***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[plansb]

I really don’t see it. Trumps base was always energized and going to show out to vote. He hasn’t done anything to add to that base over the past three years. If anything he has energized everyone not his base to show up to vote against him in 2020. The guy lost by 3 mil to one of the most hated candidates ever, anyone not Hillary should wash him in 2020 imo. That is unless the Russian attacks are much more severe and votes are altered.

 

[deleted]

While at the same time denying they're racist because they don't like that label for whatever reason.

Because they know racism is wrong, but they've convinced themselves that only the most extreme situations count as "real" racism

 

[boris]

I really don’t see it. Trumps base was always energized and going to show out to vote. He hasn’t done anything to add to that base over the past three years. If anything he has energized everyone not his base to show up to vote against him in 2020. The guy lost by 3 mil to one of the most hated candidates ever, anyone not Hillary should wash him in 2020 imo. That is unless the Russian attacks are much more severe and votes are altered.

This idiot should lose in a fair election, which means the GOP will do everything they can to make it an unfair election.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Like I have said multiple times before, in America there is little consequences for being a racist, but there's major consequences for being publicly labeled one.

Think about it, how can a country in America where and overwhelming amount of people polled say racism is wrong, still have so much oppression of their minority groups? It is because racist with the help of social conservatives, and the Republican Party have be gradually narrowing the definition of racism. So now most racist acts in America can be defended or handwaved because it doesn't fit that narrow description. Furthermore, they rewrite the country’s history (look at the Civil War rhetoric), they use more abstract language to dog whistle, and turn to more furtive methods of oppression intended of explicit ones.

The objective is not about being anti-racist, or non-racist. The objective is being racist but not getting caught.

This is why I had and still have an issue when some progressive excused some Trump voters as "economically anxious" even after research shows their votes were motivated by regressive racial views, not frustration of economic standing. So, the people on the left that peddled with just made themselves useful idiots for the right's finesse.

Furthermore, to conservatives, anything that benefits minorities that the left pushes for has to be framed as either unreasonable, or in a way that it takes away too much from the white community to ever enact. Reparations should not be paid because white people are paying for acts, they didn't directly commit. We can't have higher wages because things will cost more. Affirmative Action means a white kid is getting screwed over. We can't change out housing codes because that will lower property value. The list goes on and on.

But if conservatives do something that benefits a minority in anyway, look at how it is shouted from the heavens and pats of the back are demanded. Furthermore, it will be held up as evidence that all other charges of racism should be null and void.

Look at how before the First Step Act, criminal justice reform was a liberal scheme to put criminals back on the streets, and concerns of these issues from liberal posters in here would get handwaved by Dwalk. But once Kushner made Trump agree to sign the bill (a bill that had been watered down by the GOP over and over from original progressive demands), DWalk now becomes a crusader for criminal justice. Because now it can be used as a shield to defend other racism.

 

[whywesteppin]

Look at how before the First Step Act, criminal justice reform was a liberal scheme to put criminals back on the streets, and concerns of these issues from liberal posters in here would get handwaved by Dwalk. But once Kushner made Trump agree to sign the bill (a bill that had been watered down by the GOP over and over from original progressive demands), DWalk now becomes a crusader for criminal justice. Because now it can be used as a shield to defend other racism.

example 2: tweet about a$ap rocky, making the low-IQ deplorable think you're not a racist because why would a racist try to help a black person.

same breath: attack AOC, Cummings, et al.

 

[Belgium]

I feel like this was a pretty damning statement as well but it seems to have been largely glossed over.
Trump refused to answer a single question on obstruction and the few answers he did give were not just inadequate but also not always truthful. Even in written testimony he couldn't stick to the truth.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ays-truthful-in-written-answers-idUSKCN1UJ2R8
Mueller says he 'generally' agrees Trump was not always truthful in written answers
Former U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller said on Wednesday he “generally” agreed with a characterization that Trump’s written answers to investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. election were not always truthful.

“Isn’t it fair to say that the president’s written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn’t answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn’t always being truthful?” Democratic lawmaker Val Demings asked as Mueller testified before the House intelligence panel.

