could make Trump look bad and you look good. But honestly Biden doesn't have it in him; he's neither charismatic, nor mentally sharp, nor dignified enough to look like Trump's bad behavior is rolling off him. He just sort of did nothing other than try to weakly repeat the mantras his team told him to say over and over (e.g. "He has no plan" and "you the American people should have a voice"). Yes, other like Jeb Bush failed miserably to parry Trump's attacks, but you'd think that in a contest of this magnitude they'd be, I dunno, bringing in xenolinguistics teams to find a way for Biden to speak through Trump's alien lingo.

Should future moderators have the power to turn off mics? Nothing short of that is going to stop Trump from being a bully and talking over everyone. Even then I wouldn't put it past him to walk over to Joe or the mod to yell into their mic.

It's not a terrible idea, given that 2 min uninterrupted responses was the goal. I think what Trump wanted was just a back-and-forth without moderation. Actually as someone who has disdain for 'parliamentary style debate' (which this wasn't really, but is in the same vein) I tend to side with the view that better discourse comes of a freeflowing back and forth. Of course that presupposes both parties are acting in good faith, so in Trump's case it might not be enough to allow him and his opponent to just go at it like Jerry Springer. It's too bad Trump kept interrupting, though, because at such times as he was waiting his turn he looked much better up there. If only someone would tell him to strategically interrupt only occasionally, rather than constantly and without cessation. The moderator would have certainly allowed some small amount of side-comments if they were constrained in degree, and in fact the moderator was quite amenable to sometimes allowing the candidates to pose the next question for their opponent.

Very reasonable and forgiving coming from a place were you don't realistically expect better from a politician. Its a great way to avoid any personal responsibility about who one might support.
History is full of understanding people not demanding better and then when  "this is not going to end well" happens wonder how did this happen. Wasn't me

Trump is saying and encouraging very dangerous things and any support even if half hearted, is support. We one stands is clear

"Stand back and stand by" Says the commander to his followers.   

56
Quote
"I am urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully, because that's what has to happen," Trump said on Tuesday night. "I am urging them to do it."

Quote
Proud boys, stand back and stand by.

I wonder if they will be wearing brown shirts.

57
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: September 29, 2020, 02:50:38 PM »
I don't think Trump followers or the Trump Republican party cares about Trumps taxes. Its clear that values, morality, character don't matter. And one wonders about the rule of law unless the new rule of law is whatever Trump decides it is. He is the great decider after all.

In 2008 everyone knew the Trump was in trouble and that the only thing that saved him was his Brand which is all smoke and mirrors.
We all knew that all of Trumps deals were questionable.
We all knew that he was hiding something by hiding his tax records. I would have said ashamed vice hiding but Trump does not feel shame.

The reality is that nothing Trump did or does matters to his followers and if that means undermining their own values well they never matter that much either.

58
General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: September 29, 2020, 12:22:07 PM »
Quote
RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!

Isn't this type of statement a kind of rhetorical loaded question suggesting that If Trump wins the election wasn't it will not have been rigged but if he losses it is.

On this forum no one would be allowed have such a statement stand so I find it odd that some are defending and or dismissing it.  (Dismissing it by redirecting focus to the debate on Ballots which is a valid debate however a distraction from what Trump is actually saying.)

If you disagree with me its a rigged discussion.

Trump has set it up so that unless the Dem's win big on Election-day they will lose. I don't see how that would not end any trust in the checks and balances within the system. A system that requires trust to run.

59
Quote
He neither explicitly, nor implicitly, suggested a vote should count twice. If you had not overstated your claim, I would not have rebutted it.

But you agree that he did explicitly suggest his supporter test the system in this way and as voting twice is illegal suggesting they should commit a crime? 

60
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: September 24, 2020, 01:27:01 PM »
Quote
He won't be able to answer that until the Orange God elaborates on his statement that "things are going to get cooler"

I suspect he was cheer-leading, protecting his followers from the truth and panicking. They apparently can't handle the truth at least not in their fearful leaders eyes

61
General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: September 24, 2020, 10:58:57 AM »
What else has Trump done this week:
1. He refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power (the question was "win, lose or draw..."). Yes, some people are unable to actually process those words whatsoever, but the majority of Republicans can undoubtedly understand what Trump has said on this topic, and I expect they are also privately horrified.  The question is whether they will do anything about it, or ignore  this complete betrayal of the country's foundational principles.
2. His campaign is now encouraging an "army" of people to intimidate voters at polling centres.  ("We need every able-bodied man and woman to join Army for Trump’s election security operation").  Thousands of untrained, passionate Trump acolytes, 'patrolling' polling stations (I can only guess which ones), and doing what, exactly?  The intimidation is not the goal, I expect.  The real goal will be the resulting violent conflagrations and the closing of polling stations.

That Republican's are not decrying this as loudly as everybody else is not at all surprising, but it is very, very sad.  The USA is effectively in its death throes, and the world is looking on with a mixture of pity and horror.

I think it begs the question. How are the Republicans defining democracy and rule of law? Is democracy something the membership wants anymore?

62
General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: September 24, 2020, 10:31:27 AM »
I don't see how the election isn't going to be contested and I don't see the Democrats winning if it is.

Unless the Democrats win by a huge margin on election day they are going to lose, and even then I'm not going to bet on it. 

63
...A Christian friend of mine has not problem using Government to enforce his values on people that do not believe in the same thing. At the same time abhors the user of Government to impose values that go against his beliefs. Doing so he feels undermines his beliefs and discriminates against him.  its a odd contradiction that he is blind to.

Of all the many Christian friends who I know, none are like that. Did you just make him up as a strawman to denigrate?


I identified this friend as Christian as its the most import value and attachment to identity he holds. He is a good man and does his best to live up to his values. I admire him very much for living his truth. However, like most of us he is blind to the contradictions some of his views bring to light perhaps because his sense of identity is so attached the word Christian. His position on identity politics for instance does not take into account his own attachments to identity and perceived threats to that connection to identity.   

I see this disconnect within the Christian community because its the community I grew up in and consider home. I am very disappointing in how politicized belief has/is becoming.  It makes dialog really difficult.   

64
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: September 23, 2020, 04:09:57 PM »
Don't act so clueless. Hunter and Joe, and his entire family made millions of dollars off of Joe's position. The name of the game is corruption, and Joe and Hunter tapped into that corruption and made a fortune. Once a prosecutor started investigating Hunter, Joe bragged about his quid pro quo to block a billion dollars of funds to quash that investigation. Stop excusing what they did. It is not normal activity - nor should it be.

Projection much. Untill you take your own advice about excusing everything your man does you have no grounds to criticizes others in the manner you to for failing to see thing you way

65
Quote
“Divisive concepts” means the concepts that
(1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist;
(3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
(5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;
(6) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;
(7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
(8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or
(9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.

Those are decisive concepts and its understandable that people would resist and fear such a version of "equality".

None of the people i know working towards equality hold them though and I personally find the list offensive and I wonder if not intentionally so.
(I'm not offended but suspect the list is intentionally a miss-characterization of equality movement)
I have heard some on the extreme end of things making such statements and I guess we live in a time with the extreme views = the views of all. 

That said the list is a great place to start a dialog if its could be constructive however I don't think we live in a movement that will allow for that.

66
Quote
Today, however, many people are pushing a different vision of America that is grounded in hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than in the inherent and equal dignity of every person as an individual. This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as human beings and Americans.

That is a difficult statement to unpack.  The line "racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status" could be read as divisive. The common status is clearly the norm while those identities that feel they are being discriminated against are coming from a place to trying to make their identities important more important then the norm.  Clever language but I think a miss representation of those seeking equality.

A Christian friend of mine has not problem using Government to enforce his values on people that do not believe in the same thing. At the same time abhors the user of Government to impose values that go against his beliefs. Doing so he feels undermines his beliefs and discriminates against him.  its a odd contradiction that he is blind to.

67
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: September 23, 2020, 10:36:50 AM »
Quote
No. "Climate Change" was coined because Anthropomorphic Global Warming was proven to be a crock

No people were to stupid to put their head around the idea that Global Warming didn't mean that everyone would experience local weather as being warming. "Oh look it winter and its cold... so much for Global warming" 

68
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 03:09:11 PM »
I want to be compassionate, kind, turn the other check, listen to all sides of a argument.... but when do we get to call out those that support, defined, spin, excuse, hold their nose and say nothing to what is a obvious case of hypocrisy. Why are the rules different.

69
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 01:23:29 PM »
WmLambert your view of reality just doesn't match mine. Their is no point in dialog. 

I'm sorry you see the world in the way that you do and suspect you and those that view things in this way will create exactly what you fear and never see the part you played.
Such is the way of History.


70
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 12:40:44 PM »
I think an argument could be made that on the eve of what is likely to be a heavily litigated election, it's not worth the risk of having important decisions go unresolved with a 4-4 tie. If Trump and McConnel pushed that argument and Trump nominated someone not obviously partisan, it would go far in allowing some Democrats on board. They won't do that because neither of them give a fig for the principles of the Republic but it's technically possible.

rightleft, the problem is that people voted for the Democrats in order to fight. If they go weak on this, it's more likely to disheartened supporters rather than encourage them. Besides, I don't think they can delay it enough anyways. So they can go all out to show that they can fight while still getting the example of why people need to vote for the candidates they get instead of the one they wished they had.

I don't see a fight helping the Democrats election hopes. It will harden the base and turn off the independents and the liberals that feel that Biden isn't liberal enough still wont vote for him.
It will not surprise me in the least when the Democrats lose.

Honestly I can see many a voter giving up with the view voting matters in a system that is so broken that  holding onto the illusion of the checks and balances is just to hard.   
Not to mention the idea or hope that a person can be elected and maintain their values and principles and not become a hypocritical sell out.

71
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 12:04:18 PM »
Its a shame the Democrats aren't the ones doing this. I would love to hear the arguments the GOP would have made against it.

If I were the DNC I wouldn't fight this to hard. Instead I would point out the GOP hypocrisy and what happens when those that are liberal don't vote left because the candidate isn't liberal enough.

72
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 11:41:48 AM »
Quote
Republicans have secured the numbers needed to ensure that President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee will face a confirmation vote in the Senate.

Is there any point of having a confirmation?
How can anyone give their vote before they know what they are voting for?

I get that this is a done deal and why... but those Senators should be ashamed. They should have at least pretended that they had some independent thoughts on the matter of who would be a good choice.

Not true. The Constitution says the Senate must vote on Confirmation - not hold any hearings. It was the Democrat Harry Reid who changed the threat of filibuster to eliminate obstruction. The Jurists have been on the list for a long time, and they all have the highest ratings from vetting organizations that all parties trust. The only reason for a hearing , as defined by recent hearings we've seen, is for the opposition party to grandstand and throw bricks. When Barr was being "interviewed" he was not even allowed to speak. Why put the nation through that? What good does it do to allow "Borking" a nominee? Since Reid allows a simple majority, which is already guaranteed, why wait, when we'll need an odd-number Court to rule on the expected election lawsuits?

Your saying that the Confirmation was away just a formality. That one 'voted' but the vote never mattered. So there never was a point for confirmations

So no checks or balance great system.

Be careful what you wish for History starts now.

73
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 11:19:40 AM »
Quote
Republicans have secured the numbers needed to ensure that President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee will face a confirmation vote in the Senate.

Is there any point of having a confirmation?
How can anyone give their vote before they know what they are voting for?

I get that this is a done deal and why... but those Senators should be ashamed. They should have at least pretended that they had some independent thoughts on the matter of who would be a good choice.

So much for Checks and Balances

74
Had Covid-19 been more like the Spanish flu and more deadly for those middle aged or if the virus had more of a impact on our children I suspect our willingness to lock-down and be our brothers keeper would be different.
Then again maybe not.

75
I mean, he's basically correct, it's effectively universal martial law, which is totally unprecedented. Funny as it may sound, but racist segregation wasn't as far-reaching an effect as putting an entire nation on lockdown.

