I mean, he said he would. He's also become a better asshole since the last attempt, and now he said on day one he's gonna fire everyone who's loyal to the united states and replace them with people who are loyal to him personally. That's how you put yourself in a position where the military actually listens to you when you tell them to "crack the skulls" of, "beat the fuck out of" and "just shoot" peaceful protestors.
The military is not going to do any of that. The US Joint Chiefs have made it clear on multiple occasions that they take their oath of office to uphold the US Constitution very seriously, including at least 2 times in direct opposition to Trump's bullshit.
They basically are the unofficial 4th branch of the US government, and their checks and balances are effective against fascists.
They should be worried. With the political show trials going on, if this all doesn't work and he does get back in the White House, the gloves are gonna be off. Yeah I know this'll piss people off, but they've literally decided to weaponize the judiciary against him for being president. Guy does think his term did throw a wrench in TPTB's plans and they don't want that happening again. The states these trials are happening in and the timing is not fucking subtle. If this was not politically motivated, these trials would have been happening in 2012 or 2005.
If this was not politically motivated, these trials would have been happening in 2012 or 2005.
Trump's criminal charges involve his handling of documents after his Presidency, his attempt to illegally hold on to power at the end of his Presidency, and his financial records from when he ran for President in 2016. Do you think Antifa has a time machine?
Could I have made it more obvious what I was talking about than by stating those years and using the words "trials" instead of "charges"? like did you really think I was talking about those? JFC.
The article is talking specifically about the Jan 6 stuff, which he is facing a criminal trial over. In fact, when Mitch McConnell voted to acquit Trump in the impeachment for that, he directly stated that it was because it was more suitable for a criminal trial.
Unfortunately It not obvious to me what trials you are talking about. I don't follow all the things that happen so forgive me. What trials are you talking about. I would be interesting in looking into them.
The problem is not my ability to read, but your inability to think outside of yourself. You'll continue to pretend it was clear because, again, you are so wrapped up in your own head that you can't even step outside of yourself and see a different perspective.
Which, again, is probably why you aren't smart enough to avoid defending trump here.
The reverend has aaked a valid question regarding your position and you have run away and hid, in typical conservative fashion.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word. Honesty is simply not a conservative trait, so I think it was nice of the reverend to even include you in the adult conversation. You can't say we didn't try.
Whole thread read. Answer the question or surrender that specific point. Refusing to argue entirely is a concession of the whole. You don't have to concede your whole argument. Just one point. Have responsibility for your words
They haven't weaponized shit. He's still being handled with kid gloves. TPTB are still protecting him for the most part. The reason he wasn't investigated in the past is because TPTB are mostly rich assholes like him that protect each other from being treated like us peasants.
Most of the opposition still isn't willing to hold Trump to the same standards as most people because even they're rich, corrupt, conservative shitheads. The prosecutions are politically motivated to be weaker than they should be for his crimes because all prosecutions against elites are weak. Most of them would spend life in prison if justice was blind.
The first time there was still plenty of officials and old school politicians in place who wouldn't let him do whatever he wanted.
That will not be the case if he wins again. They have plans and preparations this time to purge the government of anybody who isn't a blind loyalist, with presidential orders making almost everybody with any administrative power into political appointments so he can have them replaced.
When Hitler first got arrested people thought he wasn't a threat. But when he got released he knew who to target, and then he was let back into power by people who thought they could control him...
Yeah, but he had to appoint cabinet officials that actually had a clue back then. Jeff Sessions wouldn't round up political opponents on shaky charges. Not even Bill Barr would do that.
But future AG Vince McMahon? Future CIA Director Tucker Carlson? You bet they would.
The first time around, Trump didn't really understand what kind of powers or authority the head of executive holds. He believed getting elected would make him a dictator, so he was unconcerned with who was being selected for his cabinet and inner circle, the people who actually hold the keys to power. In his mind, he could just issue an executive order and it would be carried out exactly as he desired. Needless to say, there were several people in the Republican establishment that refused to go along with Trump's insane whims. I'm sure beyond a doubt that Trump at some point in time attempted to make good on his campaign promise to throw Hillary Clinton in jail, but somebody along the chain realized that they would burn too much political capital on a political stunt like that and either talked him out of it or simply did not comply.
