***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[kdawg]

Yeah, I just came back to post that pic - that first one is definitely ‘shopped and there’s some serious breathing in going on.

 

[blastercombo]

Yeah, I just came back to post that pic - that first one is definitely ‘shopped and there’s some serious breathing in going on.

Homie that’s just the excellent health taking time to simmer on low for a bit and showing up A1 in a different pic

 

[IATT]

 

[iDon’tRead]

So with all these online education programs will it be a bigger issue in politics down the road? Also am I selfish that now I got health insurance I don’t really care about it for everyone else since

 

[IATT]

 

[stuntman mike]

oh nowww her credibility is shot

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

So with all these online education programs will it be a bigger issue in politics down the road? Also am I selfish that now I got health insurance I don’t really care about it for everyone else since

-Education will always be a major topic in politics because for profit online education programs do not fix the major problems with higher education.

-Congrats, on the health insurance, and congrats on your new found selfishness. If the ACA's patient protections is stripped away then the price of insurance starts to inflate at a higher rate so be prepare for higher cost, also if you even switch plans later you better hope you have no preexisting conditions, and pray you never get sick because even if you recover lifetime caps might allow your insurance to boot you off and you won't be able to get new insurance.

That is such a trash *** way to think about a issue like healthcare. I got mine so **** everyone else.

 

[lightweight champion]

So with all these online education programs will it be a bigger issue in politics down the road? Also am I selfish that now I got health insurance I don’t really care about it for everyone else since

I guess that depends on how long you can afford it. Having insurance isn’t the problem. Having affordable insurance is. Premiums go up every year, in a few years I likely won’t be able to afford mine.

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

@InTheHallway

 

[Nike Jordan]

Avenatti was just a scammer after all.

 

[RustyShackleford]

While it might be the most wide move to completely destroy the private healthcare industry, I think we should all agree they deserved to be destroyed.

They sabotage the Clintons push for universal healthcare

Then Obama, trying to avoid the sabotage from before, give them a seat at the table to write the ACA.

They then buy off enough moderates to strip some of the best features of the ACA. Often times citing it is socialist and government overreach

They then fund GOP campaigns to try to rollback parts of the bill they don't like. The GOP overshoots and screws them over a the companies in the process too

Now Medicare-for-All is again stem they want to convince the Dems to not do it but instead patch the ACA with.....the same **** they bought off moderates to strip out in the 2009.

Like seriously. If we were in different times the execs of these companies' castles would be stormed and their heads put on pikes. They are sentencing people to death with their bull****.

 

[-Red-]

While it might be the most wide move to completely destroy the private healthcare industry, I think we should all agree they deserved to be destroyed.

They sabotage the Clintons push for universal healthcare

Then Obama, trying to avoid the sabotage from before, give them a seat at the table to write the ACA.

They then buy off enough moderates to strip some of the best features of the ACA. Often times citing it is socialist and government overreach

They then fund GOP campaigns to try to rollback parts of the bill they don't like. The GOP overshoots and screws them over a the companies in the process too

Now Medicare-for-All is again stem they want to convince the Dems to not do it but instead patch the ACA with.....the same **** they bought off moderates to strip out in the 2009.

Like seriously. If we were in different times the execs of these companies' castles would be stormed and their heads put on pikes. They are sentencing people to death with their bull****.

A huge reason why I think M4A is unequivocally the way to go...

 

[RustyShackleford]

A huge reason why I think M4A is unequivocally the way to go...

I don't.

I wish I could but the roadblocks to make it happen seem too much to overcome in enough time. If it was a maker put out there 10-15 in the future it would be one thing, but for it to the plan for 2021 seems like a bad play.

-There is no model for it. No other country is as generous with the benefits as people like Sanders are suggesting.

-There is no strong public for it. Supporters like to cite polling showing support but more detailed polling shows that once people are told how it is actually gonna work, support plummets.

-There is still no way to pay for it in a way the public will tolerate. Bernie gave suggestions on how it could be paid for but I don't think they were serious proposals, I read Matthew Bruenig proposal and hand waves somes big issues to make his numbers work. He basically leaves the looming social security funding issues unaddressed and makes the big assumptions about the macroeconomy corporating in a way that doesn't cause employers to pay on their increased taxes on to workers.