“Generally,” Mueller said.

 

[Methodical Management]

The standard mentioned is obviously in regards to due process. On page 6562, @aepps20 suggested I am a supporter of Roy Moore. He/she also suggested that I cape for pedophiles and rapists. I informed that defense of due process is not support for the accused.

I agree that the items you are mentioning are wholly unrelated to the context I just provided.

Although there are other conclusions one could draw, a reasonable person could conclude that based on your statements.

Roy Moore is literally the first person whose due process rights you defended on NikeTalk.
https://niketalk.com/threads/official-political-discussion-thread.509493/page-4073#post-29139385

According to our search results - and Google's - you did not so much as utter the phrase "due process" on our forums prior to that.


Our platform's search function is hardly perfect, but it's more than up to the task of identifying all posts from a certain user that include specified keywords, as arranged by relevance or date.

Everyone can see whose due process rights you actually care about. Such searches can be initiated here: https://niketalk.com/search/


Were "due process" your top priority in 2016, you might have mentioned it in 2016 - or opposed the candidate who took out a full page newspaper ad to call for the deaths of Black men prior to their false conviction, or whose administration is, as we speak, stripping away any semblance of meaningful due process rights for those suspected of immigration offenses.

Tell me, is this the "due process" candidate?

"I've always said Trump can - and should - do better" is a pitifully inadequate defense of someone blatantly and consistently trampling one of your purported "core values."

One wonders what, exactly, Trump represents that you do agree with - to the point that it warrants looking the other way on all of the above?

It certainly isn't immigration reform, and stories like this one would seem the antithesis of "pro-life":
https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/nearly-30-women-miscarried-while-detained-by-ice-since-2017.html?

Support for any politician is rarely an "all or nothing" affair, though it functions that way on the ballot. We all make compromises. Even those who choose not to vote in protest are selecting something they want (ideological purity) at the cost of something they don't want (the net effects of allowing the candidate they most dislike to win a particular office.)

If "due process" is a priority for you - and not a deflection - then it is demonstrably not a top priority.


Thus, when people claim that you're invoking "due process" selectively, cynically, and disingenuously, that would seem like a reasonable conclusion.


To this, I'm sure you'll simply "agree to disagree, respectfully of course", but I'd rather you select from one of the other four plays:

Do better.

 

[plansb]

Every time I see a meth post quoting dwalks I think the ban is coming and it never does. how long is this rookie dwalk going to be allowed to troll on here.

 

[Belgium]

Not a big surprise there. Coats refused to go along with Trump's attempt to pressure him and former NSA Director Mike Rogers into involving themselves in the Russia investigation and publicly declaring Trump had no connection to Russia. In other words he tried to get both of them to lie to the public.
I imagine it also didn't go over very well when Coats testified to Congress and contradicted Trump's false claims about North Korea, Iran and ISIS. [1, 2]


1) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/us/politics/kim-jong-trump.html
On North Korea and Iran, Intelligence Chiefs Contradict Trump
2)https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rea-nuclear-weapons-daniel-coats-intelligence
Intelligence chief contradicts Trump on North Korea and Iran

 

[IATT]

 

[deleted]

It's so weird how the cries for Roy Moore's "due process" appeared in this thread within days of it becoming a right-wing talking point from the likes of Sean Hannity

A total coincidence I'm sure

 

[IATT]

 

[fayetnam]

I’m an Alpha.

But there were tons of black folks at Tech that didn’t pledge at all. We also had Sigmas and Kappas towards the end of my tenure. They were kicked off the yard for a second.

‘06 to the good Bruhs tho.

Ima give you a chance to take it back... cause ima quiz yo *** n things you should know if u really n alpha.. if you get anything wrong you not black

 

[Wargames]

What’s crazy is I remember this was called racist when he tweeted it and now it comes off as tame compared to everything he has tweeted since becoming president.

 

[IATT]

 

[Wargames]

the evolution of defending Trump's tweets:

2016: "He's not president yet, this is just for show."

