***Official Political Discussion Thread***

RustyShackleford said:
Again, you are not a victim.

Look how you completely ignore the issues with your rhetorical tactics. You are not getting looking at a thread ban for your perceive disrespect, or difference in opinion; I am just pointing it out to show you are not some victim. The real issue is how you engage in debates with people that wanted to debate in good faith. That is the trolling Meth is calling you out for. Your track record for this long precedes the sea lion gifs. So it doesn't go both ways in that aarea.You have repeatedly debated in bad faith, just to be antagonizing. It is your rhetorical tactics that it the issue, not your conservative views.

You can interperate the situation to make yourself look better, but observable reality clearly shows you are a troll.
Click to expand...

I don't think I am a victim. That is why I don't ignore people, or report people. But others are not victims of being antagonized either. You certainly are not. My point is that there is a fair amount of back and forth on both sides.

I am not debating in bad faith to be antagonizing. I manage to respond with Belgium, and others, without all the extra. Many in here decide to interject extra to make their points and I respond accordingly. For all of the antics that go on in this thread, surely my posts are not jaw-dropping. We have entire made-up personas.

My positions are my honest views. I honestly don't feel that Trump is a racist based on what I have seen/heard. I think it is fair to say he is a racist, based on his statements, but it is not my personal view. Is that opinion, and ones like it, what you categorize as rhetorical? I am legitimately attempting to understand. BS aside.
 
dwalk31 said:
I don't think I am a victim. That is why I don't ignore people, or report people. But others are not victims of being antagonized either. You certainly are not. My point is that there is a fair amount of back and forth on both sides.

I am not debating in bad faith to be antagonizing. I manage to respond with Belgium, and others, without all the extra. Many in here decide to interject extra to make their points and I respond accordingly. For all of the antics that go on in this thread, surely my posts are not jaw-dropping. We have entire made-up personas.

My positions are my honest views. I honestly don't feel that Trump is a racist based on what I have seen/heard. I think it is fair to say he is a racist, based on his statements, but it is not my personal view. Is that opinion, and ones like it, what you categorize as rhetorical? I am legitimately attempting to understand. BS aside.
Click to expand...

Your president had a glitch

 
This Biden v. Bernie will have more fireworks than Hillary v. Bernie. Going to be interesting watching it play out.
 
Article 9 (obstruction of justice) in the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon:
"Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony."

The report states: "The evidence supports the inference that the president intended Manafort to believe he could get a pardon, which would make cooperation with the government as a means of obtaining a lesser sentence unnecessary."
Which is exactly what Manafort did. Rather than actually cooperating, he repeatedly lied to the prosecutors during his cooperation and thereby sabotaged his own plea agreement, all while his lawyer briefed Trump's legal team on the prosecutors' questioning.
Both Trump and his counsel continued dangling a pardon for Manafort even after the felony convictions and after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to obstruct the Mueller investigation in coordination with Konstantin Kilimnik. According to the report, both Manafort and Rick Gates viewed Kilimnik as a spy.
5754cf1ba1b54ff4d1c26a755efe4fad.png

cc220e626aede5aaf2d062ae3ea9aaac.png

2a7f2cbe6c2718c5d6fc63003d44cde6.png

66dbee62b5317302b4ddb0ce56f798c6.png


4f49b61832bca346334e1164bef2b39e.png

2894e3178e810b947ec7cc80676fb5ea.png
 
Last edited:
dwalk31 said:
You are conflating issues. These cases were before my time, but based on what you wrote was there a report?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you ought to learn some history.

My prior post included links, one of which was to the FBI's own documents. If you'd like to learn more, I highly recommend Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama: The Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution by Diane McWhorter.

Blanton and Cherry were prosecuted in 2001 and 2002. Unless you joined NikeTalk as a five year old, those cases were not "before your time." Perhaps they were just outside your field of interest.

dwalk31 said:
Was there a claim of no further indictments? Did the investigation find that there was no underlying crime and then say that there was insufficient evidence of obstruction of justice? If you feel that calling that exoneration is an exaggeration, cool. What would you call it? It is certainly closer to exoneration than guilt of any crime. I operate under the presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...
You're backpedaling. Hard.

Is this a direct enough contradiction for you?
dwalk31 said:
This is some serious mental gymnastics. If there is not enough evidence to bring criminal charges.... then... there is no crime.
Click to expand...
So, up until 1977, there was no crime committed in association with the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing? Tell that to the families of Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson, Denise McNair, and Cynthia Wesley.

