Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 316: Goodyear in a Bad Year

(+) Yeah! (+)

red sox 777 posted...

How does she decide who is head of household

The husband. These type of pepole are the types that wouldn't mind if women couldn't vote anymore because they're "too emotional". Never mind the many many holes in that argument, because RNC.

Though I imagine they'd make an exception for an 18+ year old voting Republican because, well they have a bright future....

---

Grimlyn posted...

I was just about to say, just heard a woman speaker was pulled and I got hyped up to hear it's Abby

... then uh geezus nope someone else promoting a mix of QAnon + antisemitism..... on the same day Pompeo will be speaking from Jerusalem...

Oh I didn't even realize she had been pulled... I still had the tab open from a little while ago before that update to the story!

---

Hmm, this could get really cool if the eldest member of a family got to vote for all descendants. So if grandpa is a Republican and he has 15 activist leftist grandchildren, it gets recorded as 16 votes for the Republican. I think the Democratic Party would never win another election. Gerontocracy!

---

Trump is now issuing a pardon for an explicitly political purpose, leading into tonight's convention programming:

https://abc7.com/politics/trump-to-highlight-bank-robbers-pardon-at-rnc/6388841/

This is just sick.

---

Inviso posted...

The source matters, because if you post news from a bad source, even if it happens to be legitimate, you're contributing to the legitimization the organization as a whole. In Corrik's case, he regularly goes out of his way to post news from traditionally right-wing propaganda organizations (in this case, Fox News or the Daily Mail or Andy Ngo), and it's bad to normalize the use of such sources.

Well, in particular I would warn against using Andy Ngo as a source for violent protest footage, because hes mostly noteworthy for spreading lies about violent protests.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trump is now issuing a pardon for an explicitly political purpose, leading into tonight's convention programming:

https://abc7.com/politics/trump-to-highlight-bank-robbers-pardon-at-rnc/6388841/

This is just sick.

Sounds like the guy deserves to be pardoned at least

On the scale of Trump scandals this is near the most benign

I wouldnt even call it anything outside the ordinary for any President
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Sounds like the guy deserves to be pardoned at least

On the scale of Trump scandals this is near the most benign

I wouldnt even call it anything outside the ordinary for any President

I don't have an issue with the pardon in isolation. It's that he's using it like he's fucking Oprah giving out free cars at his show. There's an implicit quid pro quo here: I give you your pardon, you help me pretend I give a shit about criminal justice reform (or even more bluntly since Trump thinks it's the same thing, black people).

---

Sure, I get the issue

But thats really politics as usual and not inherently a Trumpian issue

And its a net positive really
---

This is like the least bad thing Trump has done in 4 years.

---

I tuned in the whole RNC Day 1 but I really don't think I can keep up today. Already in on the transphobia this time, and earlier today trawling Abby's TL I wouldn't be surprised to see more of that from her too.

---

Inviso posted...

Rioting wouldn't be happening if the police weren't allowed (nay, TRAINED) to shoot first and ask questions later. I didn't realize it was "extreme" to believe that if you have the power and authority to execute a United States citizen without a trial, perhaps you should be held to a higher standard than the rest of society.

Also, cancel culture isn't a thing. It's just a way for privileged people to pretend they're suffering the same level of oppression as historically-marginalized groups, when asked to be respectful to those less fortunate than them.

Cancel culture isn't a thing. C'mon now lol. You said that with a straight face?

Police are not trained to shoot first and ask questions later. It's telling that both of the last two shooting related incidents was with a police trying to detain normally, trying to detain physically after arrest, using or attempting to use tasers to detain, and then shooting after all those steps first.

You are not even displaying a modicum of honesty in your arguments. You talk like a sensationalized clickbait article. You are basically duckbear with that narrative

---

https://twitter.com/poniewozik/status/1298440086002991105

---

Who has ACTUALLY been cancelled? For fuck's sake, the couple that needlessly brandished guns at protestors were brought in to speak at the RNC.

And it's telling that there are enough incidents for you to single out "the last two". Meanwhile, you're physically incapable of admitting that people do not deserve to die for the minor level of crimes they're being shot over. You constantly resort to "Well, they should have obeyed the police completely if they didn't want to be shot and killed (or paralyzed from the waist down)." No nuance whatsoever, just the police are justified to use deadly force in any situation in which they use it. And yet you take more offense to the destruction of property than the loss of life, because at least the police are allowed to murder without consequences.

---

Donald Trump is the biggest canceller there is!

Also...

https://twitter.com/rorycooper/status/1298433580348182530

---

https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1298369659855671296?s=19

---

shoutouts to the one claiming to have participated in the protests with a pepe avi and a handle that's a (probably offensive) nickname for black people

---

Apparently Trump also included a naturalization ceremony in his convention, despite the fact that his administration has basically brought citizenship (not to mention immigration and asylum) to a fucking standstill. Disgusting.

---

Inviso posted...

Who has ACTUALLY been cancelled? For fuck's sake, the couple that needlessly brandished guns at protestors were brought in to speak at the RNC.

And it's telling that there are enough incidents for you to single out "the last two". Meanwhile, you're physically incapable of admitting that people do not deserve to die for the minor level of crimes they're being shot over. You constantly resort to "Well, they should have obeyed the police completely if they didn't want to be shot and killed (or paralyzed from the waist down)." No nuance whatsoever, just the police are justified to use deadly force in any situation in which they use it. And yet you take more offense to the destruction of property than the loss of life, because at least the police are allowed to murder without consequences.

You believe that criminals should be given a leeway on life to possibly take the lives of innocents. It's incredulous. Yes, if the police are trying to detain you, you let them detain you. It is quite simple. You are supporting a person assaulting police officers. You are supporting a person trying to skip on a warrant arrest while resisting arrest and assaulting police officers who is under warrant for a felony sexual assault.

You are supporting criminals.

Does this give them a death sentence? Of course not. It does put police in a situation where many times they have to make the reasonable decision to shoot however. A person who doesn't respect the law, endangers those who are empowered to uphold the law, and is potentially a threat to the innocents the law serves to protect.

Someone said "if you are defending Corrik, you are the baddie". When you are defending the criminals and cheering them on as they destroy innocent peoples' businesses, homes, and conduct potentially deadly (and deadly) assaults and attacks, reflect.

There are cops that do the job poorly, negligently, and even purposely criminally. Those are the cops we need to excise and continue to replace with more of the good cops that we have. No All Cops Are Not Bastards. No all cops are not pigs and should be attacked for putting on a uniform to uphold the law. No the cops should not be defunded to leave the innocents to the whims of the merciless criminals that prey upon the weak and the innocent.

Is every police situation justified? No. Work needs to be done to make the police better where it needs work. Just like work needs to be done to remove criminality that has plagued our streets. Justifying criminal behavior is wrong and heinous. No one needs to tell you that burning a home down is wrong. There is no justification.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Apparently Trump also included a naturalization ceremony in his convention, despite the fact that his administration has basically brought citizenship (not to mention immigration and asylum) to a fucking standstill. Disgusting.

It was a great moment. No matter how you feel about Trump, you have to admire his ability to create a spectacle.

ABC cut away from it for some reason.

---

Corrik, we're just never going to agree on this, because, as we've discussed in the past, you consider it reasonable for the police to fire assault weapons at an unarmed man, drunk and struggling to comply with their demands, lying face down on a hotel floor. With the exception of George Floyd, who you have RELUCTANTLY admitted should not have been pinned down, ONLY because the duration of time in which he was pinned down is utterly absurd...have you considered ANY of the police shootings that have been brought up over the course of this topic series to be examples of excessive force? Because shy of TimJab, you are the person in this topic series who goes to bat to justify each and every police shooting of an unarmed black man that comes out.

Do you not think it's odd that Derek Chauvin, a person who even YOU admit used excessive force to subdue and kill George Floyd, was able to kneel on George Floyd's neck while a squad of his cop buddies stood around and watched, was able to kneel on George Floyd's neck while onlookers LITERALLY filmed the event for evidence, and he did not change his behavior in any way? Do you genuinely believe that police in this country have ANY reason to fear repercussions for their choices to serve as executioners of innocent, unarmed civilians?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trump is now issuing a pardon for an explicitly political purpose, leading into tonight's convention programming:

https://abc7.com/politics/trump-to-highlight-bank-robbers-pardon-at-rnc/6388841/

This is just sick.

Pardoning those who deserve it is sick? You'd rather those convictions stand? The Democratic Party has done nothing on criminal justice reform for decades- except make it worse - and now a law and order Republican is cleaning up their mess.

Corrik7 posted...

It was a great moment. No matter how you feel about Trump, you have to admire his ability to create a spectacle.

ABC cut away from it for some reason.

No, you don't have to admire it at all. His administration has essentially taken citizenship hostage from these people, and is giving it back to a few of them for political purposes. The Trump administration is refusing to allow citizenship ceremonies (which have crawled to a halt during covid) to take place remotely:

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1298450876584136706

---

Corrik7 posted...

Does this give them a death sentence? Of course not. It does put police in a situation where many times they have to make the reasonable decision to shoot however. A person who doesn't respect the law, endangers those who are empowered to uphold the law, and is potentially a threat to the innocents the law serves to protect.

