45th President Of The United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 14)
Discussion
Yesterday's ludicrous decision by the Supreme Court, while terrible for democracy, was a godsend for the Biden campaign. Many people who were discouraged by the debate are now energized by this.
Keep your eye on the prize. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. If Biden wins those 3 states he's re elected.
Keep your eye on the prize. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. If Biden wins those 3 states he's re elected.
LF5335 said:
This goes two ways
Trump wins and all the worst case scenario doomsday stuff becomes reality
Biden wins. The whole US landscape changes and fundamental changes are made to ensure that nobody can ever become king or dictator and everyone is answerable for their actions.
Maybe he should get on that now before the election….Trump wins and all the worst case scenario doomsday stuff becomes reality
Biden wins. The whole US landscape changes and fundamental changes are made to ensure that nobody can ever become king or dictator and everyone is answerable for their actions.
LF5335 said:
This goes two ways
Trump wins and all the worst case scenario doomsday stuff becomes reality
Biden wins. The whole US landscape changes and fundamental changes are made to ensure that nobody can ever become king or dictator and everyone is answerable for their actions.
That would depend on the makeup of Congress, not just the President. Trump wins and all the worst case scenario doomsday stuff becomes reality
Biden wins. The whole US landscape changes and fundamental changes are made to ensure that nobody can ever become king or dictator and everyone is answerable for their actions.
ChocolateFrog said:
I assume there's much less derision and mockery when you suggest Trump will get in in November if you suggest it now rather than 6 months ago?
See this post, right here, is a perfect example of the problems with political discourse.Nobody derided, or mocked those that were saying Trump would win. They simply said that they didn't believe it was likely.
But you come along going "oh derision and mockery" because you're looking to stir up trouble. It's transparent, and pathetic.
Somebody giving a counter argument is not derision, or mockery.
captain_cynic said:
98elise said:
LF5335 said:
thatsprettyshady said:
People should be allowed to protest what they want, there’s nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn’t turn into hate.
Not sure that’s accurate. Should all the paedos be allowed to protest to support their position? Or murderers being allowed to protest that they should be allowed to commit murder freely.
I know that’s a ridiculous, but that’s what you’re claiming.
If that wasn't the case then being gay would still be illegal.
If all the far right did was march with a bit of hootin' and a hollerin' then they could do that all day and we'd just ignore them like the fools they are.
The problem with the far right is that violence to achieve political aims is not just considered acceptable, it's considered a first resort. It's called "direct action" and is a key tenet of Fascism. Where the far right goes, violence often follows.
If we're talking about Islamists (who are also, notably far right) we'd call that terrorism.
thatsprettyshady said:
Depends really, if these people are just trying to avoid parts of US history being erased by peacefully protesting then I wouldn’t say racist.
I don’t support their viewpoint, but I don’t think they’re racist.
Again, not the violent, anti semitic, white supremacy ones - they can get f
ked.
You can't honestly think the people there were just trying to avoid parts of US history being erased by peacefully protesting.I don’t support their viewpoint, but I don’t think they’re racist.
Again, not the violent, anti semitic, white supremacy ones - they can get f
ked. And I can see you've used the term good faith, christ.
thatsprettyshady said:
People should be allowed to protest what they want, there’s nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn’t turn into hate.
That's the problem, it always turns into hate. It gets fed - in this case by Trump.Edited by F1GTRUeno on Tuesday 2nd July 21:43
F1GTRUeno said:
thatsprettyshady said:
Depends really, if these people are just trying to avoid parts of US history being erased by peacefully protesting then I wouldn’t say racist.
I don’t support their viewpoint, but I don’t think they’re racist.
Again, not the violent, anti semitic, white supremacy ones - they can get fked.
You can't honestly think the people there were just trying to avoid parts of US history being erased by peacefully protesting.I don’t support their viewpoint, but I don’t think they’re racist.
Again, not the violent, anti semitic, white supremacy ones - they can get f
ked. And I can see you've used the term good faith, christ.
thatsprettyshady said:
Some of them, sure.
Which ones?If we were to show you photos of the people at the protest/rally - could you identify Dave the placid guy who just cares about his history?
You might call it guilt by association but if you're happy to be in a crowd with racists...
F1GTRUeno said:
thatsprettyshady said:
Some of them, sure.
Which ones?If we were to show you photos of the people at the protest/rally - could you identify Dave the placid guy who just cares about his history?
You might call it guilt by association but if you're happy to be in a crowd with racists...
I definitely wouldn't want to be accociated with the racists, but some people may have felt it was worth it for them in order to make their voice heard.
thatsprettyshady said:
F1GTRUeno said:
thatsprettyshady said:
Some of them, sure.
Which ones?If we were to show you photos of the people at the protest/rally - could you identify Dave the placid guy who just cares about his history?
You might call it guilt by association but if you're happy to be in a crowd with racists...
