***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[hipstermike]

Newsom setting a path to the presidency

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Without doubt. He certainly could have done better.

Do you think that his change of course has been helpful/beneficial?

I mean, going from not taking a serious issue seriously, to taking a serious issue more seriously is de facto more helpful. I do however think the Initial response has made a grave situation worse.. I also think the playing favorites game he’s having pence play in regards to emergency supplies and not answering governors calls is also going to result in the loss of life.
Considering your outspoken pro life stance, is this an acceptable way to govern?

edit: as a follow up. What indications have you gotten from trump That he would approach the situation any differently moving forward?

 

[Belgium]

It's rather sad that it's not even surprising anymore that Trump is openly demanding governors praise him in exchange for federal aid.
"They have to treat us* well. It's a two-way street"

He doubled down on the explicit quid pro quo and even admitted that he urged Mike Pence to refrain from communicating with the governors of Washington and Michigan, both have been critical of Trump at times. Trump thereby sought to obstruct Washington and Michigan's request for federal assistance.
"If they don’t treat you* right, I don’t call."

*us = Trump himself
*you = Trump himself

Much like the Ukraine scheme, Trump's latest quid pro quo could likewise be seen as seeking to benefit his re-election campaign.

 

[Deleted member 42060]

So you're not drawing any conclusions about other users re: those characterizations of you that you consider false or unflattering? What if they simply phrase them in such a way as to leave the final determination up to the reader? Would that be acceptable? This seems like a critical distinction to you.

By what standard should we determine "malicious intent" for the purpose of rule enforcement in your view? Would anything short of a confession qualify?

Or is "malicious intent" only a necessary element when formulating an "ultimate judgment" regarding the current President?

yea admission is 1 of the proofs to cut through the conflicting statements and misinformation. But theres no personal responsibility by a president that's in charge for 4 years.

My thought is "malicious intent" is any means that's necessary to deceive the public with confusion and conflicting opinions while securing votes in November. To proclaim help is arriving while it arrives too little and too late. To give false hope for a real deadly situation. To provide temporary relief instead of a proper financial assistance system to benefit everyone for a much longer time.

Any good news is treated as small praise and a good job of a big problem. Despite the unfortunate statistics that could have prevented with proper preemptive measures. They intend to do some or little as possible to receive maximum benefit. Efficiency.

If anything is improperly handled it is due to inexperience and lack of knowledge. No responsibility. There's no malicious intent. If this was the case, there's no good reason Trump should be reelected.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Newsom setting a path to the presidency

Nah

 

[junglejim]

Lettin them nuts hang

 

[RustyShackleford]

Da neck punani looking DAPPER!

 

[Mister Meaner]

I figure guy spends half this days watching faux news and the other half

dwalk31 , would you like a ticket to go? I will pay for all your arrangements. Hit my pm, famb.

 

[Deleted member 42060]

Malicious intent isn't the standard that I was using. Someone else mentioned that.

I said that for something to qualify as a lie it must have been made with the intent to deceive. Meaning someone had knowledge of the facts and chose to deliberately state a falsehood.

I conceded that Trump makes factually inaccurate statements. Tons of politicians do. But I think that calling such statements lies is an overstatement. And an unnecessary overstatement at that because there is an understandable gripe with the president making factually inaccurate statements even if they are not lies.

In terms of what people call me on here I mostly just brush it off. I assume their intent is to get likes/reps. But I don't know.

You were here before the likes/rep system, so calling you out for denying or omitting something just to get likes or calling you names are not motives. Some posters feel you dont have certain morals or ethics about some Republican's backgrounds. So you give the answer you have alternative motives for supporting controversial figures. Those answers sound vague, IIRC I have not heard specific reasons why you support certain conservatives or Republicans, besides financial motives.

 

[IATT]

 

[dwalk31]

I mean, going from not taking a serious issue seriously, to taking a serious issue more seriously is de facto more helpful. I do however think the Initial response has made a grave situation worse.. I also think the playing favorites game he’s having pence play in regards to emergency supplies and not answering governors calls is also going to result in the loss of life.
Considering your outspoken pro life stance, is this an acceptable way to govern?

edit: as a follow up. What indications have you gotten from trump That he would approach the situation any differently moving forward?

I think he is more delegating certain duties to Pence.

I don't have any indication that Trump will do something differently at the onset of something similar in the future. But people who base their healthcare decisions on Trump's demeanor may choose to rely on medical experts sooner in the future.

 

[Belgium]

Is there any way to do polls in this thread? Would be nice.