2017: "We don't know what's in his heart."

2018: "He can and should do better with his tweets."

2019: "I didn't do the tweets, Chuck."

I legit worry when this snake oil salesman runs for President. He can lie with a straight face like nothing...... maybe because he doesn’t have a soul. Idk, I just know when he runs I hope he doesn’t get out the Repub’s primary.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

 

[dwalk31]

Although there are other conclusions one could draw, a reasonable person could conclude that based on your statements.

Roy Moore is literally the first person whose due process rights you defended on NikeTalk.
https://niketalk.com/threads/official-political-discussion-thread.509493/page-4073#post-29139385

According to our search results - and Google's - you did not so much as utter the phrase "due process" on our forums prior to that.


Our platform's search function is hardly perfect, but it's more than up to the task of identifying all posts from a certain user that include specified keywords, as arranged by relevance or date.

Everyone can see whose due process rights you actually care about. Such searches can be initiated here: https://niketalk.com/search/


Were "due process" your top priority in 2016, you might have mentioned it in 2016 - or opposed the candidate who took out a full page newspaper ad to call for the deaths of Black men prior to their false conviction, or whose administration is, as we speak, stripping away any semblance of meaningful due process rights for those suspected of immigration offenses.

Tell me, is this the "due process" candidate?

"I've always said Trump can - and should - do better" is a pitifully inadequate defense of someone blatantly and consistently trampling one of your purported "core values."

One wonders what, exactly, Trump represents that you do agree with - to the point that it warrants looking the other way on all of the above?

It certainly isn't immigration reform, and stories like this one would seem the antithesis of "pro-life":
https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/nearly-30-women-miscarried-while-detained-by-ice-since-2017.html?

Support for any politician is rarely an "all or nothing" affair, though it functions that way on the ballot. We all make compromises. Even those who choose not to vote in protest are selecting something they want (ideological purity) at the cost of something they don't want (the net effects of allowing the candidate they most dislike to win a particular office.)

If "due process" is a priority for you - and not a deflection - then it is demonstrably not a top priority.


Thus, when people claim that you're invoking "due process" selectively, cynically, and disingenuously, that would seem like a reasonable conclusion.


To this, I'm sure you'll simply "agree to disagree, respectfully of course", but I'd rather you select from one of the other four plays:

Do better.

At what point did I start contributing to the Political Discussion thread consistently? Because since I have, I have been consistent on my views related to due process, immigration reform, abortion, etc. The majority of my time on niketalk was not in this thread until the election, I imagine, because it was so polarizing. Prior to that I was in the jewelry thread, high-end designer clothing and sneaker threads, and jordan forums regularly. Despite where I posted, it did not shift causes that I contribute both time and capital to.

The hypocrisy that is shown in this thread is glaring. On the one hand, you, and others post that article by trump where he clearly adopted a ridiculous guilty until innocent standard. And then others use his same ridiculous logic when calling Roy Moore a rapist.

I'm sure that you may agree to disagree but I fear that many in here are becoming what they despise. They resort to bitter rhetoric in response to sides they oppose. Use charged language, etc. Now which president does that sound like?

 

[dwalk31]

Every time I see a meth post quoting dwalks I think the ban is coming and it never does. how long is this rookie dwalk going to be allowed to troll on here.

I'm not trolling. I just have political views at odds with many in this thread. I also work diligently to keep my posts respectful. Despite how folks come at me.

 

[dwalk31]

Ima give you a chance to take it back... cause ima quiz yo *** n things you should know if u really n alpha.. if you get anything wrong you not black

How was your college life tho?

 

[boris]

At what point did I start contributing to the Political Discussion thread consistently? Because since I have, I have been consistent on my views related to due process, immigration reform, abortion, etc. The majority of my time on niketalk was not in this thread until the election, I imagine, because it was so polarizing. Prior to that I was in the jewelry thread, high-end designer clothing and sneaker threads, and jordan forums regularly. Despite where I posted, it did not shift causes that I contribute both time and capital to.