My understanding is that people are upset about the cases where these things are demonstrably not true. Also there have definitely been cases where the statement prior to this is also not true (Philando Castile is the one coming to mind), but I'm not sure whatever instance igniting this round of arguments falls into that category.

For the most part people are okay with cops shooting people in legitimate self-defense.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

No, you don't have to admire it at all. His administration has essentially taken citizenship hostage from these people, and is giving it back to a few of them for political purposes. The Trump administration is refusing to allow citizenship ceremonies (which have crawled to a halt during covid) to take place remotely:

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1298450876584136706

The US has no obligation to grant citizenship to citizens of foreign countries. And if the Democrats didn't want Trump to run to their left on this with a spectacle, maybe Obama should have held a naturalization ceremony at the DNC in 2016.

---

red sox 777 posted...

The US has no obligation to grant citizenship to citizens of foreign countries. And if the Democrats didn't want Trump to run to their left on this with a spectacle, maybe Obama should have held a naturalization ceremony at the DNC in 2016.

has no obligation to do so != should not do so

I'd also argue there is in fact a moral obligation there.
---

red sox 777 posted...

The US has no obligation to grant citizenship to citizens of foreign countries. And if the Democrats didn't want Trump to run to their left on this with a spectacle, maybe Obama should have held a naturalization ceremony at the DNC in 2016.

Congress sets the laws on citizenship. The Trump administration has no right to arbitrarily slow down that process.

---

That Melania speech was kind of janky. I was impressed at her poise, but it seemed like two different speeches merged together lol.

---

Inviso posted...

Corrik, we're just never going to agree on this, because, as we've discussed in the past, you consider it reasonable for the police to fire assault weapons at an unarmed man, drunk and struggling to comply with their demands, lying face down on a hotel floor. With the exception of George Floyd, who you have RELUCTANTLY admitted should not have been pinned down, ONLY because the duration of time in which he was pinned down is utterly absurd...have you considered ANY of the police shootings that have been brought up over the course of this topic series to be examples of excessive force? Because shy of TimJab, you are the person in this topic series who goes to bat to justify each and every police shooting of an unarmed black man that comes out.

Do you not think it's odd that Derek Chauvin, a person who even YOU admit used excessive force to subdue and kill George Floyd, was able to kneel on George Floyd's neck while a squad of his cop buddies stood around and watched, was able to kneel on George Floyd's neck while onlookers LITERALLY filmed the event for evidence, and he did not change his behavior in any way? Do you genuinely believe that police in this country have ANY reason to fear repercussions for their choices to serve as executioners of innocent, unarmed civilians?

The one man who was trying to supply his gun permit when shot was wrongly shot. Philandro Castille maybe? There are others. However, the majority with context come with reasons in which a police officer may have reasonably discharged their weapons. You are correct. We won't agree on police issues. I am however very upset we can't agree that violent protests, riots, assaults, looting, and arson are wrong though.

You use the word reluctantly in my response to George Floyd. You accuse me of predominantly using right wing sources. You accuse me of automatically siding against the common person in situations. You continue to try and paint a narrative with me instead of heed what I say and respond to what I am saying. I was not reluctant. I said Chauvin was definitely wrong and was going to be found guilty. I said it was not first degree murder or racism though. I do NOT believe the other 3 will be found guilty. I do NOT find them negligent in trusting that the superior officer on the scene was doing the right thing. I believe they were just as betrayed by Chauvin's actions looking back as we were as we witnessed it with our perfect hindsight. I do give the benefit of the doubt to those who serve to protect the people of our country, especially when the others in many cases are those who have committed crimes including those that are violent.

I have many times urged getting more facts before rushing to judgement in this topic. The quick rush only gives rise to the building of tensions and violence.

The latest story I continue to urge waiting for more facts. We have seen context that does not paint the issue as it was portrayed, but we still don't know so much regarding it also. I do not think in situations that are powder kegs due to the way our media portrays things that it is wrong to hope we can make sure the things we protest are the actual things we want to show support for and is done in a way that portrays the morals and ideas of the cause we claim to be for.

---

Corrik7 posted...

That Melania speech was kind of janky. I was impressed at her poise, but it seemed like two different speeches merged together lol.

Cant wait to find out who/where the two speeches she merged together are from.

---

I hope she pulled from her own wardrobe at least.

---

From a recent New Yorker article about Joseph McCarthy. Presented without commentary:

[He] lied all the time. He lied even when he didn't need to lie, as Tye thinks is the case with the war record. When he didn't have any facts to embellish, he made them up. He found that, if he just kept on repeating himself, people would figure that he must be onto something.

