Wide spread election fraud 2020

[byco42]

I think a more apt description would be "a crowded theatre, filled with angry patrons begging their dear leader to ask them to riot and commit violence and property destruction in his name," and instead of saying "no, please don't riot" the leader is smiling, and coyly encouraging them further.

I do not agree with this. I think Trump miscalculated his play and indirectly enabled a few idiots to riot. EDIT: Much MORE than a "few."

I also think it's possible to be seriously concerned by how things are going (particularly Pelosi's bizarre statement that the military assure her the president cannot launch a nuclear strike right now, or whatever), and Twitter & facebook having monopolized & privatized a significant "public space," coordinating (obviously) with someone in government to ban Trump now... and also on the other hand admitting that Trump has been intentionally fanning the flames of this, his conduct is beyond the pale unacceptable, and he's not fit to be president.

I think this is a minor concern in regards to concerns in general. More concerning is that I can't determine what to be concerned about. There is some comfort in recognizing that our politicians cannot ever be trusted, but that is also a concern.

Also: he never was fit to be president in the first place.

Trump joins a long line of such men who have served in office: Obama, both Bushes, Clinton, Nixon, Reagan (2nd term) Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Harding, Wilson, Cleveland, Buchanan, and Pierce.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think a more apt description would be "a crowded theatre, filled with angry patrons begging their dear leader to ask them to riot and commit violence and property destruction in his name," and instead of saying "no, please don't riot" the leader is smiling, and coyly encouraging them further.

 

[Thumb]

it's certainly beyond stupid to think that is more aggressive than a cop shooting an unarmed peaceful rioter in the neck and killing her for what likely amounts to trespassing

Unarmed peaceful rioter who was kicking in window glass and breaching a barricade, attempting to gain access to an area where congressmen and women had fled to. She was anything but peaceful, and was warned by the cops not to cross said barricade.

You can't be this much of a raging dumbass

 

[Michchamp]

There is nothing, IMO, that is "unintentional" about BLM's objectives, which, on the surface, are supportable. But the ultimate objective, IMO, of "eradicating white supremacy" has a matrix that resets a lot more than that.

And I do not support defunding the police.

knowing what you know about social movements in general, how can you really hold some of these monolithic views of BLM?

Social movements, particularly non-hierarchical grassroots ones that form on the left, are usually very splintered... and in this country, heavily infiltrated by law enforcement practically from day 1.

 

[Spartanmack]

There are a lot of people out there that think things I don't though. But either way, when someone says BLM, I think of the masses of people saying something about police, not the few talking about nuclear families. For the purposes of talking about BLM , I think if saying BLM adds some unintended anti-nuclear family context, that hurts the chances of understanding and being understood.

not knowing the truth about BLM, inc, isn't the only thing the masses are ignorant of. They also don't know that cops aren't inherently racist, they're not out hunting unarmed black people, police departments and the justice system aren't systemically racist and police brutality isn't a systemic problem. Seems they are ignorant of a great many things - and several cities and many lives were destroyed because of that ignorance.

 

[Gulo Blue]

you either because you have a pathological need to disagree with me and an equally pathological need to try to bail out your idiot buddy

I have a need to disagree? I said I was in favor of infrastructure spending but I wouldn't fund a bridge to nowhere you said a bridge to nowhere would drive growth.

 

[Spartanmack]

Unarmed peaceful rioter who was kicking in window glass and breaching a barricade, attempting to gain access to an area where congressmen and women had fled to. She was anything but peaceful, and was warned by the cops not to cross said barricade.

You can't be this much of a raging dumbass

sounds like a lot of victim blaming. Also, dumbass, I've been using the term "peaceful" before "rioter" and "insurrectionist" sarcastically many times in this thread and others for quite some time now - a few months in the case of the peaceful rioters. Most people wouldn't need that pointed out to them.

 

[byco42]

knowing what you know about social movements in general, how can you really hold some of these monolithic views of BLM?

I prefer the term "holistic." Just as the Founding Fathers accepted slavery in the constitution. I accept and acknowledge that. BLM's leaders, by their own admission, are Marxists. That introduces a pragmatist element into this movement that I question.

Social movements, particularly non-hierarchical grassroots ones that form on the left, are usually very splintered... and in this country, heavily infiltrated by law enforcement practically from day 1.

I imagine that any one of the chapters that applies for a $500,000 annual grant and receives it has to comply with some rather rigid guidelines. I do not consider BLM as a "grassroots" movement. It its, IMO, the exact opposite of one.

 

[Michchamp]

I do not agree with this. I think Trump miscalculated his play and indirectly enabled a few idiots to riot.

He MUST know he's playing with fire here. He can't be that stupid.

especially after what's transpired in Michigan w/those boneheads planning to capture and execute gov whitmer and "hold" the capital for weeks.

I think this is a minor concern in regards to concerns in general. More concerning is that I can't determine what to be concerned about. There is some comfort in recognizing that our politicians cannot ever be trusted, but that is also a concern.

I think it's a major concern... the authorities (whoever is in charge there) is obviously coordinating with private sector gatekeepers of the public discourse to put these bans in place, and getting the validating support of politicians and pundits that come from "both sides" of our "two party" state.

Trump joins a long line of such men who have served in office: Obama, both Bushes, Clinton, Nixon, Reagan (2nd term) Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Harding, Wilson, Cleveland, Buchanan, and Pierce.

now... get real here. I can agree with some of those clowns, and while I'm Not a fan of Bush Sr., but how can you say that about him? Kennedy, FDR, and Wilson - whether you think they were qualified or not - have proved it in hindsight. I mean... come on. "Failed and bankrupt real estate developer" is as close as Trump came to doing ANYTHING like public service...