Troy Ingram collaborated with Chambliss on an acid detonator, and the pair even conferred with a National Guard lieutenant familiar with such devices. Neither Ingram nor Herman Cash, one of the FBI's top suspects, were ever charged. No Collusion!

dwalk31 said:
As I have said numerous times, the erosion of that has historically been devastating..
Click to expand...
Your disingenuous use of "due process" as a cudgel against those who would dare discuss the alleged wrongdoing committed by those of your ideological ilk (and not, say, Hillary Clinton) has become a threadbare, self-mocking meme.

Search for site:niketalk.com dwalk31 "due process." What do you suppose would characterize the majority of those results? Reasoned discussions of criminal justice reforms? Opposition to the drug war? Commentary about Trump's support for imposing the death penalty against drug dealers? Due process for Hillary Clinton, "exonerated" by the FBI? Due process for asylum seekers? (Equal protection, you'll note, was never limited to "citizens." The exact wording was a pivotal issue in the famous "corporate rights" case, San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, best remembered its inaccurate headnote and the apocryphal journal entries of Roscoe Conkling, used to claim that the drafting committee, of which he was a part, deliberately replaced the word "citizens" with "persons" so as to include corporations. The Due Process Clause similarly refers to "persons", not "citizens.")

It's difficult to believe your claim that this all stems from your deep-seated concern for the countless Black men who have been falsely accused and murdered for lack of due process when you primarily invoke "due process" to protect the very people who seek to perpetuate state-sanctioned lynchings. Donald Trump, whose due process rights you've defended more than anyone else's, called for the deaths of the Central Park Five. To this day he refuses to accept their exoneration (an actual procedural exoneration, if you're wondering what that looks like.) You've used it to defend the likes of Roy Moore, who has a bust of Jefferson Davis on his desk, posted racist memes to his Facebook page, and claimed that America was "great" during slavery. (His opponent, you'll note, prosecuted Blanton and Cherry and helped Jewell Christropher McNair, father of Denise McNair, receive a compassionate release from prison in 2013.)

Is this "zealous advocacy" or just plain zealotry?

I would have an easier time accepting the "I disagree with what you say, but defend your right to say it" rationale if you actually demonstrated any real passion for criminal justice reform generally. If we break down your post history, you primarily invoke "due process" to stymie any discussion of alleged wrongdoing by conservatives.

We can quantify this. Anyone with sufficient time on their hands could go through your posting history and determine precisely when, where, and to what extent you're interested in "defending due process."
I think we all know how that would go.

Similarly, we could go through your posting history and determine which of your "positions" you spend the most time discussing on our forums.

I did so with respect to your alleged support of Colin Kaepernick. It did not go well for you.

You spent more time defending Trump's criticism of Kaepernick than Kaepernick himself, and ventured into the Kaepernick thread only twice: once to decry anti-intellectual bullying and once in response to an @ mention to call Kaepernick a sellout and announce that you'll no longer boycott the NFL.

You appeared more concerned with Bob Kraft's "due process" rights than with the abuse heaped on Colin Kaepernick and all those who supported his protest. You've made few recent efforts to address the underlying issues of mass incarceration and police brutality.

Since you were called out, how many times do you think you've engaged in the substantive discussion of your top issues like abortion rights, immigration reform, mass incarceration, or taxation?

And what percentage of your posts could be coded as crude antagonism or provocation?

Your post history speaks for itself.
Its contents are not a matter of speculation. It is publicly accessible information. We can all see what topics you post in, when you choose to post, and what you choose to say.

Each of these posts can be compared against definitions of "trolling," "tone policing," and "sea lioning."

Or are you being misrepresented by your own post history?
 
Always enjoy Methodical Management's posts. For those that don't have time to read his post I will summarize.

1. NO COLLUSION
2. NO COALISON
3. NO KALEUSION
4. YIKES
5. SMH
6. #CIVILITY
7. DWALK WAS RIGHT
8. MILK WAS A CONSERVATIVE
9. DUE PROCESS
 
This is some serious mental gymnastics. If there is not enough evidence to bring criminal charges.... then... there is no crime.
Click to expand...

Can't believe he actually said that.

dwalk31 dwalk31 have some respect for the people you interact with, and you will get respect in return. Do you think you are talking to imbeciles?

You want to talk about difference of opinion? The quote above is not a matter of opinion; it's a falsehood; it's a lie. And you know it.

People who engage in lying in order to win any debate don't deserve respect and they don't deserve to be heard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
langfor5
langfor5
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
MakeNTGreatAgain
MakeNTGreatAgain

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom