***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,510
- 190,395
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Please, miss me with this.
People like you stay quiet when Republicans do their vile nonsense.
The second, whenever the left has a chance to return the same energy, often from a stronger policy and moral standpoint, then these weak *** "both sides" argument gets rolled out by your kind.
The Dems have been, and will continue compromise to help immigrants. They agree to strengthen so called border security, and restriction legal immigration. They compromise. The right does nothing on gun control, zero. They deflect with the mental health rhetoric, and then actually try to hurt mental healthcare in America.
It doesn't go both ways.
The behavior you are exhibiting is hypocritical, unprincipled, and more morally bankrupt than the people you claim to condemn.
You are complicit in the right's propaganda pushing. You only have morals when you need to deflect.
Last edited:
- 10,580
- 7,874
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2014
This be some of the weirdest ish too. Say a shooter was mental ill or unhealthy but issue no kinda of preventative processes to prevent mentally unstable people from getting firearms
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Not at all. My positions, believe it or not, are not aligned with the views of every person on the right. I assume yours don't align with the views of everyone on the left. I don't think gun control is the answer. Perhaps you do. After each of these instances we ask could gun control laws have prevented this. The answer is hardly a resounding yes. But I don't think those types of conversations are appropriate when parents are still recovering from the deaths of their children that happened less than 48 hours ago. Forgive me. And no, I did not mention mental health.
Also dems are not the only party that helps immigrants. It is bipartisan. And there is a difference between immigrants and illegal undocumented immigrants. I know that it is your intention to blur those lines. Many undocumented immigrants are exploited, sold into slavery, and worse. Comprehensive immigration reform is a good thing. And, it appears, that it will happen under this administration.
And I managed to type all of that without a single disparaging remark about you personally. Amazing how that happens.
- 2,680
- 5,573
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2017
TBH, you didn't say anything really. I understand what you're trying to say, but nothing you said was of substance.
Last edited:
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,510
- 190,395
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
You typed all that an said nothing. Talk in circles but made no point.
Point blank, you lack the morals you demand from others. You just want to peddle your shtick with impunity.
Sorry, but no.
You give tacit support to xenophobia, right wing authoritarianism, economic terrorism on the poor, and bigotry.
Then you want to play coy and dumb when someone points that out. You routinely make drive by post with no substance. You never debate in good faith. You are routinely intellectually dishonest, and when you lose solid footing in a debate, you resort to arguing semantics. Like why bother engage on the points you bring up because I know the rabbit hole you drag me into in order to deflect.
You only like order, when order can shield you from criticism.
These conclusions are based on your comments in this thread. If you are uncomfortable with the conclusion, maybe it is time to rethink the content of your posts.
Last edited:
Belgium
formerly colombia
- 26,128
- 37,390
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
There's a bit of nuance. Just a general statement and not referring to the above cases but the potential impact of the words and actions of anyone in powerful and highly influential positions shouldn't be understated. Everyone is responsible for their own actions at the end of the day but there are laws like inciting violence that can apply to indirect responsibility.
For example, if I were to go to a soccer match and I yell out something in support of the opposing team in the home fans section, I will be swiftly removed and likely blacklisted by security. Possibly even charged with inciting violence if any breaks out as a result of highly inflammatory comments in that setting. Technically I wouldn't have really done anything other than say some words but the consequences of doing so in that environment can be very serious. I would still be responsible to some extent because everyone knows or should know the dangers of football hooliganism and what riles them up.
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
That wouldn't happen in America. Supporting an opposing team is not inciting violence. Yelling "FAKE REFS" wouldn't make you responsible for someone trying to murder the refs... just be serious for a second.
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Nothing I have stated in this thread supports your assertion that I promote xenophobia, right-wing authoritarianism, economic terrorism on the poor, and bigotry. Your shtick is to try to marry anyone that you perceive as on the right to every vile thing that anyone who claims to be on the right has ever said. Basket of deporables? Then you play the "I'm an economist, so you don't understand" card. That's fine.
The tactic of disparaging anyone on the other side didn't work well for Dems the last time around. A new approach is probably better.
As always, if there is an actual issue that you want to have a substantive convo/debate on I am all for it.
I'll start it off. What is your stance on a livable wage for everyone? I think that it is a fool's errand. I think that the better route is legislation that brings more jobs to America and better education opportunities.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,510
- 190,395
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
I tell you an am economist to let you know that you nonsense talking in economics will not work on me. Not to brag.
Yesterday, dudes from all professions laughed at your clearly ignorant economic assertion.
I never said you explicitly promote bigotry. I said you tacitly support it. You are just proving my point about you never debating in good faith.
And no, I will pass on you wanting to change the subject to deflect. I have voiced my opinion on similar issues plenty of times already.
Yesterday, dudes from all professions laughed at your clearly ignorant economic assertion.
I never said you explicitly promote bigotry. I said you tacitly support it. You are just proving my point about you never debating in good faith.
And no, I will pass on you wanting to change the subject to deflect. I have voiced my opinion on similar issues plenty of times already.
dacomeup
Supporter
- 25,416
- 35,025
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
The president has already encouraged violence against journalists. Remember the CNN body slam tweet?
- 10,580
- 7,874
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2014
It most certainly does happen in America. Fans have been thrown out for being disruptive before. One of the more recent moments was when that fan was in Russell Westrbrook's face flippin' him off and cursing. Did he break any laws or actually harm someone? No but certainly he was removed and I believe he was banned from the games.
This happened a little over a week ago:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/01/bucks-fan-ejected-after-yelling-obscenities-at-klay-thompson
If two people are using the same terminology they likely run in the same circles or one has influenced the other. Is Trump directly responsible for what a person does if he isn't giving them direct instructions? No, but there is a piece of responsibility in every person's words. What I say to my children has a dramatic effect on how they live their lives. So I have to be constantly cognizant of what I say.
Last edited:
elpablo21
Supporter
- 103,086
- 184,285
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- 14,279
- 34,516
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
"Technically I wouldn't have really done anything other than say some words but the consequences of doing so in that environment can be very serious"
If you can't understand this concept, you won't understand why your viewpoints keep getting ridiculed.
You should get familiar with cause and action, action and reaction, consequences, etc...
- 10,580
- 7,874
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2014
Maybe Dwalk is an attorney/lawyer. He argues minute points and items frequently. He just isn't very good at it. Public defender maybe?
- 14,279
- 34,516
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
http://thehill.com/policy/internati...-love-trump-because-he-tells-africans-frankly
Getting love from dictators.
Museveni has been in power for 31 years, and his policies have definitely helped shape the way certain people outside Africa think of the continent and its people, so **** him and his blood-sucking, hope-killing buddies. The earth can't swallow these ****s fast enough.
Getting love from dictators.
Museveni has been in power for 31 years, and his policies have definitely helped shape the way certain people outside Africa think of the continent and its people, so **** him and his blood-sucking, hope-killing buddies. The earth can't swallow these ****s fast enough.
Belgium
formerly colombia
- 26,128
- 37,390
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
The US Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that the government can not punish you for speech unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
That ruling is still in effect. In other words, the law can hold someone responsible to some degree for what is essentially deliberately riling up groups who have a documented history of being prone to violent outbursts involving certain inflammatory speech. Hate speech is protected speech, inciting violence is not.
There's various degrees of responsibility, nobody is arguing that inciting violence is on the same level as actually committing the violence.
That's a strawman argument
dwalk31
Correct me if I'm wrong but you also seem to base having any degree of responsibility off of whether there is any legal accountability. Surely it is a matter of principle as well?
People can instigate or provoke a fight without actually throwing hands can they not? If you step up to some angry looking dude, get in his face and start provoking him but never mention the word fight directly or lay a finger on him and he knocks you out, is there no degree of responsibility for the instigator? Obviously not equal to that of the assaulter but I don't think "but I didn't touch him though" is going to absolve all blame.
That ruling is still in effect. In other words, the law can hold someone responsible to some degree for what is essentially deliberately riling up groups who have a documented history of being prone to violent outbursts involving certain inflammatory speech. Hate speech is protected speech, inciting violence is not.
There's various degrees of responsibility, nobody is arguing that inciting violence is on the same level as actually committing the violence.
That's a strawman argument
dwalk31
Correct me if I'm wrong but you also seem to base having any degree of responsibility off of whether there is any legal accountability. Surely it is a matter of principle as well?
People can instigate or provoke a fight without actually throwing hands can they not? If you step up to some angry looking dude, get in his face and start provoking him but never mention the word fight directly or lay a finger on him and he knocks you out, is there no degree of responsibility for the instigator? Obviously not equal to that of the assaulter but I don't think "but I didn't touch him though" is going to absolve all blame.
Last edited:
- 22,892
- 33,215
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
Lionel Hutz
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
This is sad. I am not a public defender. I actually don't do criminal at all. But I have several friends that are. They are passionate, intelligent and competent attorneys. Often even more intelligent than their counterparts who are dedicated to ensuring that the constitutional rights of indigent defendants are protected. They do this, mind you, with limited resources and despite the comments from people who feel like yourself. Your implication is beyond offensive, and ignorant.
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Are you talking about the WWE gif? Are you serious?
Take that to the logical conclusion... he promoted violence against logos... If you want to get hyper-technical and ridiculous. That is very different than promoting violence against a journalist. I know you see the difference.
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
This is very different than supporting an opposing team in the wrong section at a soccer game. Which is what Belgium mentioned. Of course if he was yelling obscenities it would be very different.
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
And what, exactly, do you think? The scum terrorist that did that to Heather Heyer can't blame anyone's tweets or political rhetoric for his behavior. White supremacy isn't new. It was here long before Trump's tweets. And the scumbags that buy into that ideology aren't victims of political rhetoric.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,510
- 190,395
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
One Nazi that turned out to be a terrorist
Surrounded by other Nazis, who some might call......very fine people.
Maybe they should have brought some of those "2nd amendment folks" Trump asked to stop Hillary.
-Like I said, tacit support.
Surrounded by other Nazis, who some might call......very fine people.
Maybe they should have brought some of those "2nd amendment folks" Trump asked to stop Hillary.
-Like I said, tacit support.
elpablo21
Supporter
- 103,086
- 184,285
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
doubt this happens