This time? He knows that he needs to pack his cabinet with sycophants who will do whatever he wants. He cannot risk another Jeff Sessions, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, or John Kelly standing in his way - in other words, he cannot nominate people who havedeveloped their entire careers in government positions who would not be willing to set it all on fire for Trump. He needs political outsiders who are fanatic Trump worshipers with nothing to lose. People with no experience on how government actually works and who care little for consequences or are actively ignorant of the laws they may be instructed to break.
The first time around, Trump didn't really understand what kind of powers or authority the head of executive holds. He believed getting elected would make him a dictator, so he was unconcerned with who was being selected for his cabinet and inner circle, the people who actually hold the keys to power.
That has to be the nicest way of calling someone an idiot. My 9 year old understands that group projects take a group.
One side is a racist idiot who just wants to rape prostitutes and Hollywood starlets and eat McDonalds dinners with basketball players and Kanye. The American Dream!
The other side supplies a foreign army with ammo to kill women and children in Gaza and fuels a war in Eastern Europe. Kissingers’ dream!
Whoa whoa wait now. You forgot to apply Paragraph #2 to the first as well, in addition to the fact that the first also seeks to enable genocide in Ukraine.
It's even worse with Ukraine. If Ukraine gets conquered, WWIII likely starts. Poland and others will probably put boots on the ground to prevent Ukraine from losing, triggering attacks from Russia, triggering NATO involvement, and pushing us to potential omnicide instead of genocide.
Israel is pushing towards nuclear war as well, only with Israel as the only nuclear player. Things are bad on a serious level right now that people haven't comprehended
Biden is worried, it's fairly obvious. However, he is trying to be a leader, which is foremost the job of the President: To lead. I don't envy him either. We are a very divided country right now. Yeah, some of you will talk about the war. Others about his bipartisanship. Someone will want to throw their hat in about other issues, perceived or otherwise. Let's be real though: Dude has had his work cut out for him. So while he hasn't been perfect I honestly and truly feel it could have been much worse.
At the very least he has completed, and is working on, many of the promises he initially made. Gotta give props where they are due. Though he was never my first choice.
If he wasn't worried, Biden would be much worse than he's been(aka, the average for POTUS). He's the best we've had since Carter, which is a condemnation of the office rather than praise of Biden.
If we got the President lemmy wants, a civil war would be the best scenario, but a coup would be more likely. The better the president, the harder their job. The more left wing candidate is always held to a higher standard.
Yeah, the favorite tankie mantra of "hey let's bring the genocide/civil war here so the sheeple will finally wake up and we'll have the utopia we've always dreamed about, ya'll!"
...that's even if these people are actually leftists in the first place (as opposed to Russian trolls and right wing hacks). In any case, you have be deeply stupid not to realize the difference between the two choices we actually have before us, and the consequences of fascists in the White House.
You know prosecuting a criminal for committing crimes isn't a targeted prosecution right? It's just how the criminal justice system always works.
In other words it's just a regular prosecution.
But as you just said cults are gonna cult right? And I know Big Daddy Trump is up there telling you how to think. So keep on culting you beautiful snowflake.
As a person that is not going to vote for trump, I am the one that is not in a cult. And as a person that knows real estate very well, I fully understand what happened with the new york real estate case and how much bullshit it is. The problem is that you are beholden to your side and you dont see what is happening. I really do want you guys to see what is happening, but you are blinded by ideology, and its literally destorying they country.
Because Trump is being prosecuted for crimes? Your first comment was about targeted prosecutions. Trump is not being targeted, if anything he's been given more leeway than 99% of the criminals in this country.
So, within the context of your first comment I find this comment disingenuous. In other words I think you're full of shit.
Except that he is not being given leeway and is being prosecuted because he is running for president. And that doesnt even get into the different treatment of Jan 6th people vs George Floyd riot people.
EXACTLY! Now do the next check where you see how many were convicted. This is where you dont respond because you will see its less than jan 6th (from all the sources I have seen).
It looks like there weren't many. I think everyone that committed a crime during the BLM protests should be held accountable. And I'm glad that the people that broke into the capitol on Jan 6 are being held accountable. Surely you agree with that?
Thank you, I appreciate that you seem to be reasonable, and I do agree. So we see the government throw the book at the jan 6th people, and the george floyd rioters get much less prosecution even though they did much more damage and there was much higher loss of life. Do you see how they are unequal prosecution?
They were unequal events. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by comparing the two, but in my eyes breaking into the capitol building with the intention of overthrowing the government is a significantly worse crime and I'm glad the people responsible are facing justice.
I'll say it again, all people responsible for a crime should be prosecuted. But stop trying to tell me apples are oranges.
Except that they didnt have the intention of overthrowing the government as can be seen by 98% of the things they were charged and convicted of. And even if you think there was the intent and ability to do so, the vast majority were non-violent and did no signficant crime.
all people responsible for a crime should be convicted. But stop trying to tell me apples are oranges.
Crime is crime, so apples and apples. Why were the crimes of the riots not prosecuted?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by comparing the two
It's a Red Herring. They don't know what they're talking about so they're fumbling around for any talking point they can find and pretend it's relevant. Don't waste your time.
It's a pretty on-the-nose username, given that they're basically just transcribing Fox News segments. In a saner world, this would be a parody account.
I really do want you guys to see what is happening, but you are blinded by ideology, and its literally destorying they country.
"That's why I'm offering nothing but vague statements and empty platitudes to show you what's really happening. Facts and actual arguments would just get in the way."
I directly mentioned the New York case about trumps real estate as something I am very knowledgable about, but sure I am super vague... Have you ever talked to someone in a cult? That is the reason I dont typically go deep.
I directly mentioned the New York case about trumps real estate as something I am very knowledgable about
Cool, and what specifically did you say about the New York case about how it is a problem? Did you share any of that knowledge?
I saw your post and thought "Interesting, maybe there is an angle on the New York case I am unaware of", but you failed to actually say anything other than your displeasure.
The entire case is nonsense. To be specific, he didnt do anything wrong and it was exactly what every other serious investor does, and its not fraud, its literally just advocating your position. I can expand on this if you wish, but I dont write gigantic comments because they become unreadable and wastes everyones time.
So because some rando on the internet said it's not true you expect me to just believe them? People on the internet say the Earth is flat too, I'm not just going to take them at their word. You've presented no evidence other than "IS NOT!"
Feel free to watch the Kevin OLeary guy talk about it too, he is a non partisan real estate person not a government official with an agenda, and he can go in a lot more detail than a post does.
I dont know what to tell you, if you have a direct question about the case I can answer that, I have no evidence to give because nothing they did was wrong.
Feel free to watch the Kevin OLeary guy talk about it too, he is a non partisan real estate person
Right, I'm sure some rich asshole (the one that makes other rich assholes say "what an asshole" if you've ever watched shark tank) is completely neutral in his stance that "rich assholes can say whatever they want and it's totally legal."
not a government official with an agenda
Also not a lawyer. Nor an American as far as I'm aware. So I don't know why I would trust him to be an expert on the American Legal system instead of, say, the judge on the case who has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence.
Billionaires are not your friend. You don't have to defend them I would strongly suggest not taking advice from them.
if you have a direct question about the case I can answer that,
Okay: What are the specific laws Trump was found guilty of breaking, why do they not apply in this case, and how were they misinterpreted to get the guilty verdict?
Gotcha dont trust a rich guy but trust the government...
The crime was probably called "Fraud", and again, he did nothing wrong. People dont know how the financing system works, and think that its fraud to claim a property is worth more than the government thinks its worth. There was no party harmed, and it was all a normal interaction.
What argument? You still haven't presented an argument other than "Is Not!" Which is so juvenile it doesn't even need to be addressed.
You're the one who has presented yourself as "very knowledgeable on the case". I would guess Trump's legal team presented a defence more substantial than "NUH-UH" that you could have at least shared. But you don't know what the actual legal argument of the defense was, nor the actual charges (other than "probably fraud"). If you don't know the "legalise" how do you know it was interpreted wrong?