I have a question for all and I’m interested in seeing how the past 4 years, particularly the Mueller investigation, might have influenced your view, if at all.

Question: What is your view on the FISA system and why? Has your view on this changed since Trump became president?

Question 2: What is your view on government surveillance in general?

 

[dwalk31]

You were here before the likes/rep system, so calling you out for denying or omitting something just to get likes or calling you names are not motives. Some posters feel you dont have certain morals or ethics about some Republican's backgrounds. So you give the answer you have alternative motives for supporting controversial figures. Those answers sound vague, IIRC I have not heard specific reasons why you support certain conservatives or Republicans, besides financial motives.

Like you said, I have been here a while, but the calling out generally started with this particular administration.

 

[dwalk31]

dwalk31 , would you like a ticket to go? I will pay for all your arrangements. Hit my pm, famb.

No, thank you

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

I don't have any indication that Trump will do something differently at the onset of something similar in the future.

is This concerning to you? it wasn’t just the presidents demeanor but also the lack of early action to stop or hinder the spread domestically. These actions, or lack there of can and did contribute to the loss of life.

 

[IATT]

I think he is more delegating certain duties to Pence.

I don't have any indication that Trump will do something differently at the onset of something similar in the future. But people who base their healthcare decisions on Trump's demeanor may choose to rely on medical experts sooner in the future.

 

[gry60]

Is it a lie if you believe it is true when you make the statement?

I don't think so.

But if you do, then that explains the difference between our perspectives.

Like I said earlier, I respect your opinion on it.

This is amazing. This grown man is using another grown man's inability to discern fact from fiction to explain the lies, or as he calls it, "falsehoods."

- Your honor, this man is not smart enough to realize the gravity of what he has done! You have to let him go!

Truly a fine example of lawyering right there.

 

[Methodical Management]

I don't know whether the staff is ignoring any alleged rules violations. And in fairness, I don't think they are. Like I said, I don't report nonsense; I just brush it off.

But there is a difference in how posters in this thread respond to me making statements compared to similar statements made by others on the other side of the aisle, from what I can tell.

So you're not alleging any double standard or bias on the part of our staff - just hypocrisy among some of the regular posters, is that correct?

Still, I must wonder how you've arrived at that conclusion.

Let's take this one, for example:

deuce king calling me white, after I've said I'm black, is also disrespectful. But, again, it is generally okay to be disrespectful in here based on the side of the aisle it is coming from.

This claim hinges on the assumption that deuce king knows that you're not White and is making this statement to disrespect you. How do you establish that he knows what he's saying is untrue?

You then make a general assumption that other participants are also aware of this, agree that it would be disrespectful under other circumstances, and have decided that it's okay.
How do you substantiate this?

 

[IATT]

No, thank you

 

[Belgium]

The Dapper Don reviews his corona press briefings:

"I'm sure people are enjoying it … It's an incredibly dark topic, an incredibly horrible topic, & it's incredibly interesting. That's why everybody is … going crazy, they can't get enough of it, & they want to be careful."

 

[don ramon]

he's such a piece of ****

 

[ccastro02]

Spare us

It is disrespectful to troll people,

It is disrespectful when someone engages you in good faith for you to run them around in circles in bad faith.

It is disrespectful to continuously try to gaslight people by ignoring facts

It is disrespect people that when you can't challenge their knowledge on a subject to ask them if their family is on welfare, and if that is the reason they hold certain views.

It is disrespectful to call people part of a echo chamber just because they disagree with you and the people that agree with you got themselves

It is disrespectful to continuously defend cruel bigots with nonsense arguments just to get a rise out of other posters

It is disrespectful to be flippant about things people care deeply about like kids not being thrown in jail, black people being denied the ballot, and young girls being preyed on.

Disrespect is not confined to tone or insults. On aggregate you are the most disrespectful person in this thread.

Posters in here return the energy you are giving out, except some do it way more blunty

You just want a monopoly on being disrespectful. And is playing the victim because you can't get it.

Reminds me of CL-1B .
Remember him? lol.

 

[IATT]

 

[wavycrocket]

dwalk31 thoughts?

 

[dwalk31]

is This concerning to you? it wasn’t just the presidents demeanor but also the lack of early action to stop or hinder the spread domestically. These actions, or lack there of can and did contribute to the loss of life.

I used the word demeanor because you did earlier. I conceded that his inaction likely contributed to a loss of life from people that base their healthcare decisions on his words.

Certainly concerning. Like I have said for a long time, Trump can and should do better with a lot of the things he says and does.