The hypocrisy that is shown in this thread is glaring. On the one hand, you, and others post that article by trump where he clearly adopted a ridiculous guilty until innocent standard. And then others use his same ridiculous logic when calling Roy Moore a rapist.

I'm sure that you may agree to disagree but I fear that many in here are becoming what they despise. They resort to bitter rhetoric in response to sides they oppose. Use charged language, etc. Now which president does that sound like?

This response is, predictably, a deflection.

 

[Methodical Management]

At what point did I start contributing to the Political Discussion thread consistently? Because since I have, I have been consistent on my views related to due process, immigration reform, abortion, etc.

So, to confirm, you didn't say a peep about "due process" on NikeTalk until one of Donald Trump's ideological peers was accused of wrongdoing. Nothing in all of your prior years on this forum stoked your latent passion for due process quite so intensely as Roy Moore?

It would be, itself, a rush to judgment to construe your erstwhile silence on this issue as representative of your true fervor for due process rights. We must simply take you at your word, which, ironically, is a standard you otherwise consider irresponsible.

And, meanwhile, you supported which candidate, again? The one who, even now, considers the Central Park 5 guilty despite being proven innocent?

I'm sure you can understand how reasonable minds could reach the conclusion that your "deep concern" for due process is little more than a cynical deflection.

The hypocrisy that is shown in this thread is glaring. On the one hand, you, and others post that article by trump where he clearly adopted a ridiculous guilty until innocent standard. And then others use his same ridiculous logic when calling Roy Moore a rapist.

Ah, the trite "echo chamber" play. I was wondering when that would show up. We're now just a "yikes" away from DWalk bingo.

There's a distinction to be made between sentencing someone before they're proven guilty, and considering substantiated information about someone before they're criminally convicted.

We've already talked about how problematic it is to rely on the US criminal justice system as the ultimate - if not only - arbiter of truth.
You didn't exactly acquit yourself well in that exchange: https://niketalk.com/threads/official-political-discussion-thread.509493/page-6254#post-31602749

If you're not allowed to hold a disqualifying, or even negative, opinion of someone based on anything short of an upheld conviction, how do you square that with "lock her up?"

So calling Brett Kavanaugh a "rapist" based on the testimony of his accusers and the corroborating accounts of his former classmates is out of line - but you demonstrate unwavering fealty to a man who called Mexican immigrants generally "rapists."

Thank you for shining such a bright light on hypocrisy for us.

I'm sure that you may agree to disagree but I fear that many in here are becoming what they despise. They resort to bitter rhetoric in response to sides they oppose. Use charged language, etc. Now which president does that sound like?

The one you support?


Evidently, you consider it your purpose in this thread to practice tone policing to ensure that all participants meet basic standards of civility and avoid the mean-spirited divisiveness of... the people you support?

Thus, you seek to impose on this thread's participants a standard that you've deemed either unimportant or unnecessary to qualify one for the highest public office in the country.

And there exists no line in the sand, no depths to which your ideological kin may sink, that would cause you to abandon your efforts to defend them from criticism. You will say that Donald Trump should do better with his racism, but you will also act as his apologist and pardon his racist behavior as the product of "inexperience." You will say that due process ought to be respected, while defending the reputation of a man who built his political campaign on demonizing people of color, promoting a racist conspiracy theory about our then President, and suggesting that his opponent should be locked up despite and prior to the results of the official investigation. You will say that you care about the lives of the unborn, but steadfastly support a man whose policy choices have wrought this: https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/near...aeA4EbyAa4YSypR7yxSWO3BgYY55XoO5z5hjJdP3EYG7c

At what point, then, should we conclude that you have become what you despise?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Let us remember. In the case of Kavanaugh and Roy Moore, people wanted their ultimate punishment for them not ascend to higher office. Dwalk goes nuts at this perceived violation of "due process"

In the cases where Trump disrespecting due process (Mexican refugees, Hillary, the Central Park 5), he wanted people to be punished by the criminal justice system. DWalk is generally silent on this.

So it seems that a white male conservative being denied career advancement is a bigger violation of due process than innocent people getting legally punished without full legal proceedings.