Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Sean.3516

Quin_Dub wrote: »

And a key part of the problem in the US is the alacrity with which they skip to the end.

The suspect usually expedites the process by their own stupidity.

*cough,cough* Jacob Blake, Rayshard Brooks, Michael Brown.

VinLieger

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I wasn't quoting anybody in particular, at least I didn't think I was. I haven't the foggiest idea who that professor is.

Well you were and badly, so blame whatever alt-right message board you scrapped this edgelord trash off of.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Also it happens to be correct. What makes a law, a law is the threat of force against people who disobey it. And whether the people making the laws (or the people following them) realise it or not, the final measure of enforcement of every law on the books is a loaded gun.

No its not, that is absolutely untrue. The final measure of minority of laws may be a loaded gun but in no country anywhere on the planet is the final measure of EVERY law a loaded gun.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Let's say I get a parking ticket and I refuse to pay it. I get a fine. Let's say I refuse to pay the fine. Maybe I get a bigger fine or maybe I get a court summons. Let's say I get a bigger fine and I refuse to pay it and I get a court summons. I refuse to go to court. Now the police will have to arrest me. But I don't want to go. So the police have to use physical force to arrest me. Let's say I resist arrest. If I resist arrest such that I become a deadly threat to the people trying to arrest me, they have to shoot me.

Yes but you are not being shot for the original crime of not paying a parking ticket you are being shot for threatening deadly force against other people.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Obviously I'm not advocating violent resistance over a parking ticket. I'm pointing out that one of the reasons we obey laws we may not want to obey is that laws are backed by increasing gradations of enforcement. And the final gradation is always a loaded gun.

If everyone thought like you society would be doomed. We obey laws because its the only way society can function in any meaningful way not because were afraid of punishment, believing that is an infantile level of reasoning.

Heres an example to show why your absolutely wrong. Say your neighbour has a better car than you and you want it. You could shoot him kill him and simply steal it. Is the reason you personally wouldn't do it because you are afraid of the punishment for doing it or because you understand at a human level its wrong to simply kill someone else?

Spoiler: one of the answers makes you a bit of a sociapath.

breezy1985

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

it does but two party duopoly is the natural conclusion of:

* hundreds millions needed to get involved in politics in US
* a first past the post voting system unlike Ireland where proportional representation with transferable vote leads to multitude of parties and coalitions of those with more democratic representation of the populations wishes.


Same applies to UK politics btw which also heading towards a duopoly with notable exception of SNP who have a rather important single issue (Leaving the UK madness) to run on.

I'm surprised though that you don't see regional parties who could leverage support in exchange for helping out California or Texas or whatever. Even other FPTP governments have these

VinLieger

breezy1985 wrote: »

I'm surprised though that you don't see regional parties who could leverage support in exchange for helping out California or Texas or whatever. Even other FPTP governments have these

Because basically from Birth they are told theres 2 parties and voting for a 3rd is a waste of a vote.

breezy1985

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The suspect usually expedites the process by their own stupidity.

*cough,cough* Jacob Blake, Rayshard Brooks, Michael Brown.

The state usually expedites the process by having liberal gun laws

Quin_Dub

VinLieger wrote: »

Because basically from Birth they are told theres 2 parties and voting for a 3rd is a waste of a vote.

That is a valid point..

Realistically if you look at the current political spectrum in the US there really are at least 4 clear groups buried inside the current 2 main parties.

Right to left you'd have

1. Tea Party Theocrat type party
2. "Old School" Republican Conservatives
3. Small c conservative Democrats
4. Social Democrat Democrats

You could probably squeeze in a party either side of the "conservative Democrats" as well - Moderate Republicans on one side and a "Moderate , but neither particularly conservative nor really socialist either" Democrats on the other.

As it stands that very broad church of opinions are forced to choose an option that probably isn't a good fit for them.

Under Biden , the Democratic party are sitting probably in that "Moderate , but neither particularly conservative nor really socialist either" space right now and the GOP under Trump have heeled over towards the "Tea Party Theocrats".

On both sides that's a whole load of people not particularly aligned with the options available.

breezy1985

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That is a valid point..

Realistically if you look at the current political spectrum in the US there really are at least 4 clear groups buried inside the current 2 main parties.