He was incapable of sticking to a script. He rambled and he blustered, and if things weren't going his way he left the room. He was notoriously lazy, ignorant, and unprepared, and he had a reputation for following the advice of the last person he talked to. But he trusted his instincts. And he loved chaos. He knew that he had a much higher tolerance for it than most human beings do, and he used it to confuse, to distract, and to disrupt.
...

Like many bamboozlers who succeed by preying on the earnest and the credulous, [he] was easily bamboozled. He often tied witnesses who had little to hide in knots, but the actual spies who testified (and there were one or two) completely fooled him. He hired rashly, and he valued loyalty over ability.

---

I also have to include:

Tye quotes the pollster George Gallup, in 1954: "Even if it were known that McCarthy had killed five innocent children, [his supporters] would probably still go along with him."

---

Corrik7 posted...

You are supporting criminals.

Just popping in to laugh at this

I wonder what happened to so many of this president's advisors. Could they be -gasp - convicted felons?

---

Yesmar_ posted...

From a recent New Yorker article about Joseph McCarthy. Presented without commentary:

Given the fact that the US had obscenely high tax rates in the 50s, along with Social Security, Medicare, and a host of other socialist programs, I'd say he was very much onto something. He just didn't realize that it wasn't a handful or even a few dozens of Congressmen but rather than entire Democratic Party, and a lot of Republicans too.

---

pyresword posted...

For the most part people are okay with cops shooting people in legitimate self-defense.

....the entire point of the protests is to make people challenge this assumption

---

Watching snippets of the RNC with Trevor Noah, and all I can think of is how much they sound like the politicians who were pro-pure in the Purge movies.

---

2 killed, 1 seriously wounded by gunfire late last night in Kenosha by a group of armed civilians who were facing off against protestors:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/26/jacob-blake-kenosha-police-protests/

County Sheriff told media that armed militia members have been on the streets as "vigilante groups." Police had previously dispersed protestors up near the courthouse with tear gas and pushed them into the street where this shooting ultimately ended up occurring.

---

New Aaron Coleman update: his ex-girlfriend has now accused him of physically assaulting her within the past year:

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1298443785416970240

Don't remember if it was posted here or not, but he also reneged on dropping out.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1298369659855671296?s=19

i legitimately thought this was a satricial commentary on the "BLM IS MARXIST" bullshit at first. like they were saying "oh i started supporting BLM guess i became a marxist without knowning."

---

Yesmar_ posted...

From a recent New Yorker article about Joseph McCarthy. Presented without commentary:

friendly reminder that muffin thinks mccarthy was an awesome dude who did absolutely nothing wrong

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

....the entire point of the protests is to make people challenge this assumption

As an abused excuse to avoid consequences, sure. None of the police killings being protested involve actual credible threats to officers' lives. That doesn't mean actual self-defense incidents don't truly exist sometimes.

---

You know how many police officers have been killed on duty since 2000 in the UK? You know, where they don't carry guns for self defence?

24. In 20 years.

The US police force has around 150 deaths a year on average, so 125x as many. Maybe if the police unions actually cared about their members they'd be pushing for gun control.

---

https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1298595594580250624

Fuck everything about this attitude

---

It's also worth noting that in the UK and other countries with unarmed police they still have firearms units where guns are absolutely necessary. They are specially trained and don't use them on civilians. There really isn't much of an argument for having regular police armed to the teeth.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1298595594580250624

Fuck everything about this attitude

he's right that most people probably don't care about or notice the president using the federal government to his political advantage.

he doesn't get that that's exactly why it's so dangerous, though.

---

It would be accurate to say that "nobody cares" to every story. But the point of the media is to inform the ignorant, not to surrender their coverage to idiocy.

---

that dudes right. theoretically you should report the hatch violation thing because its a real thing that happened, but also it couldnt possibly matter less.

Can you imagine someones opinion of Trump actually being affected by this? Like they were cool with all the ways in which Trump is terrible but draw the line at giving an RNC speech from the White House or whatever?

I dont know how anyone even has the energy to be mad about it anymore. If it was basically any president before him, sure, but it barely even qualifies as new information for Trump.
---

Where should Trump be giving his speeches from instead of the White House? It makes sense for him to avoid unnecessary travel given the pandemic situation.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Where should Trump be giving his speeches from instead of the White House? It makes sense for him to avoid unnecessary travel given the pandemic situation.

how about one of the fifty bajillion buildings he "owns" (but actually he is only allowed to inhabit because russian oligarchs lent him money)

---

he could at least like rent out the party room at a local Pizza Hut or something

he doesnt have to travel very far to find a place that isnt the white house
---