No wonder you think Kevin O'Leary is an expert on the case: you know less than he does and O'Leary barely knows anything about the case.
I did as you asked, gave you a direct question, and was met with a shrug. You've made your ignorance on the case clear and I will not waste any more time seeing if you have a novel view on the case to consider. You are just parroting the billionaire taking points I've already heard.
The argument is that it was a normal financing process and there was no victim or person/corporation that claimed to be wronged. People are allowed to claim their property is worth whatever they wish. Its really that simple and obvious. That is why I say you dont know anything about the case because you only have the standard NPC insults.
people are allowed to claim their property is worth whatever they wish
Not on their taxes. I can't claim my property is worth $1 to avoid paying taxes on it.
That is why I say you dont know anything about the case
And if that is true you have done nothing to explain the case better to me or anyone else who might read this thread.
The internet is full of idiots who think the Earth is flat, or that Kevin O'Leary is an expert in the American Legal system. You're not going to convince anyone with "just trust me bro."
You are are right about taxes, but that is not what he did. The government get to assign the value for property taxes and the property owner has the right to contest them. Also property taxes dont actually reflect the value of the property, and that gets very skewed on higher value properties.
If you have things you think he did wrong then I can tell you why I disagree, but I cant just argue without being pointed in the direction you think I am wrong.
And like I said, it was normal perfectly legal things. If you want to get more specific then feel free, or if you want a more in depth explaination feel free to listen to the evil billionaire that you hate for reasons.
I already told you these things, you can claim your property is worth whatever you want, they said you cant. And as I already explained property tax does not reflect the actual value, they pretended it does.
There you go, I just told you the states arguments but you keep not wanting to listen. But sure, it was totally not a targeted prosecution.
He signed a legal business document saying "I believe the property is worth X". I signed another legal business document saying "I believe the property is worth Y" (notably not X).
Telling one person one thing and another person the opposite is textbook lying.
Lying in signed legal documents is fraud.
Your "knowledge" of the case clearly only comes from what Faux News has told you, which makes you less knowledgeable than someone who has been living under a rock.
So then anyone that is selling their house for more than the property tax value is committing fraud? Great, now show me the tens of thousands of people that have done this that has been prosecuted.
Check out this fraud! The property is listed at $43 million and the tax assessment is $1.1 million, the fraud is insane! This person is in New York, they can sieze all their assets!
None of the documents in the case have to do with selling the property.
If you were as familiar with the case as you claim you would know that. You would also be able to cite arguments from the case itself, not unrelated Red Herrings.
Even worse, they sold houses for more than the assessed value AND they had loans on them for more than the assessed value! That is double fraud! But I get it, you dont know what is going on so you will keep saying "BUT YOU DONT KNOW ABOUT THE CASE!!!" when you are the one that thinks applying for a loan and property tax values are the same.
And I see you didnt name anyone else in New York that has been convicted of this "FRAUD!!!!!".
Ignore this idiot. He has no critical thinking skills and is so far up his own ass you’ll eventually give up and he’ll just think he won another internet argument.
The most important would be the discrepency in treatment between the Jan 6th people and the George Floyd riot people. Also I think almost all of the trump cases are just targeted prosecution.
Well, yeah, of course they're targeting him. He's the one who's committed all the crimes. That's generally who we prosecute in this country. The criminals. Ideally.
That is the same boring line you guys all use. If you dont know what is happening then you should probably watch different media sources. "OH YOU MEAN LIKE ALEX JONES!!!!" No, like ones that are not influenced directly by corporations and government.
We've literally watched him commit these crimes on live fucking television. And we watched his criminally negligent handling of the Covid pandemic over the course of months. He should be in the Hague for that alone. Fuck off.
Why would the federal government do anything about BLM? They didn't break into the capitol to smear feces on the walls.
Could you clarify? Do you want us to be mad that individual state legislatures are acting differently than the federal government, or is it that you want us to be mad that the federal government isn't doing an overreach and prosecuting protestors outside its jurisdiction?