-There is no plan in place to deal with the short term unemployment it will cause. This might be a smaller issue but I wish advocates would atleast address this. A nationalization plus bailout plan might be enough.

We need to shrink the political influence insurance companies a massive amount, but I still think private insurance companies will have to play a part in our system. Either as administrators and selling low margin gap plans.

 

[nawghtyhare]

how she too young
u get them mmr vaccine before the baby leaves the hospital
or on that first visit after being discharged

 

[frink85]

how she too young
u get them mmr vaccine before the baby leaves the hospital
or on that first visit after being discharged

MMR starts at 12 months, it's a live vaccine

 

[kdawg]

how she too young
u get them mmr vaccine before the baby leaves the hospital
or on that first visit after being discharged

No, you don’t. The first dose is usually given at 12 months.

 

[aepps20]

I hope everyone has a great week. WATTBA fellas DUE PROCESS FINALLY prevailed for a person that looks like our PRESIDENT ELECT. It was a long road but NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, NOT GUILTY. Civil Rights leaders used to sing this song which is so relevant today especially when conservatives are lied about by libbie scum. OUR PRESIDENT ELECT OVERCAME MOLER, COMET. CROOKED H AND OBUMMER.

 

[dwalk31]

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.


You're backpedaling. Hard.

Is this a direct enough contradiction for you?

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!


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?

It has taken me a minute to respond due to the holiday weekend and I wanted to read up on the Birmingham bombing as not to respond from a place of ignorance.

The threshold issue is the analogy of comparing a church bombing to an unfounded suspicion of Russian collusion with a campaign to influence the election. Murder and obstruction of justice simply can't be compared in the same manner as people died in the former. There was clearly a crime committed by the people who planted the bomb. Here, after an investigation, there was not enough evidence to find that any crime was committed by Trump and his campaign related to Russian collusion or obstruction related to that. Obviously crimes occur prior to charges and convictions. That was never my point. And, frankly, the exact same position can be had without an investigation. If you believe someone committed a crime after an investigation that yielded no criminal charges related to said crime then the investigation is irrelevant. Same for people who still believe OJ did it. Reasonable minds can disagree but my point was that this particular investigation has not yielded enough evidence to rise to the level of a crime being committed. As such, no crime was committed by Trump, or his campaign, for the purpose of this investigation. People will believe whatever they like, and it will likely fall on political lines.

I do not think that post content percentage determines life passion. I do not think it is a good indicator, whatsoever. This, coupled with the fact that the vast majority of my posts in here are in response to other posters mentioning me by name shows that point. Just going through the past few pages I have been mentioned by several posters who I intend to respond to. I also get called a rapist, rape apologist, pedo apologist, among other names that I refrain from responding to. To me, it appears that my posts are given added scrutiny compared to others that have different political leanings. I could be wrong, but it seems like I would have been banned a while ago if I exhibited the antics that many in here subscribe to. I do think that you have been fair throughout, despite the fact that we probably fall on different sides of the aisle. I honestly try to remain as respectful as possible with my responses.

 

[dwalk31]

Can't believe he actually said that.

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.

Obviously crimes can occur without criminal charges.

My point is/was that if you are going to still call someone guilty of a crime after a criminal investigation ends with insufficient evidence to state a crime occurred...then the investigation is pointless. If the report concluded that Trump and his campaign committed crimes and I came in here and said: "no there is no crime, just because an investigation said he committed a crime doesn't mean it is true." Then people would say I was trolling, despite that technically being true. Technically you can be indicted and later found not guilty. You can even be convicted and the conviction later overturned. But, the point was that for the purposes of this particular Mueller investigation, no crime was found.

 

[IATT]

 

[dwalk31]

He’s kinda right. Let’s be honest the Mueller report was a let down. Yeah Telfon Don did some wrong things but it’s hard to explain in a simple way to stupid voters who are looking for succinct answers. The Democrats better run a great candidate because it’s looking like an uphill battle.

Thank you. I know I am not completely out field like people try to pretend in here. For all the media hype surrounding the Russian collusion investigation, this came back as little more than a dud. I doubt that the house even moves forward with impeachment.

 

[nawghtyhare]

No, you don’t. The first dose is usually given at 12 months.

Looked at my daughters immunization record online
U are correct

 

[dacomeup]

 

[blastercombo]

So you did commit crimes then? Dude is an idiot