That said I would have been totally fine with a historically unprecedented breach of civil liberties in this case. In fact they could have literally declared martial law and I would have been clapping that a Western government could actually take real action to squash an outbreak. Call it a dress rehearsal for a more serious contagion one day, with 100% communicability and fatality.

The problem isn't partisan hypocrisy, or even Trump, but the actual fact that your average American would rather see the species exterminated than be told what to do.

I didn't experience the lock down as being 'martial law' but can see how some might.

'Your Average American would rather see the species exterminated than be told what to do' so true and many of those have no problem telling others what values the government should enforce everyone should live under. 

76
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 17, 2020, 11:53:00 AM »
The point is a lot of people aren't going to get themselves tested because they aren't willing to go into the full quarantine but if they knew they had it they'd be more careful about their conduct. I mean you're right that if they aren't going to violate their quarantine then they don't have to worry about it. The corollary is that if anyone is hesitant about getting themselves and maybe their families and even some of their friends and coworkers quarantined then their best bet is just not to get tested. And they won't. So how does that help?

I suspect that their is little that would convince those that feel that way, or have that fear of changing their minds about. I suspect many that feel this way are also more likely to believe Covid19 isn't real.

If your asking if there might be a better way to do things? Probably, even then people will still find finds ways to convince themselves of what they want to do about the virus. 

77
General Comments / Re: October Surprise
« on: September 17, 2020, 10:59:05 AM »
...he's going to deny the conclusions of the JAG investigation, and say they "papered it over" to cover for the son of an Admiral. Even though the forensic evidence would tend to NOT point at where McCain's plane was parked.


The report said A4-#405 was 100 ft. from the launched missile which was aimed forward. The "Wet start" claim was made contemporaneously, and McCain was transferred off the ship immediately. The very first finding in the report was that the accident happened in the line of duty and not as the result of misconduct of those killed, missing, or injured. Of those not killed, missing, or injured, several were blamed for "a combination of material deficiencies and team operational procedures affording less than minimal emphasis upon safety" - but redacted. I wasn't there, but several of the witnesses were incensed at McCain for something. My info comes from contemporaneous observations before the official report was filed. Please look at the reports on the other destroyed planes to see how nothing McCain did ever splashed back on him.

Before McCain, no pilot who flew into power lines was allowed to keep his wings. Much has been deleted from the servers. Look up "negative ace" and you will find nothing, even though there were myriads of reports about McCain early on. Nothing I can say will stop you from "laughter by intimidation," but you probably can't find reports on any of those crashes and results.

The more you belittle Trump on not serving, please recall at the time, it was the Democrat doctors at Fort Wayne handing out deferments. I had to fight them to not purposefully screw up my physical because I wanted to go to Annapolis, and they were helping everyone stay out of Vietnam.

So If I understand.  Trump doesn't like McCain and said something about Not liking soldiers who were captured. But he loves the troops... opps.. Don't focus on that, nothing to see there, focus on McCain. Find anything that might undermine his service.  Hold McCain accountable but never never Trump

Shame on you

78
Trump: I'm not looking to be dishonest. I don't want people to panic. And we are going to be OK. We're going to be OK, and it is going away. And it's probably going to go away now a lot faster because of the vaccines.
It would go away without the vaccine, George, but it's going to go away a lot faster with it.
Stephanopoulos: It would go away without the vaccine?
Trump: Sure, over a period of time. Sure, with time it goes away.
Stephanopoulos: And many deaths. (Trump didn't appear to hear that or ignored it)
Trump: And you'll develop -- you'll develop herd -- like a herd mentality. It's going to be -- it's going to be herd-developed, and that's going to happen. That will all happen.

There is some truth to the statement. Eventual after everyone who is going to die from covid dies... it will go away. Away as in no longer noticed 
It is unfortunately that Stephanopoulos didn't ask the follow up question with the number of acceptable deaths to get to Herd Immunity.

Herd mentality a Freudian slip?  Something Trump has cultivated and demands of his base?