They would target BLM because they were an organized group that attacked many federal buildings and officers. They much worse than smear feces on teh walls, which is exactly my point.
I dont know what you want me to clarify, Trump is getting attacked by the government in a variety of states and jurisdictions, and almost all of it is bullshit.
They caused billions of dollars in damage to cities around the country and they terrorized people and neighborhoods, do you not remember all the damage and the rioting?
No, it's hard to "remember" delusions you were having from being fear addicted and watching propaganda.
"Around the country." Again, whatever it was you were imagining is not within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The insurrection led by Donald on January 6 is within the jurisdiction of the federal government. What do you want to happen?
They were directly attacking federal government buildings. In Portland it literally happened for over a month every night. But I can tell at this point you dont actually care about an honest discussion, so have a great day!
You mean these guys? So you are a dishonest liar pretending both that the few people who did violence or arson represent the whole, and also that they are not seeing consequences for anything. As expected of a redcap: lies, propaganda, and delusion from top to bottom.
They won't waste time on sham trials when Trump is already convinced they're guilty.
They'll skip the judge completely and be given a cigarette and a wall to stand against while they smoke it.
There are tons of Democrats they could have ran to generate more momentum than Biden. Heck, Michelle Obama could have ran. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would bring out more voters than Biden. Bernie Sanders obviously another great pick.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about an age required to run for President, it just says that they have to be at least 35 to be President. She'll be 35 this October, well before the election.
Besides, I think you'll find that under-35s can only be barred from the presidency if Congress passes a law because apparently the Constitution doesn't matter at all. Or something to that effect anyway, I find it hard to play devil's advocate for that dogshit opinion from the SCOTUS.
Yeah, fair enough. Especially the SC/Constitution-doesn't-matter-anymore thing. Geez. What a mess we're in.
Personally, I'd love to see a future Buttigiege/AOC ticket, but I'm not sure how well that would work in a general election. Who knows in 4 years, though?
Michelle Obama is (shouldn't be, but is) a polarizing figure, especially on the right because she's both female and black. Putting her as the Dem nominee would likely galvanize and energize the GOP base because heaven forbid a black woman be in the White House.
AOC isn't old enough yet, and she is considered by many outside of her district as too extreme.
One of the main issues (and IMO, one of the dumbest issues) is age. One of the main complaints from voters is that both Trump and Biden are too old. Bernie Sanders is older than both and has already had multiple runs that didn't pan out. Sanders would just be considered more of the same if he tried running a third time.
The next pick down would probably be someone like Elizabeth Warren, and Trump would be cramming the "pocohontas" thing down everybody's throats from day one. There's also the fact that she's in her 70s herself, giving more support for the belief that all Dems have are a bunch of out-of-touch retirees during a time when the voting base wants younger people with newer ideas and values.
I've said from day one that Biden is going to be looked upon as this generation's Jimmy Carter: A man who actually achieved a lot but was always looked upon as the "lame duck" president after Nixon/Ford that never got the credit for his accomplishments that he deserves. And that's pretty much exactly what happened.
You don't understand why Trump is so popular to the right. The more pissed off and the more the right talk about and attack someone and think with their emotions, the more public attention they get which actually helps that candidate. The Democrats absolutely should have picked a black woman as their candidate. The Republicans wouldn't be able to resist saying the most vile things constantly and that would equate to non-stop media coverage that actually benefits the Democrats. AOC will be 35 during the election and legal scholars have determined that the age you will be at the time of the election is what matters, not how old you are leading up to the election. She would be a great choice and also get non-stop media coverage as a result of the Republicans hate for her.
You don’t understand why Trump is so popular to the right.
Not the person you're responding to but I certainly don't understand their love for him, but that's probably because I'm not a right wing shill that's in love with Trump and wants him to win like your posts strongly suggest that you are.
So my posts saying that AOC, Michelle Obama & Bernies Sanders would have been great candidates over Biden somehow tells you that I support Trump? What planet are you living on?
Yep because as it turns out none of those people are running for president, won't be running for president, and in 2016 there was a whole Russian effort to push "alternative candidates" to Hillary Clinton just like you're doing.
You're all about sowing discord and writing "Biden bad" in various ways across various threads, and you strike me as a concern troll trolling for Trump.
Geezus... Why is it that Democrats keep saying, "by advocating for better policies and more progressive ideas you're a Trump supporter!"
Seriously, are you trying to suggest that Trump is more liberal than Biden or something?
Or are you really just that scared that if everyone you come across doesn't praise Biden like he is the second coming of Pastrami that he'll lose? If you're that scared then write up Biden and tell him he hasn't done a good enough job yet then cause you are so stressed that you feel the need to make everyone praise him else you're afraid he'll lose.
Geezus… Why is it that Democrats keep saying, “by advocating for better policies and more progressive ideas you’re a Trump supporter!”
That's not even what you're advocating for, you're advocating for fantasy land like candidate switches months before the election.
But leave it to you, a person, place, or thing that is definitely not a concern troll, bot, or plant to wait a day and come back with an entirely new argument about why you're totally not a shill.
I hate to break it to you, but everyone that disagrees with you isn't a Russian bot or shill... some people just want to see more from the Democrats, and Biden ain't cutting it.
He did, and he is framing it as if it was illegitimate to go after him as he was "innocent" and they did it anyways, so when he locks them all up for no reason, it's all good, because and eye for an eye...
Right.. I mean, to be quite honest... if Biden/Trump in 2024 is the best they can come up with, maybe something like that will waken up the Democrats to actual consequences when they continue to run such shitty candidates.
The reason we got Trump in the first place is cause of the DNC and corporate Democrats that wanted him to win over Bernie. They just had Rachel Maddow and all the feelings-over-reality shills on the left working overtime to convince their party that it was somehow Bernie supporters fault.
Not really. The reason we got him is the people who voted for him. I was a bernie supported but I voted hilary. there is plenty of time to fix the democrats or completely eliminate the republicans and we will get a new second party anyway as dems are always pretty ready to fracture. Republicans winning is the only thing keeping dems at statis quo.
They wanted him to win because he COULD win. Bernie couldn’t. I say this as someone that aggressively supported Bernie.
The problem is that you don’t understand what’s at stake, so you can rest on your single-issue outrage and think you’re in a place to demand better.
You’re not in that place. The rest of us know that, but you refuse to listen. So you and others like you will do what you did in 2016- fold your arms and throw a temper tantrum.
Bernie couldn't win. Tell that to Hillary... cause she sure did lose and is why Trump got into office in the first place. Don't forget the DNC admitted that they had a "right" to sabotage Bernie, because they had no obligation to be impartial.
I don't know what you think... that I won't vote for Biden given that is my only choice, or that people can't talk bad about Biden and the state of the DNC else Trump might win. If you believe the latter, then you should rethink who you're upset with.
Seriously, does anyone believe this? Trump is the DNC fault? Ridiculous. It’s certainly not the RNCs fault or republican voters for choosing him. And it’s certainly not the voters fault for voting for him, or people protest voting because they don’t want a woman or whatever. No, it’s not even the electoral colleges fault! It’s the DNC for not pushing Bernie. I can’t believe I voted for the leopards eating faces party and now my face is eaten! Damn you Hillary!
So instead of addressing anything I wrote you move the goalposts and start hurling insults? Like sure, it would be great if we can go forward and hold the powers that be accountable for shady crap, but how is that relevant to this election? Unless of course your goal is really to sow dissent and try to get trump elected.
Are you sure I’m the one who ‘lacks intellectual capacity’?
Cool story. I’ll just block you so I don’t have to worry about that. That’s what you suggest people do when you all refuse to moderate, right? Just tell people to block the problem
So you don’t have to show your biases?
Also, the mods have very little to do as they seeming refuse to remove comments that point-blank blatantly break your rules. Even after asking them to do something about it- two of you refused to even respond to the reports annd private messages, and one of you trolled me for a day, side-stepping the issue without ever addressing the complaint. Meanwhile, you’ve removed comments from myself and other that break vague rules of “uncivility.”