I definitely wouldn't want to be accociated with the racists, but some people may have felt it was worth it for them in order to make their voice heard.
I'd argue that absolutely everybody that has gone to a statue or anything of that ilk to 'defend the erasure of history' is alright bent a certain way. It doesn't help that it's fed by the media, the politicians and the echo chambers they find themselves in but they're already there, just some are better than others at being coy about it.
dobbo_ said:
I admire the commitment to defend Trump. But I have to wonder, why?
You've never said what it is about him that makes you come in here and make scores of posts in his defence.
He’s chosen to die on a hill defending a load of white supremacists. I think people can draw their own conclusions. You've never said what it is about him that makes you come in here and make scores of posts in his defence.
thatsprettyshady said:
LF5335 said:
He’s chosen to die on a hill defending a load of white supremacists. I think people can draw their own conclusions.
Where have I defended the white supremacists? that’s quite an accusation. If you are willing to suggest that some people within a crowd of white supremacists were simply there to preserve their history and protest about the erasure then you're defending white supremacists. Their mentality is the exact same, just that there are shades of grey within that mentality just like there are for every other.
Why defend an inanimate object? Why care so much about 'what it means' with regards to the statue, or the history, or any of that? And especially, why do it when there are a bunch of white supremacists right next to you, surely if you're not okay with them you'd leave or stay at home?
People manipulated into getting into a fervour. How and why is obvious to everyone that knows how messaging works. But with those shades of grey there are those that just sit at home and get annoyed, then there are those who go with the intention of saving history, then there are those with tiki torches shouting 'Jews will not replace us'. I happen to think those who go with the intention of saving history are a lot closer to the tiki torch crowd (figuaratively and literally) than anyone sitting at home. They're like apprentice white supremacists and all they need is a push. History has always been about who gets pushed about what and to what extent. You've been the one saying that some people there were defending history ergo you were defending white supremacists.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Tuesday 2nd July 22:31
F1GTRUeno said:
thatsprettyshady said:
LF5335 said:
He’s chosen to die on a hill defending a load of white supremacists. I think people can draw their own conclusions.
Where have I defended the white supremacists? that’s quite an accusation. If you are willing to suggest that some people within a crowd of white supremacists were simply there to preserve their history and protest about the erasure then you're defending white supremacists. Their mentality is the exact same, just that there are shades of grey within that mentality just like there are for every other.
Why defend an inanimate object? Why care so much about 'what it means' with regards to the statue, or the history, or any of that? And especially, why do it when there are a bunch of white supremacists right next to you, surely if you're not okay with them you'd leave or stay at home?
People manipulated into getting into a fervour. How and why is obvious to everyone that knows how messaging works. But with those shades of grey there are those that just sit at home and get annoyed, then there are those who go with the intention of saving history, then there are those with tiki torches shouting 'Jews will not replace us'. I happen to think those who go with the intention of saving history are a lot closer to the tiki torch crowd (figuaratively and literally) than anyone sitting at home. They're like apprentice white supremacists and all they need is a push. History has always been about who gets pushed about what and to what extent. You've been the one saying that some people there were defending history ergo you were defending white supremacists.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Tuesday 2nd July 22:31
There are some people out there that see the civil war as part of American history, and chose to protest at the removal of a civil war related statue as they most likely saw it as erasing a part of history - I never said this is a viewpoint I support but if people want to protest this then fair enough - again, none violently.
My point wasn't that I supported these people at all, more that if people want to protest they should be allowed to (peacefully) protest.
There are a few Winston Churchill statues around, he is seen by many as a bigot and a racist and maybe in future there will be calls for his statues to be removed, I'm sure a few people will not be happy about this and they will most likely protest with counter protests on the other side.
I support the rights of people to (peacefully) protest, it does not make me a white supremacist.
thatsprettyshady said:
F1GTRUeno said:
thatsprettyshady said:
LF5335 said:
He’s chosen to die on a hill defending a load of white supremacists. I think people can draw their own conclusions.
Where have I defended the white supremacists? that’s quite an accusation. If you are willing to suggest that some people within a crowd of white supremacists were simply there to preserve their history and protest about the erasure then you're defending white supremacists. Their mentality is the exact same, just that there are shades of grey within that mentality just like there are for every other.
Why defend an inanimate object? Why care so much about 'what it means' with regards to the statue, or the history, or any of that? And especially, why do it when there are a bunch of white supremacists right next to you, surely if you're not okay with them you'd leave or stay at home?
People manipulated into getting into a fervour. How and why is obvious to everyone that knows how messaging works. But with those shades of grey there are those that just sit at home and get annoyed, then there are those who go with the intention of saving history, then there are those with tiki torches shouting 'Jews will not replace us'. I happen to think those who go with the intention of saving history are a lot closer to the tiki torch crowd (figuaratively and literally) than anyone sitting at home. They're like apprentice white supremacists and all they need is a push. History has always been about who gets pushed about what and to what extent. You've been the one saying that some people there were defending history ergo you were defending white supremacists.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Tuesday 2nd July 22:31
There are some people out there that see the civil war as part of American history, and chose to protest at the removal of a civil war related statue as they most likely saw it as erasing a part of history - I never said this is a viewpoint I support but if people want to protest this then fair enough - again, none violently.
My point wasn't that I supported these people at all, more that if people want to protest they should be allowed to (peacefully) protest.
There are a few Winston Churchill statues around, he is seen by many as a bigot and a racist and maybe in future there will be calls for his statues to be removed, I'm sure a few people will not be happy about this and they will most likely protest with counter protests on the other side.
I support the rights of people to (peacefully) protest, it does not make me a white supremacist.
The worst part is (because it sounds draconian and authoritarian) is that we as a species absolutely shouldn't be allowed to because of the above. We're too prone to violence, we're too easily manipulated, we go from zero to 100 very quickly. Logically it makes zero sense. But then logically we shouldn't be allowed social media or nuclear weapons for the exact same reason and here we are.
It opposes and we take umbrage with it being allowed in this instance because of the much too close association to the tiki torch white supremacists - but then opposing it opposes the basic freedom that you, I and everyone else should really have.
As others have raised in the thread, do we never draw the line? I won't strawman it and do a 'should x be allowed' but you see where it goes from here right?
I think it's insidious and dangerous to nullify some people from a white supremacist protest by suggesting they were there under some innocent ideal. They joined in with the type of people you're not supposed to be on the same side with, therefore they're culpable. Yeah, they should be allowed to protest but they shouldn't get a pass just because not all of them wanted to shout Jews will not replace us. It's the splitting hairs trying to allow a few off that does my head in. Maybe that's refusing to see the grey in between the black and white but you make it very clear what you stand for when you stand in a crowd with white supremacists no matter what you're actually there for.
F1GTRUeno said:
The problem with supporting the rights of people to peacefully protest is that you're never far from the spark that turns it violent.
The worst part is (because it sounds draconian and authoritarian) is that we as a species absolutely shouldn't be allowed to because of the above. We're too prone to violence, we're too easily manipulated, we go from zero to 100 very quickly. Logically it makes zero sense. But then logically we shouldn't be allowed social media or nuclear weapons for the exact same reason and here we are.
It opposes and we take umbrage with it being allowed in this instance because of the much too close association to the tiki torch white supremacists - but then opposing it opposes the basic freedom that you, I and everyone else should really have.
As others have raised in the thread, do we never draw the line? I won't strawman it and do a 'should x be allowed' but you see where it goes from here right?
I think it's insidious and dangerous to nullify some people from a white supremacist protest by suggesting they were there under some innocent ideal. They joined in with the type of people you're not supposed to be on the same side with, therefore they're culpable. Yeah, they should be allowed to protest but they shouldn't get a pass just because not all of them wanted to shout Jews will not replace us. It's the splitting hairs trying to allow a few off that does my head in. Maybe that's refusing to see the grey in between the black and white but you make it very clear what you stand for when you stand in a crowd with white supremacists no matter what you're actually there for.
I'm with you on most of that. I would agree that with any protest there is always the risk it turns violent, especially with some of the topics in the news cycle right now. I too think with social media this is only going to get worse, coupled with divisive politics from all sides on both sides of the pond. The worst part is (because it sounds draconian and authoritarian) is that we as a species absolutely shouldn't be allowed to because of the above. We're too prone to violence, we're too easily manipulated, we go from zero to 100 very quickly. Logically it makes zero sense. But then logically we shouldn't be allowed social media or nuclear weapons for the exact same reason and here we are.
It opposes and we take umbrage with it being allowed in this instance because of the much too close association to the tiki torch white supremacists - but then opposing it opposes the basic freedom that you, I and everyone else should really have.
As others have raised in the thread, do we never draw the line? I won't strawman it and do a 'should x be allowed' but you see where it goes from here right?
I think it's insidious and dangerous to nullify some people from a white supremacist protest by suggesting they were there under some innocent ideal. They joined in with the type of people you're not supposed to be on the same side with, therefore they're culpable. Yeah, they should be allowed to protest but they shouldn't get a pass just because not all of them wanted to shout Jews will not replace us. It's the splitting hairs trying to allow a few off that does my head in. Maybe that's refusing to see the grey in between the black and white but you make it very clear what you stand for when you stand in a crowd with white supremacists no matter what you're actually there for.
My viewpoint however is that the alternative is much worse, however risky that may be - but I accept this is a rather idealistic point of view.
Regarding the actual Charlottesville protestors I agree it's not a great look and perhaps you're right they should have just stayed home, it's very hard to allow the few who have genuine reasons to make their point but filter out the knobheads who just want a ruck.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff