***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Deleted member 42060]

The thing is, you have two examples why you would vote Democrat, yet you are going to vote GOP.

You whole shtick is to supposedly call out people morals, demand discourse, and use civility as a shield. When people point out how your claimed morals don't align with your voting habits, you try to spin it like they do but you obviously struggle to form a cogent argument because the evidence is against you; so instead you troll by feigning ignorance about issues.

In fact feigning ignorance is a go to tactic for you:

You do it with Belgium on foreign policy, with me on economics, with multiple posters on voting rights.

On balance the GOP might be the party for you, but you are being completely dishonest about what issues are important to you, and what motivates your voting habits. Just say you want a tax cut, don't like immigrants, or are against the women's right to chose. At least be honest with yourself and people in here.

I am not a single issue voter but I am nothing like you. If I were like you I would be saying **** like "I really want to make sure as many people as possible are denied health insurance, I think for profit healthcare is the most important thing, not affordable access to care but I am supporting Bernie for the presidency because.... 'reasons' ". That is how asinine you sound.

So he supports the GOP for his reasons while ignoring the concerns and welfare of less privileged voters. Also the petty issues like racism, corruption, sexism, financial mismangement etc., are disregarded. Same thing I remembered about Ninja.

 

[gry60]

While he phrased it that way, the question wasn’t about intent. We know what the intent is. My question to Dwalk was whether or not he’d still vote for the perpetrating party knowing why and how it was being used . And he answered that question

That's the thing: he doesn't acknowledge that intent, but he does it implicitly.
His continuous use of "if" when talking about voter supression suggests that he either doesn't believe it is actually happening, or he downplays the effect of the voter ID laws, which is why he can claim to support voting rights for Blacks and support the GOP at the same time.

It's a pure exercise in disingenuousness through language manipulation.

 

[Deleted member 42060]

Assumption rather than actuality.

 

[dwalk31]

Trump and the GOP's platform was the polar opposite of criminal justice reform, aside from going back in the other direction.

Compared to Hillary Clinton’s record on being tough on crime? We are talking about 2016, right?

You say “was” as in past tense? Do you believe the focus has shifted? After the First Step Act and FairChance Act what is your position or is it irrelevant in your analysis?

 

[IATT]

Still waiting for the context dwalk31 is talking about in these recordings



full audio

 

[RustyShackleford]

I’m not sure what gave you that impression.My focus on criminal justice reform did not begin with President Trump or President Obama. I remember the 1994 crime bill.

For me, I am pro-reform, period. As Van Jones has mentioned, the goals are the same—and these are important issues—no matter who is in office. I am happy that the First Step Act and Fair Chance Act have passed. We still have much more to do.

More bull****

Do you know that some members Congressional black caucus help save the 1994 Crime Bill because the GOP was calling even harsher version with all of the positive stuff in the omnibus bill stripped out. And the GOP was looking like they would take the House, so they didn't want to give them a chance to do so.

You do know back in the tough on crime error the GOP thought the Dems were weak on crime, wanted more punitive policy, and used racist dog whistles to turn white voters against the Dem if them. Ever heard of the Willie Horton ad?

There were a lot of people wrong, and a lot of bad actors during the Tough on Crime Era. The GOP were some of the worst of them. So you little talking point like the 1994 Crime Bill is a point in the GOP's column is bull****. I hate much of the policy, but anyone that has done research of that era knows we would have gotten worst if the GOP was running things.

Yet you still support them happily.

Like I said, people are not ignorant or idiotic enough to buy you BS.

 

[gry60]

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t they purge all of the other records in that book?

The job of the main protagonist was not just to destroy records but to rewrite history (past newspapers articles) to bring them in line with the current policies of the government.

It is more insidious to lie about the nature of an event than to deny that it ever happened (but I'm sure I'm not teaching you anything here).

 

[RustyShackleford]

Compared to Hillary Clinton’s record on being tough on crime? We are talking about 2016, right?

You say “was” as in past tense? Do you believe the focus has shifted? After the First Step Act and FairChance Act what is your position or is it irrelevant in your analysis?

Hillary Clinton was not tough on crime in 2016. She was heavy pro criminal jsutice reform. Trump was tough on crime.

Hillary was tough on crime in the Tough on Crime Era.

I wonder where the person YOU voted for was during that time. Oh yeah....

Maybe he saw the error of his ways after they were exonerated. Oh yeah, he didn't....
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-yor...al-park-settlement-disgrace-article-1.1838467

You are soooo full of it

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

That's the thing: he doesn't acknowledge that intent, but he does it implicitly.
His continuous use of "if" when talking about voter supression suggests that he either doesn't believe it is actually happening, or he downplays the effect of the voter ID laws, which is why he can claim to support voting rights for Blacks and support the GOP at the same time.

It's a pure exercise in disingenuousness through language manipulation.

absolutely, which is why I engage with him the wayI do. Clarifying question after clarifying question. Can only duck questions for so long. At the end of the day He did answer. He’s okay with giving his vote to people that will use their political platforms to suppress the black vote if he’s happy other areas like prison reform and getting conservative judges I assume.

 

[boris]

That's the thing: he doesn't acknowledge that intent, but he does it implicitly.
His continuous use of "if" when talking about voter supression suggests that he either doesn't believe it is actually happening, or he downplays the effect of the voter ID laws, which is why he can claim to support voting rights for Blacks and support the GOP at the same time.

It's a pure exercise in disingenuousness through language manipulation.

I think it's more along these lines. I think he knows that the GOP is responsible for awful ****, and he understands that it is awful. It's just that he doesn't care. What he does care about is appearance and money.

He tries so hard to make himself seem morally superior to everyone in here. He can never be wrong. There's always a reason why everyone else is the problem.

 

[whywesteppin]

I hope everyone is enjoying their Saturdays, free of prison time or federal criminal charges.

I just wanted to post this reminder that Paul Manafort and Michael Coehn are in prison, Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos served time, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn await sentencing, and Donald Trump has been impeached.

 

[RustyShackleford]

absolutely, which is why I engage with him the wayI do. Clarifying question after clarifying question. Can only duck questions for so long. At the end of the day He did answer. He’s okay with giving his vote to people that will use their political platforms to suppress the black vote if he’s happy other areas like prison reform and getting conservative judges I assume.

The thing is, he doesn't sincerely answer. He just feeds the person disingenuous answers until he can get the person to think he is reasonable.

Like his answer on prison reform is BS if you look at the dynamics of how the policy passed and his previous stance. Like he is gonna vote GOP on the hope Cory Booker and other Dems can fight for a couple years to get enough Republicans to sign onto with compromises, and for Kushner to agree to convince Trump about.

 

[dwalk31]

Hillary Clinton was not tough on crime in 2016. She was heavy pro criminal jsutice reform. Trump was tough on crime.

Hillary was tough on crime in the Tough on Crime Era.

I wonder where the person YOU voted for was during that time. Oh yeah....

Maybe he saw the error of his ways after they were exonerated. Oh yeah, he didn't....
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-yor...al-park-settlement-disgrace-article-1.1838467

You are soooo full of it

He wasn’t a politician. And I’ve disagreed with his stance as it relates to the Central Park 5. He, like many in here, adopted the guilty until proven innocent standard. Unlike him, and many in here, I am a strong advocate for due process.

 

[SpittaJetLife]

I hope everyone is enjoying their Saturdays, free of prison time or federal criminal charges.

I just wanted to post this reminder that Paul Manafort and Michael Coehn are in prison, Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos served time, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn await sentencing, and Donald Trump has been impeached.

Doesn’t matter though if Trump is reelected in 2020

 

[RustyShackleford]

Even if Trump loses, the country could face two major problems in his lame duck session

-Trump will refuse to accept the results and the GOP will back him up. If the GOP can deny 270 electors from being certified, then we are in a constitutional crisis.

-We get enough electors, and Trump has to accept defeat. Then dude for 2 months and some change to cover his tracks, so we may never truly no the extent of his crimes and graft. The pardon pen gonna be putting in work. Destruction of documents, and cleaning of servers will be at an all time high. And I doubt our institutions are functioning well enough to stop this.

 

[Belgium]

Compared to Hillary Clinton’s record on being tough on crime? We are talking about 2016, right?

You say “was” as in past tense? Do you believe the focus has shifted? After the First Step Act and FairChance Act what is your position or is it irrelevant in your analysis?

To answer your last question first, neither were on the table at that point and there was no indication they were going to be on the table at any point. That proved to be the case for much of the administration's tenure. When the midterms came around, the same Republicans who had been sabotaging the FSA bill for the prior few years decided to help revive it, albeit a watered down version.
The political calculus has evidently shifted to some extent. Results are results at the end of the day but the same people who revived those bills were the ones who sabotaged and stonewalled them for the past few years prior.

As for Hillary, her record was bad but she did have reforms in her platform. Her opponent ran on the 1994-type "tough on crime" stance and unsurprisingly instituted that archaic view at DOJ through someone who still thinks the war on drugs is a fantastic idea.

 

[RustyShackleford]

He wasn’t a politician. And I’ve disagreed with his stance as it relates to the Central Park 5. He, like many in here, adopted the guilty until proven innocent standard. Unlike him, and many in here, I am a strong advocate for due process.

Hillary Clinton was not a politician, she didn't hold an elected position when the Crime Bill passed, she had not run for office. Member

Trump ran for the presidency in 2000. The same time Hillary ran for the Senate. So they became politicians at the same time.

He wrote the op-ed refusing to admit wrong and calling the settlement a disgrace after he first ran for office.

So your deflection is bull****. Once again

 

[RustyShackleford]

I love how DWalk completely ignores all of Trump's regressive moves on criminal justice to act like he is some advocate because he signed a couple bills.

 

[whywesteppin]

Doesn’t matter though if Trump is reelected in 2020

my offspring will never have to wonder if I was a career criminal.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

The thing is, he doesn't sincerely answer. He just feeds the person disingenuous answers until he can get the person to think he is reasonable.

Like his answer on prison reform is BS if you look at the dynamics of how the policy passed and his previous stance. Like he is gonna vote GOP on the hope Cory Booker and other Dems can fight for a couple years to get enough Republicans to sign onto with compromises, and for Kushner to agree to convince Trump about.

I know that and you know that and now that weak stance is on display. I was more curious About what else could the GOP be giving out that would be worth empowering out right voter suppression with tacit support. For some reason he believes he’s gotta
Take his first step act with a side of voter suppression.

 

[Deleted member 42060]

He wasn’t a politician. And I’ve disagreed with his stance as it relates to the Central Park 5. He, like many in here, adopted the guilty until proven innocent standard. Unlike him, and many in here, I am a strong advocate for due process.

So if he won a presidential election in the 90s, would your vote have gone to him? Lets say you can vote.

 

[dwalk31]

He tries so hard to make himself seem morally superior to everyone in here. He can never be wrong. There's always a reason why everyone else is the problem.

Saying that I respect someone’s opinion and agreeing to disagree is not seeming morally superior. You all think I’m the problem and that I’m morally bankrupt, not the other way around.

I said yikes and woe to highlight the hypocrisy of pearl clutching at Trump while many in here body shame, etc.

 

[RustyShackleford]

dwalk31 are you gonna consider the fact no one in here is a politician next him you want to quote us and lecture us about discourse?

 

[Belgium]

Of course the recording cuts off at the last sentence
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0c2414-3a03-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html
Trump privately detailed the Soleimani airstrike to donors at Mar-a-Lago fundraiser

 

[boris]

Saying that I respect someone’s opinion and agreeing to disagree is not seeming morally superior.

I'm explaining how I interpret your behavior. I'm not asking you to tell me how to interpret your behavior.

You all think I’m the problem and that I’m morally bankrupt, not the other way around.

lol, no u! Literally demonstrating what I said.

I said yikes and woe to highlight the hypocrisy of pearl clutching at Trump while many in here body shame, etc.

As I've said before, you can and should do better with your own hypocrisy. And, to be clear, I do not believe that is why you say yikes.