***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Like when you kept asking me if I or my family was poor, so that is why I supported a social safety net.

I asked because it adds perspective to the discussion. Currently, I encounter issues that affect black people of varying income levels. While I think the safety nets for the least fortunate are very important, we cannot ignore the plight and barriers as they relate to high-income blacks.

A friend I went to law school with grew up in the hood. I did not. So we had different black experiences. He has shared that his experience, growing up poor, colors a lot of his current political positions even if they are against his financial interests.

Like I said, I discuss in good faith, and bring in anecdotes from conversations I have with others in similar situations.
 
He also claimed at one point that he put himself through law school by working at Wendy's. Something about moving up in life with determination and yadda yadda yaddasjshdbd.

:lol:

He introduced himself to this thread as a liar, but feigns outrage when nobody here takes him seriously

First impressions are important
 
Would you support treason prosecutions against (or just generally imprisoning) the top individuals involved in ordering and conducting the investigation?

No. At this point I have not seen any activity that would warrant criminal charges against the individuals involved in ordering and conducting the investigation.
 
:lol:

He introduced himself to this thread as a liar, but feigns outrage when nobody here takes him seriously

First impressions are important

Unless it is the coal gang comrade! Don is looking very dapper. Amirite?
 
No. At this point I have not seen any activity that would warrant criminal charges against the individuals involved in ordering and conducting the investigation.
Would it concern you if someone did advocate for their imprisonment based on what you know now?
 
You are correct but I feel you are letting leftist off the hook. True, rich liberals are complicit in the construction of this false imagine of Trump. However, it was many leftist right after the election that pushed the idea that it was "identity politics" that lost Clinton the election.

Trump conflates some of the worst crony capitalism with white supremacy. Rich liberals routinely get only half the picture. Call out the racism while down playing the amount of destruction the economic policy causes. When some leftist chose to indulge the right with the identity policies talk, they rightfully call out the economic carnage but tacitly ignored the role white supremacy paid, so they made themselves just as complicit in furthering this false imagine about Trump as any else on the left.

Now we reach a place either to judge people on the left as either misguided or disingenuous. So when leftist tell me that liberals are disingenuous( which some are). Then how should we look at leftist, especially white ones?

Maybe every one on the left should think twice before agreeing with conservatives.

There were a lot of bad takes after Trump won the 2016 election. If your take relied on pretending that Donald Trump won the popular vote in was a bad take. If your take on the 2016 election acted as if voter suppression didn’t play a major role, your take was a bad take.

Most of the bad leftists
takes were right after the 2016 election and they were often poorly veiled criticism of Clinton’s/DNC campaign strategy and they were advanced by people who were new to radical politics or who were pretty unsophisticated about politics in general.

Look at where we are now, most leftists know the value of intersectional praxis and those who still demand that left politics ignores racial justice are ignored.

Meanwhile, there are celebrated and prominent liberals keep on repeating the lie that Trump is a populist.

There is a difference of proportionality. Novices with small platforms temporarily having organic bad takes is not the same major journalists with major platforms contuineky and deliberately trying to conflate Trump’s minority rule and ethnonationationism with popular demands for economic justice are not the same thing.

Now for full context there were plenty of liberal journalists who have pointed out that Trump is the result of ethnically based minority rule. So I’m not implying that was only the intercept, Jacobin and Chapo Trap house pointing out that Trump’s base of support was not poor white folk and instead it was affluent retirees, defense industry bosses and boat shop owners. Plenty of liberals have said the same thing and I’m glad for anyone who pushes against the dominant narrative of Trump the populist.
 
Depends on the individual. Your average individual, comment sections etc, no.
If it was coming from a top government official, someone in Congress for example I'd start to ask some questions on why that person is so keen on advocating for their imprisonment.

In the most extreme sense, if it was coming from someone actually under investigation I think that would certainly be concerning.
 