Right to left you'd have

1. Tea Party Theocrat type party
2. "Old School" Republican Conservatives
3. Small c conservative Democrats
4. Social Democrat Democrats

You could probably squeeze in a party either side of the "conservative Democrats" as well - Moderate Republicans on one side and a "Moderate , but neither particularly conservative nor really socialist either" Democrats on the other.

As it stands that very broad church of opinions are forced to choose an option that probably isn't a good fit for them.

Under Biden , the Democratic party are sitting probably in that "Moderate , but neither particularly conservative nor really socialist either" space right now and the GOP under Trump have heeled over towards the "Tea Party Theocrats".

On both sides that's a whole load of people not particularly aligned with the options available.

There's definitely a small D (don't giggle) Rep voter too who vote Republican but are a little ashamed to admit it because they are liberal and atheist socially but not economically. Essentially the Lib Dems in the UK where you can vote for Tory economic policy but feel good about yourself too

PopePalpatine

Do you mean the Ron Paul fanboys of 2012ish Reddit? :pac:

CelticRambler

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Let's say I get a parking ticket and I refuse to pay it. I get a fine. Let's say I refuse to pay the fine. Maybe I get a bigger fine or maybe I get a court summons. Let's say I get a bigger fine and I refuse to pay it and I get a court summons. I refuse to go to court. Now the police will have to arrest me. But I don't want to go. So the police have to use physical force to arrest me. Let's say I resist arrest. If I resist arrest such that I become a deadly threat to the people trying to arrest me, they have to shoot me.

No, they don't. Here in Europe, our police are perfectly capable of arresting someone being a "deadly threat" without shooting them. That you would even think that an unpaid parking ticket could or should result in the alleged perpetrator being shot shows how you - and America in general - are still stuck somewhere in the 1700s. :rolleyes:

salmocab

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, they don't. Here in Europe, our police are perfectly capable of arresting someone being a "deadly threat" without shooting them. That you would even think that an unpaid parking ticket could or should result in the alleged perpetrator being shot shows how you - and America in general - are still stuck somewhere in the 1700s. :rolleyes:

Even in that ridiculous turn of events The person hasn’t been shot for not paying the fine but because Of the resisting arrest bit.

breezy1985

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, they don't. Here in Europe, our police are perfectly capable of arresting someone being a "deadly threat" without shooting them. That you would even think that an unpaid parking ticket could or should result in the alleged perpetrator being shot shows how you - and America in general - are still stuck somewhere in the 1700s. :rolleyes:

Legalized weaponry mixed with racial stereotypes seems to have every cop in the US on edge and ready to open fire anytime a black man reaches for something. Even in the cases mentioned above earlier the default position of an average EU cop would not be to unload 7 to 12 rounds into a man's back.

With all these militias and on edge armed police the US sounds more like wartime Ulster than it does a regular European democracy

eire4

VinLieger wrote: »

Because basically from Birth they are told theres 2 parties and voting for a 3rd is a waste of a vote.

That is true but it is a lot more sinister then that as both the Republican and Democratic parties make sure to enact laws at local and state levels that make it all but impossible for small parties to grow and ever truly threaten their duopoly on power in any meaningful way.

An example of how they make sure their duopoly on power is maintained at the national level is the so called presidential debates. They make it seem like this is run by an independent body when in fact the presidential debates is run by an actual corporation set up by the Republican and Democratic parties. The commission has made sure through rules it has enacted that other candidates are excluded from the debates with impunity. The league of women voters which used to sponsor the debates but withdrew their backing after the new set was put in place described the corrupt current set up as:

"the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."

The debate commission is also a secretive organisation taking donations but not disclosing who the money is from.

timsey tiger

salmocab wrote: »

Even in that ridiculous turn of events The person hasn’t been shot for not paying the fine but because Of the resisting arrest bit.

I think somebody was shot and killed recently, for endangering the police, by being asleep in bed while black.

droidus

timsey tiger wrote: »

I think somebody was shot and killed recently, for endangering the police, by being asleep in bed while black.

Black people dreaming has been a danger to the state since at least the 60s.

StringerBell

It's a rarity these days for trump to be anywhere that he gets booed, his appearance at the supreme court (wearing a mask no less, honestly, how confusing must it be to try to support him) was quite the change for him. The crowd showed how little they thought of him, Melania kept the game face on looking straight ahead but trump couldn't help but pay attention. Won't do any good for the thin skin, meadows seemed to be getting an earful at one point.