Yet when the same rules are broken by certain others- you ignore the reports and then threaten to ban people when they message you about it.
So let’s not pretend that you’re all hard working unbiased gifts to lemmy.
You’re not. And there’s a lot of people that are very aware of this.
A lot of comments get reported for breaking the rules when they absolutely do not. I've seen reports on "bad language" when there's no restriction on that whatever, so long as it's not directed at other users.
Want to call the subject of an article some pejorative? Go for it! Just don't direct it at other users and we're golden.
There in lies the problem. These comments accuse me (and others) of blatantly false bullshit. I’ve done the same thing from the opposite side, and gotten comments removed- yet, their accusations remain.
Again, I say BULLSHIT.
there’s a very strong bias among the mods in this community. Many have spoken out against it- and you silence every one of them.
Just drop it. We both know this is a pointless debate you will ultimately win because of your authority here.
No, if 2016 didn't wake them up I don't think anything will, I'm pretty thoroughly convinced they would still be whining about Nader voters as they were being taken to the gallows by Republicans,
Everyone who can be woke already is and its just about calling out their dumb moderate ideas while they can still be stopped and primarying their people with real progressives. Democratic candidates losing to Republicans doesn't make that any easier, if anything it just empowers moderates because the "leftist purity tests did this" narrative plays really well with low information voters.
I never comment in politics threads. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth and invites the kind of discourse I try to avoid recreationally.
But I had to reply to you because a) it's weird how much I'm seeing the word "begging" lately, and b) what kind of "begging" should he even do? "Please, please, please vote for me?" And how would that change things at all? Or even help?
I mean the previous commenter is making it sound like Democrats are going to be executed if Trump is elected. Did I interpret that correctly? Does Biden know that? Is he worried? Because he doesn't seem worried at all to me.
I asked you what begging is supposed to look like here or accomplish; you tried to get me to defend what someone else said. I point out I'm not them and I asked you a question; so you pivot again to "my statement with a "yeah?" at the end is now a question so address that first.
I'm cutting my losses. You'll just move the posts to try and force me to address whatever it is you think I should be addressing instead, because you don't actually have an answer and you're not interested in a real discussion.
My mistake. This is why I don't engage in politics threads online. You never know when someone is being serious and has an actual answer and is capable of a dialogue versus when some jackass just wants to waste your time.
He asked for clarification on the question you asked.
"I will not answer your clarifying question until you answer my question you want clarification on" is a bizarre take unless your question is entirely disingenuous and you don't actually care about the answer.
If they're arguing in bad faith, odds are high they're just a right-wing operative intending to sow defeatism and wedge-drive. Often they'll pretend being a concerned centrist but nowadays they feign being a leftist or tankie, which kills two birds with one stone.
With this in mind don't stop commenting, just make your strongest arguments upfront and target the bystander audience. It's the only way to act as damage-control. But don't waste your time with them, specifically.
I flipped up through the chain and only now am I seeing all the edits they made. I knew something was screwy when they replied to my reply to myself- dude was camping this thread. Definitely not a good faith.
I do not have the energy to argue with such a waste of time. I don't understand people who find enjoyment in "arguing" like that person does.
And when responding, make sure to point out there's no controversy, there was never a "gotcha", those arguments were never missed or ignored, the truth was never in question.
Because the goal is to make people doubt, making people think there's more support for the false narratives than there really is, so you have to IMMEDIATELY reinforce that they're liars in your opening statement (or they got their talking points from liars).
One of the best ways to do it is to demonstrate their questions are so basic you didn't need to put effort in to answering them, and doing it by answering with links is very effective at that. "but they won't read the links" - yes but that's not the point, the point is to nerf their ability to steal attention and accurate links does in fact do that because it reduces the likelihood of other trolls joining and it's easier to end the thread there.
If you were genuinely trying to get answers to "why isn't the president begging for votes" you would've answered me when I asked what the hell that means. You proved it's not your genuine priority by trying to get me to defend a point someone else was making instead.