Bless your hearts for trying to have decent conversations with a fry cook about politics and human decency. I checked some of the ignored content...
nah.gif
 
When he was pretending to currently be a Wendy's employee to gain leverage in a wage discussion, a detail that he likes to omit, he let us know that it wasn't a joke

Now he wants to say it was a joke all along because he realizes that everyone sees him as a liar :lol:
Image trying to claim to pay for law school working at Wendy’s. Nevermind that being finically impossible. Nevermind the huge gap in logic involving qualifications and time. I’m practicing for the nba .........by raking leaves
 
A friend I went to law school with grew up in the hood. I did not. So we had different black experiences. He has shared that his experience, growing up poor, colors a lot of his current political positions even if they are against his financial interests.

And this right here that last sentence is where most of us differ from you. While many of us grew up poor and are now in good financial shape we don’t let our financial interest determine what we stand for and what we believe. At least admit that that’s your #1 priority in voting and many of us will understand. Will we like it, no, but we will know where you stand. It’s what my bosses say as well. But again, we grew up in different upbringings so perspective will be different.
 
Image trying to claim to pay for law school working at Wendy’s. Nevermind that being finically impossible. Nevermind the huge gap in logic involving qualifications and time. I’m practicing for the nba .........by raking leaves

This is a really bad analogy. Like disastrous.
 
I had to double check the dates in here after being directed to a post about right wing "left shark" Roy Moore.


We'd all likely appreciate it if this discussion's regulars could table the unproductive and arguably insincere "debate" over due process. Is anyone here actually arguing against due process rights?
There are legitimate breaches of due process occurring in the United States (more on that later), but an individual utilizing well vetted reporting to develop a substantive opinion does not qualify as such.

Courts do not exist to relieve citizens of the burden of evaluating information. The answer to, "Dad, the assistant soccer coach wants me to meet him alone in the equipment shed for a uniform fitting, should I go?" is not, "that's a matter for the courts to decide."

Hypothetically, let's say two candidates apply for a position at a law firm: one successfully, though belatedly, prosecuted two Klan members for the 16th Street Baptist church bombing in Birmingham that claimed the lives of Addie Mae Collins, Carol Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley. The other was twice removed from public office for ethics violations and has been accused of sexual misconduct by no fewer than seven women. Conviction or no, any reasonable person would take those accusations into account when making their hiring decision. Not all allegations are true (PizzaGate), so a prudent person would weigh all available evidence - and would do so themselves rather than excluding it out of hand as somehow "off limits" until formally adjudicated. If you wouldn't hire someone to represent your business, you probably shouldn't elect them to represent you or your state in Congress.

The criminal justice system makes mistakes. Guilty parties are not always convicted, while innocent people sometimes are. As a voter, your decision is your decision. Rarely does one have "all the facts" when selecting a candidate.

It's sensible to avoid a rush to judgment, but we shouldn't pretend that the criminal justice system is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Anyone wary of lynch mobs and "Southern justice" would not say "you know, I think we're judging this Zimmerman guy too harshly. He was acquitted. I say, give him a chance. Let's make him our new chief of police instead of a qualified candidate. What the hell do we have to lose?"


An election isn't determined by a jury, and, if voters are to be characterized as such, then what is an election if not a court of public opinion?

Hillary Clinton wasn't convicted of any crime in association with Benghazi or her use of a private email account. That didn't stop voters from factoring those issues into their decision in 2016.


There is ample reason to believe John Conyers' and Al Franken's accusers. Conyers settled one such claim using taxpayer funds. Franken apologized for his treatment of Leeann Tweeden, and has not disputed the authenticity of the infamous photograph. Each was asked to step down, not forced to step down, by members of their own party.


Those sincerely concerned with due process would find their outrage better suited to the following:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/us/politics/trump-immigration-judges-due-process.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...trump-habeas-aclu_us_5a1f4520e4b0a8581e67db48

Hopefully everyone can get back on track, and do so respectfully.
 