 

[Spartanmack]

I have a need to disagree? I said I was in favor of infrastructure spending but I wouldn't fund a bridge to nowhere you said a bridge to nowhere would drive growth.

no, you said money spent repairing existing infrastructure would lead to growth. It doesn't. I said money spent on new infrastructure, so long as it wasn't on projects like a bridge to nowhere would drive growth. And then you went on for several posts with this same misunderstanding that you've resurrected here.

 

[tinselwolverine]

From the speculation I see here about did or didn’t happen with Ashli Babbitt and what she was or wasn’t doing, it’s occurring to me that some may be opining without having seen this footage.

 

[Gulo Blue]

There is nothing, IMO, that is "unintentional" about BLM's objectives, which, on the surface, are supportable. But the ultimate objective, IMO, of "eradicating white supremacy" has a matrix that resets a lot more than that.

And I do not support defunding the police.

I can see how these things could lead to problems, even have led. But I think we're far enough on the other side of that issue, it's not something I'm concerned with.

 

[Michchamp]

sounds like a lot of victim blaming. Also, dumbass, I've been using the term "peaceful" before "rioter" and "insurrectionist" sarcastically many times in this thread and others for quite some time now - a few months in the case of the peaceful rioters. Most people wouldn't need that pointed out to them.

simple question: do you understand the difference between standing in a street or sidewalk holding a sign, and attempting to physically break into a building?

I'm not asking if you know the legal difference. this isn't a trick question... if I showed you a picture of a person holding a sign and standing in a street, and a person kicking through a door to get into a building would you answer "Yes" to the question "Are these people doing different things?"

 

[byco42]

He MUST know he's playing with fire here. He can't be that stupid.

especially after what's transpired in Michigan w/those boneheads planning to capture and execute gov whitmer and "hold" the capital for weeks.

Trump will never be accused of being a statesman.

I think it's a major concern... the authorities (whoever is in charge there) is obviously coordinating with private sector gatekeepers of the public discourse to put these bans in place, and getting the validating support of politicians and pundits that come from "both sides" of our "two party" state.

This has been the way of the relationship of the powers who be and the media for more than 100 years. It's so axiomatic now that I've moved on.

now... get real here. I can agree with some of those clowns, and while I'm Not a fan of Bush Sr., but how can you say that about him? Kennedy, FDR, and Wilson - whether you think they were qualified or not - have proved it in hindsight.

These three men were ultimately the least qualified of all to serve in the capacity of president, based on their gravely serious, long term health issues, which certainly affected their ability to function as president. Reagan, too, actually, after he was shot.

This book is eye-opening. Link I knew the sister of the author years ago. It's expensive, but extremely informative.

Bush Sr.? All his secret-society ties? CIA chief? I'm not a fan and I think there's some unturned rocks about him.

 

[Gulo Blue]

no, you said money spent repairing existing infrastructure would lead to growth. It doesn't. I said money spent on new infrastructure, so long as it wasn't on projects like a bridge to nowhere would drive growth. And then you went on for several posts with this same misunderstanding that you've resurrected here.

I said great for the economy. You said growth.

 

[Spartanmack]

simple question: do you understand the difference between standing in a street or sidewalk holding a sign, and attempting to physically break into a building?

I'm not asking if you know the legal difference. this isn't a trick question... if I showed you a picture of a person holding a sign and standing in a street, and a person kicking through a door to get into a building would you answer "Yes" to the question "Are these people doing different things?"

I do know the difference and if you were asking if I knew the legal difference, my first thought would be that you were asking me so you could learn it because I doubt very much that you know it. So simple question: what exactly are you implying? Are you suggesting that if the cops at the federal courthouse in Portland began shooting the Antifa morons who were attempting to breach the barricades and throwing molotov cocktails at the building, you would be defending the cops? If you are, LOL because I seem to recall you suggesting that the mere presence of the federal marshalls was responsible for inciting those crowds. Or are you suggesting that people standing in streets, holding signs were fired on with lethal rounds by police this summer?

 

[Spartanmack]

I said great for the economy. You said growth.

it's good for the economy - giving people, many who already have jobs more work is good for the economy because it maintains the status quo. Investing in growth oriented projects that spur growth by adding capacity or increasing efficiency is great for the economy. The difference is significant, but pointing it out seemed to get your knickers in a twist.

 

[Gulo Blue]

it's good for the economy - giving people who already have jobs more work is good for the economy because it maintains the status quo. Investing in growth oriented projects that spur growth by adding capacity or increasing efficiency is great for the economy. The difference is significant, but pointing it out seemed to get your knickers in a twist.

What difference? I didn't mention growth. This is what I said that you had to disagree with:

I'm not even sure repairing the infrastructure requires offset. Every dollar spent that way is great for the economy. So long as there's no inflation, I would approve all sorts of legit productive infrastructure (no bridges to nowhere).

 

[Spartanmack]

What difference? I didn't mention growth. This is what I said that you had to disagree with:

I've explained the difference many times now - repairing infrastructure is maintaining a baseline of economic activity. Saying it's great for the economy implies it's doing more than that, like it's a growth engine, that would be great for the economy. That's what I was explaining to you, and you got your knickers in a twist over that.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I've explained the difference many times now - repairing infrastructure is maintaining a baseline of economic activity. Saying it's great for the economy implies it's doing more than that, like it's a growth engine, that would be great for the economy. That's what I was explaining to you, and you got your knickers in a twist over that.

Well, thanks for correcting my unintended implications I guess. It's definitely helped convince me that you don't have to correct everything I say.