Get outta here with that Crowder bullshit. If you're asking questions and you want answers you'll be happy to explain your position, not point at someone else and try and change the topic at the first opportunity. And assuming, generously, that that was a mistake, you wouldn't have doubled down on "well answer my rhetorical that I refuse to define for you first or you're just proving you can't debate me!"
All of the time I spent typing this was on the very, very, very slim chance you mean well but are an ineffective communicator. Since that's statistically unlikely, feel free to reply however you like. I have no interest in continuing with you further.
If you were genuinely trying to get answers to “why isn’t the president begging for votes” you would’ve answered me when I asked what the hell that means
They never were. Their purpose here is to troll. Which is ironic, because it just makes their entirely ideology look as ignorant and foolish as we already know it to be.
I mean I'd like to think he's worried, and will actually start talking about nationalizing marijuana legalization with actual plan to implement it, or to make internet a utility... but he seems to think backing israel and getting some 20 year old debts canceled, and then reversed by the supreme court, is going to get him enough votes
How do you know he's chill about it? Have you not heard what he's said in public about Trump?
Rhetorical question, don't bother answering. You know the answer, and you're lying to pretend that you don't. You're trying to establish a false perception that Biden hasn't done anything.
Wedge driving? Ask yourself, why are Democrats so scared? If you pick the best person on your team to go up the worst player of the opposition, you wouldn't be scared.
I mean, I'm scared because people I love are being made illegal and/or having their rights revoked. I'm scared because 8 years ago, I didn't know half of my country were only pretending not to be some combination of antisemitic, white nationalist, eagerly awaiting a chance to shoot their neighbors and anti-vaccine. Like, I knew that was the general flavor where I lived, but I didn't know it was this bad everywhere.
Ah who cares about actual reality when we can have a "Biden = bad" stroke off contest?
Nevermind the fact that prior to 2016 most people's lives in the US weren't a daily slog through a political hell scape, here's Internet Johnny to remind you that the US has always been this fascist and at each other's throats so it's fine actually if Trump wins. Nevermind your lying eyes, ears, and memory.
We vote now to maintain and carry this frustration and momentum to make change. What we don't do is shoot ourselves in both feet and wonder why we can't walk.
So you're under a lot of frustration by voting Biden? Or you are saying you're so scared to say anything negative about him because he isn't a very good candidate and you're scared he'll lose to Trump?
Stop commenting on posts and attempting to twist narratives by offering the illusion of choice. You're creating traps by seeming to offer two separate choices that lead towards the same outcome. So here's the reality:
Trump sucks. The Republican party acts purely in its own interest. People who support either the candidate or the party do so because they believe harming others is an action they can support if it means some end they do mental backflips to justify. The majority of those supporting do not act in good faith in discussions and instead attempt to derail conversations with barely relevant "facts" and by making others feel as if they need to defend something, while also being unreasonable.
I support anyone who isn't claiming they will be a dictator. I support anyone who is attempting to enact positive and lasting change, which you will attack. I support those who do not attempt coups.
It isn't a matter of who I support, it is about what I support... and neither candidate offers it. So, yes I'm stuck voting for Biden which isn't really a choice. But I've already been in this position before, and it is a bad choice by Democrats to have another election where people aren't really excited about the candidate and to simply argue that if you don't vote for Biden, that you'll get Trump.
Rep. Pete Aguilar, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus and was a member of the Jan. 6 committee, told reporters last week that he takes Trump's threat of jailing seriously.
"Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, and the Corrupt Democrats on the sham January 6th Committee have lied to the American public for years, denied key witnesses from testifying to the truth, and covered up evidence that proved President Trump, nor any of his supporters, ever engaged in an alleged 'insurrection.'
Their entire narrative is a lie and Americas know that Joe Biden is the true threat to democracy," a Trump spokeswoman said in a statement to CBS News.
The committee spoke with hundreds of witnesses, including Trump's top White House aides, as it reviewed his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The committee voted to refer criminal charges to the Justice Department for Trump and accused him of threatening the future of democracy and inciting the violent Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.
In remarks to reporters last week, Aguilar said Trump's ongoing rhetoric raises the risk of continued harassment, threats and danger to public officials.
The original article contains 935 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