And this right here that last sentence is where most of us differ from you. While many of us grew up poor and are now in good financial shape we don’t let our financial interest determine what we stand for and what we believe. At least admit that that’s your #1 priority in voting and many of us will understand. Will we like it, no, but we will know where you stand. It’s what my bosses say as well. But again, we grew up in different upbringings so perspective will be different.

Financial interests are one aspect. I would not necessarily say that they are the #1 priority. Prison reform is important to me. Barriers to entry in a lot of avenues are important to me as well. I'm pro-life. My positions are multi-faceted. But there are serious issues other than just the issues concerning the most vulnerable poor in our population. And that is not meant to take away from that very real struggle.
 
There were a lot of bad takes after Trump won the 2016 election. If your take relied on pretending that Donald Trump won the popular vote in was a bad take. If your take on the 2016 election acted as if voter suppression didn’t play a major role, your take was a bad take.

Most of the bad leftists
takes were right after the 2016 election and they were often poorly veiled criticism of Clinton’s/DNC campaign strategy and they were advanced by people who were new to radical politics or who were pretty unsophisticated about politics in general.

Look at where we are now, most leftists know the value of intersectional praxis and those who still demand that left politics ignores racial justice are ignored.

Meanwhile, there are celebrated and prominent liberals keep on repeating the lie that Trump is a populist.

There is a difference of proportionality. Novices with small platforms temporarily having organic bad takes is not the same major journalists with major platforms contuineky and deliberately trying to conflate Trump’s minority rule and ethnonationationism with popular demands for economic justice are not the same thing.

Now for full context there were plenty of liberal journalists who have pointed out that Trump is the result of ethnically based minority rule. So I’m not implying that was only the intercept, Jacobin and Chapo Trap house pointing out that Trump’s base of support was not poor white folk and instead it was affluent retirees, defense industry bosses and boat shop owners. Plenty of liberals have said the same thing and I’m glad for anyone who pushes against the dominant narrative of Trump the populist.
Here is what really undercuts your argument with me. Is that in 6-8 months we will know everyone running for president on the Dem side. The two preferred candidates of leftist will be Elizabeth Warren. Probably the most racially tone-deaf progressive in Congress.

And this man....
BernieTweet.jpg


I heard a lot of so-called good leftist journalist trying to remix this garbage argument as something more innocuous. Instead of rejecting as the garbage that it was.
 
Last edited:
I had to double check the dates in here after being directed to a post about right wing "left shark" Roy Moore.


We'd all likely appreciate it if this discussion's regulars could table the unproductive and arguably insincere "debate" over due process. Is anyone here actually arguing against due process rights?
There are legitimate breaches of due process occurring in the United States (more on that later), but an individual utilizing well vetted reporting to develop a substantive opinion does not qualify as such.

Courts do not exist to relieve citizens of the burden of evaluating information. The answer to, "Dad, the assistant soccer coach wants me to meet him alone in the equipment shed for a uniform fitting, should I go?" is not, "that's a matter for the courts to decide."

Hypothetically, let's say two candidates apply for a position at a law firm: one successfully, though belatedly, prosecuted two Klan members for the 16th Street Baptist church bombing in Birmingham that claimed the lives of Addie Mae Collins, Carol Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley. The other was twice removed from public office for ethics violations and has been accused of sexual misconduct by no fewer than seven women. Conviction or no, any reasonable person would take those accusations into account when making their hiring decision. Not all allegations are true (PizzaGate), so a prudent person would weigh all available evidence - and would do so themselves rather than excluding it out of hand as somehow "off limits" until formally adjudicated. If you wouldn't hire someone to represent your business, you probably shouldn't elect them to represent you or your state in Congress.

The criminal justice system makes mistakes. Guilty parties are not always convicted, while innocent people sometimes are. As a voter, your decision is your decision. Rarely does one have "all the facts" when selecting a candidate.

It's sensible to avoid a rush to judgment, but we shouldn't pretend that the criminal justice system is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Anyone wary of lynch mobs and "Southern justice" would not say "you know, I think we're judging this Zimmerman guy too harshly. He was acquitted. I say, give him a chance. Let's make him our new chief of police instead of a qualified candidate. What the hell do we have to lose?"


An election isn't determined by a jury, and, if voters are to be characterized as such, then what is an election if not a court of public opinion?

Hillary Clinton wasn't convicted of any crime in association with Benghazi or her use of a private email account. That didn't stop voters from factoring those issues into their decision in 2016.


There is ample reason to believe John Conyers' and Al Franken's accusers. Conyers settled one such claim using taxpayer funds. Franken apologized for his treatment of Leeann Tweeden, and has not disputed the authenticity of the infamous photograph. Each was asked to step down, not forced to step down, by members of their own party.


Those sincerely concerned with due process would find their outrage better suited to the following:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/us/politics/trump-immigration-judges-due-process.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...trump-habeas-aclu_us_5a1f4520e4b0a8581e67db48

Hopefully everyone can get back on track, and do so respectfully.

Speaking only in regards to what I've posted, my position on due process does not waiver depending on party affiliation.

The problem with the erosion of due process, as it relates to political campaigns, is the potential for the weaponization of allegations to influence elections.

Surely an allegation is a sufficient smear to make anyone think twice, but most states ban the use of arrest history that did not result in a conviction on hiring decisions. That is why mere allegations are so dangerous.
 
I think it is a combination of democrats and republicans that did not want Trump and are offended by his antics.
The republicans are going after Trump? The same republicans who voted yes to his proposed tax cuts? The same republicans who confirmed his Supreme Court appointees? The same republicans who have been calling for this same investigation to end? Those republicans?
 
Speaking only in regards to what I've posted, my position on due process does not waiver depending on party affiliation.

The problem with the erosion of due process, as it relates to political campaigns, is the potential for the weaponization of allegations to influence elections.

Surely an allegation is a sufficient smear to make anyone think twice, but most states ban the use of arrest history that did not result in a conviction on hiring decisions. That is why mere allegations are so dangerous.

Oh really.

So where were your objections to Trump for calling poor migrants looking to legally apply for refugee status criminals, potential terrorist, and an invading hoard.

Before those people got their day in front of a immigration judge, before any background checks were conducted, they were smeared by the president.

You, with all your objections regarding accusations, were somehow quiet.

Shocking.
 
Last edited:
I think this is relevant:



Like all gray area issues, we have to factor in a level of common sense judgment since people will try to take advantage of that gray zone. Also, elected officials are public servants. We don't owe them anything. They can be held to whatever standard we desire.
 
dwalk31 dwalk31
To elaborate, when you said "no" is that a blanket no?

I wouldn't give any thought on way or the other to some random individual advocating for the imprisonment of the top FBI/DOJ officials who ordered the Russia investigation(s) either.
If some high level government official would openly advocate for those imprisonments, at least in my case that would give rise to at least some degree of questions as to what this person's motives are and what their reasoning might be.

Hypothetically, what if it was someone under investigation advocating for the imprisonment (without citing any criminal conduct) of the top officials involved in ordering and conducting the investigation? Would even that not set off any red flags and what, if anything, would that say about that individual?
 
Oh really.

So where were your objections to Trump for calling poor migrants looking to legally apply for refugee status as criminals, potential terrorist, and an invading hoard.

Before those people got their day in front of a immigration judge, before any background checks were conducted, they were smeared by the president.

You, with all your objections regarding accusations, were somehow quiet.

Shocking.

I have said that we need immigration reform several times. The status quo is horrible. Their due process rights are important. The question becomes what constitutes due process at the border. I have also stated that Trump can and should do better with his tweets.
 
Back
Top Bottom