79
Quote
It is not about Trump’s  “backbone”, it is about “lies” tailored to pliable lemmings.

How do you respond to Trump effort to cheer-lead and withhold information because he was worried that the people he was leading, including his followers' might not be able to handle the truth.
When do you know Trump is being honest or cheer-leading? Cheer-leading to his pliable lemmings?
Maybe I can guess. Trump said he was your voice, and only he can fix things and I guess if you accept and trust that. It doesn't matter what he says or not says. - who's the lemming

Quote
Fauci lied about that also. Homemade masks do not protect the wearer. They protect marginally against aerosol dispersal.
Fauci made it clear that wearing a mask protects others. In situations where social distancing isn't possible everyone wearing a mask to some degree protects everyone including those wearing the mask. It shouldn't have to be spelled out. If I'm wearing a mask I'm trying to protect you, if your wearing a mask your trying to protect me.   

80
General Comments / Re: War on Cops
« on: September 15, 2020, 10:51:33 AM »
When it comes to policing the 'bad apples' do not represent the whole (even if the whole seem to be ok with not holding the 'bad apples' accountable)
When it comes to protesters the 'bad apples represent the whole. It is unlikely that those making those kinds of arguments are aware of the contradiction and or out right hypocrisy. 

81
Y-22,

Even if Trump got one action right he's still completely blown the response to covid in the USA.

Okay Nostradamus, say it; Biden “lied”, and killed tens of thousands of people”, right?

Had Biden been in charge at the time he most definitely would be held accountable for how he would have responded. How he would have responded having all the information that Trump had is not knowable.

82
Donald,

“Oh, there's plenty of substance, you just ignore it, over and over again.”

Was the Biden campaign, or you for the matter, for or against, Trump’s decision to restrict Chinese travel on January 31st as a response to COVID-19?

I was For.

I remember watching the Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam talking about the option of closing boarders wasn't something they were sure they could do.  When Trump restricted Chinese travel she understood all options were on the table and acted accordingly.  Of course Trump clouded the issue when he restricted EU travel and not the UK which at the time was in as worse or as worse shape then most countries in the EU.

So Yes Trump gets credit for restricting travel and giving the green light for everyone to follow. Gold Star.  Even if their were likely other reasoning involved in which countries travel were restricted.
However that does not make up for the failure of leadership and actually undermining and confusing the response to the Pandemic.

""I bring rage out. I do bring rage out. I always have... I don't know if that's an asset or a liability..." Trump

83
Quote
It'll start getting cooler. You just watch ... I don't think science knows, actually.
... This is just his usual, irresponsible stupid.

Soon the northern hemisphere is going to see cooling temperatures and increases in  arctic ice. The northern latitudes will be covered with frozen precipitation. Science says its going to be temporary and spring will follow winter, but I don't think science knows. I mean those climate people are all in the pocket of big ag, just suckering farmers into buying seeds and planting crops in near freezing weather.

Trump still does not appear to understand the difference between weather and climate.   
I wish someone would have asked if he was basing his thinking on information he has or if he was just cheer-leading?

84
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 14, 2020, 04:29:26 PM »
My understanding is that most enforcement measures are in the vein of closing establishments that don't follow the rules, possibly with fines thrown in.

That is hardly likely to affect the Trump campaign.

The bigger issue is not enforcement, however.  That's kind of a weird thing to focus on. It's the willingness of the Trump campaign to break the law, where the regulations have been based on his own government's direction coming from the CDC.
You have the leader of the country not only encouraging people to break the law in this specific case, but also actively convincing his own followers not to follow legal recommendations made by his very own administration; and more generally, continuing to "play down" the seriousness of the pandemic even though we now have audio evidence that he was hiding that seriousness from the public in the past.

""Nothing more could have been done" - Trump
The "law and order"  transparent President... Don't you worry your sweet little head, I am your voice, I am the decider,  only I can fix it cheerleader... Only a fool would trust such a man.

85
General Comments / Re: War with China?
« on: September 14, 2020, 12:58:30 PM »
Quote
True enough, however; The USA has always been the rescuer - not the Devil.

OMG that explains a lot about who you are. 

86
Your slip is showing

 I didn't say you said "a President can't do the wrong thing" I said their isn't anything you won't defend as it concerns your 'leader' and his party. 

87
Trump cannot divulge secrets, because he is the ultimate decider?

Their is absolutely nothing this man might do that you will not defend and stand behind. Trump your voice the ultimate decider. When in history has such allegiance turned on those that gave it? 

88
General Comments / Re: Plastic recycling a lie?
« on: September 14, 2020, 10:21:54 AM »
That is disappointing and sadly not surprising.

I'm hoping that will change once they discover how to convert used plastic back to oil and make a profit. I suspect the oil companies will push back on that similar to how they pushed back on electric cars but in my dwindling optimism I still foolishly hope. 

https://www.power-technology.com/comment/plastic-to-fuel/

89
General Comments / Re: read any good books lately?
« on: September 10, 2020, 12:30:36 PM »
I've been reading Fredrik Backman work who first came to my attention with the book A Man Called Ove
'Bear Town' and 'Us Against You' were really good. Fredrik character development reminded me of Card's. You might not like all the characters but you get a look inside and can understand them.

90
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: September 10, 2020, 12:23:03 PM »
Quote
Pretty bad when Politico is more balanced in its reporting than NPR.

Sometimes there is a fine line between official business and personal business.  I won't argue about the cases you cited, but I do ask whether you feel that this case is not over that line.

I think it's tacky, in bad taste, and a long list of other things. But it is legally permissible, so completely up Trump's alley to do.

Don't like it? Get the relevant laws changed.

It smells. Using tax dollars to defend a president in a suit dealing with a issue that allegedly occurred before he was elected but because he said something about it while president can be defended by the DOJ should have the GOP up in arms. Or would have had for any other President.  Maybe not illegal but a bad precedent one with at troubling slippery slope

91
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: September 09, 2020, 05:03:20 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/910992023/justice-dept-intervenes-to-take-over-trumps-defense-in-defamation-lawsuit

Quote
The U.S. Justice Dept. Tuesday moved to assume responsibility for defending President Trump in a defamation lawsuit brought by a woman who says Trump raped her in the 1990s.

E. Jean Carroll filed suit in New York state court last year after Trump, answering reporters' questions, denied knowing her and accused her of lying.
...
In an unusual five-page filing in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Justice Dept. argued that Trump's remarks were made in the performance of his official duties as president and that therefore government attorneys should assume Trump's defense from his private lawyers.

The filing asked the court to designate the United States, rather than Trump, as the defendant in Carroll's defamation suit and to move the case from state to federal court. Federal officials are generally immune from charges of defamation. If the DoJ's filing is successful it would effectively bring Carroll's case to an end.

Calling women liars is now part of his official duties and justice is becoming his private law firm. Nothing wrong with this at all  ::).

Waiting to see how Trump followers spin this.  Will the real conservatives please stand up

92
The mother's only option in such a situation should not have been a call to police. Its not just the police who failed here but society. 

93
I watched the Circus interview of the Kenosha police chief and I think the Sheriff.
Its was a reasoned discussion on the current moral, the difficulties of the job....
When asked about Jacob the chief admitted that when viewing the video it looks like a failure of good policing and so he understand the reaction. And then he moves to the general explaining that usually when all the information comes to like its found their were good reasons for things having unfolded the way they did which exonerates/excuses the police.   (No thoughts on evaluating if there was a failure in policies or procedures or anything.

Everything the officers said was reasonable but on second look they were refusing to take responsibility for bad policing or even considering that just maybe their could be better ways to do their job.
Working in a Job were every failure is examined to improve procedures I just don't get it.

IMO the interview was a good example as to why the problems are systemic. Built into the system which only a calm rethinking of the role of police has a chance of changing. 

As a society we have asked the police to do to much. Because were to cheep to take care of those with mental health issues we are left with only the police to call. The average cop that sees ever problem as a nail and themselves as a hammer isn't going handle such situation well. Its time to step back and calmly seek out ways that we, society and police might do things better.

94
The man/boy is on the wrong side of history

95
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 08, 2020, 02:31:23 PM »
250,000 likely cases. That's probably 7,500 deaths. As life is not fair the deaths will likely be unknown to those attending the event so they won't have been impacted directly so all good.
The majority of the 7,500 will be old people so...  I don't see many changing their thinking or actions based on the event.

96
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: September 08, 2020, 11:42:23 AM »
Quote
Cohen rips through accounts of dozens of incidents, ranging from Trump allegedly cheating mom-and-pop vendors for services rendered at Trump properties to incidents

This was well known long before Trump decided to become a politician. For reasons I don't understand during his complain his supporters seemed to think that made him a 'good' business man at the same time arguing that they could Trust Trump to be loyal to them.  Odd contradiction in my opinion.


97
It takes a certain mental gymnastics of blaming the victim in order to justify our bias.

Rittenhouse had not businesses being out after curfew with a gun, arguably looking for trouble which his actions insured he would find. Anyone arguing Rittenhouse justifications for the homicide is missing the point or attempting to confuse the real issue behind why a 17 year old boy was engaged in the activity in the first place. 

Unless our "law and order' leaders call that out they are asking for such incidences to be repeated

The 8PM Curfew applied to everyone, not just people under 18. So by your logic of "he had no business being out after curfew" then "his victims had no business being out after curfew" as well.

Extinguishing an act or arson is not criminal. It may be provocative with respect to the arsonist(s)(which victim #1 may have been one of), but that just establishes the arsonist as a criminal, not the guy who put out the fire. It may place the guy with the fire extinguisher up for a Darwin Award, but not criminal.

Being chased nearly 3 blocks before turning around after a gunshot and opening fire on the guy grabbing for his gun also does not demonstrate criminal intent on the part of Rittenhouse. You call it "victim blaming" only because Rittenhouse isn't the one who was killed, in that encounter everything points to Rittenhouse being the real victim(albeit a stupid one, the police were literally less than a hundred feet away from where the chase presumably started).

Being stupid isn't a crime.

Of course the curfew applied to everyone. And it was interesting how the Chief of Police used that argument to blame the victims while saying nothing about the militia that were out to play.

The curfew is point that the police did once again show that they responded differently to situations depending on who you were. But that is a minor point with regards to Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse as a armed 17 year old boy had no business being were he was or doing what he was doing period.  You can try to justify how he handled the situation he found himself but him getting into that situation is the problem. A Problem most definitely wasn't representing "Law and Order'.  By ignoring the issue of Rittenhouse being where he was and doing what he was as part of a militia what signal is being sent with regards to Law and Order your man says hes all about?  Just more hypocrisy.

98
It takes a certain mental gymnastics of blaming the victim in order to justify our bias.

Rittenhouse had not businesses being out after curfew with a gun, arguably looking for trouble which his actions insured he would find. Anyone arguing Rittenhouse justifications for the homicide is missing the point or attempting to confuse the real issue behind why a 17 year old boy was engaged in the activity in the first place. 

Unless our "law and order' leaders call that out they are asking for such incidences to be repeated



99
Well if they get caught and convicted, he'll just pardon them.

It's sad because it's true...

It's sad because I bet we'll have hundreds or thousands of voter fraud cases now linked to this. There's always a couple every cycle now where some Republican who has been listening to too much fox news about how easy voting fraud and double voting is go and do it "to prove that its being done" only to end up facing criminal charges as a result of their self designed election security test. Now the president is up there telling people to vote by mail then vote in person. We're going to have a lot of new senior citizen felons as a result.

Where have the true conservatives gone

These types of reasonable statement should trouble everyone.
Trump is essentially creating what he 'fears' so that he can use it as a excuse to further undermine democracy.

100
And why wouldn't he?  The question is why aren't you doing so as well?  You should be supporting the mostly peaceful protesters, instead of attacking them and lumping them in with the minority of the violent activists.

I only support the peaceful protesters, the "mostly peaceful" ones are rioters.

When it comes to bad apples Trump suggest that the few bad apples in the police don't represent the whole (not mentioning how difficult it is to hold the bad apples accountable which suggests a systemic problem as that is a system problem not a bad apple one). While on the other hand his rhetoric suggests the few bad apples within the protesters, represents the protests as a whole negating any issues that the protests might have or entering into dialog.

Where do you stand to the few bad applies in the protesters represent the whole?   

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 32