Won't make any difference to anything I know, just nice to see him when he steps outside his bubble.

serfboard

eire4 wrote: »

The debate commission is also a secretive organisation taking donations but not disclosing who the money is from.

Might explain why there were no questions on climate change during the last presidential debates.

Sean.3516

VinLieger wrote: »

Well you were and badly, so blame whatever alt-right message board you scrapped this edgelord trash off of.

Alt-right? Really?

You think it's alt-right simply to point out that laws are always backed by the threat of force and lawmaker ought to consider this?
Maybe you were just disturbed that I used the word "gun". By "gun" I just mean deadly force.

VinLieger wrote: »

No its not, that is absolutely untrue. The final measure of minority of laws may be a loaded gun but in no country anywhere on the planet is the final measure of EVERY law a loaded gun.

Do you disagree then with the example I gave where someone who refuses to pay a parking ticket, refuses to pay a fine, refuses to show up in court and resists arrest with potentially lethal force could at that point be subjected to lethal force themselves?

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes but you are not being shot for the original crime of not paying a parking ticket you are being shot for threatening deadly force against other people.

That's true. And it's the threat of all of those things: the original fine, the bigger fine, the court summons etc. that the authorities count on to make the person pay the parking ticket.

You're right, they're separate crimes but the "final cause", so to speak, was the person's refusal to pay the original parking ticket.

VinLieger wrote: »

If everyone thought like you society would be doomed. We obey laws because its the only way society can function in any meaningful way not because were afraid of punishment, believing that is an infantile level of reasoning.

Heres an example to show why your absolutely wrong. Say your neighbour has a better car than you and you want it. You could shoot him kill him and simply steal it. Is the reason you personally wouldn't do it because you are afraid of the punishment for doing it or because you understand at a human level its wrong to simply kill someone else?

Spoiler: one of the answers makes you a bit of a sociapath.

My answer is the 2nd reason. That doesn't disprove my argument since I never said that the ONLY reason one follows ALL laws is because one is afraid of the consequences of not doing so.

That said, I'd bet we all like to think we wouldn't murder even if we could. I'm not convinced of that at all. Whether they acknowledge it or not, every human has a dark side that needs to be intentionally restrained by either themselves or society. The fact that we have these laws is an acknowledgement that a small minority of us aren't capable of doing that.

But its disingenuous to claim that human beings are in general agreement about all laws. Are you saying that there are no laws or regulations that you personally disagree with but follow anyway because consequences of not following it are worse?

Quin_Dub

All,

Let's park the conversation about gun laws etc. and get back to the topic at hand.

There are a few other ongoing threads that may be better suited to that particular discussion

Thanks

eire4

serfboard wrote: »

Might explain why there were no questions on climate change during the last presidential debates.

Nail on the proverbial head!

kowloon

serfboard wrote: »

Might explain why there were no questions on climate change during the last presidential debates.

I'm not sure they'll get out of that issue this time. What's Trump's stance on climate change now anyway? I believe he said he no longer believed it was entirely invented by the Chinese but is he still talking about 'clean coal'?

Midlife

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Alt-right? Really?

You think it's alt-right simply to point out that laws are always backed by the threat of force and lawmaker ought to consider this?
Maybe you were just disturbed that I used the word "gun". By "gun" I just mean deadly force.




Do you disagree then with the example I gave where someone who refuses to pay a parking ticket, refuses to pay a fine, refuses to show up in court and resists arrest with potentially lethal force could at that point be subjected to lethal force themselves?



That's true. And it's the threat of all of those things: the original fine, the bigger fine, the court summons etc. that the authorities count on to make the person pay the parking ticket.

You're right, they're separate crimes but the "final cause", so to speak, was the person's refusal to pay the original parking ticket.


My answer is the 2nd reason. That doesn't disprove my argument since I never said that the ONLY reason one follows ALL laws is because one is afraid of the consequences of not doing so.

That said, I'd bet we all like to think we wouldn't murder even if we could. I'm not convinced of that at all. Whether they acknowledge it or not, every human has a dark side that needs to be intentionally restrained by either themselves or society. The fact that we have these laws is an acknowledgement that a small minority of us aren't capable of doing that.

But its disingenuous to claim that human beings are in general agreement about all laws. Are you saying that there are no laws or regulations that you personally disagree with but follow anyway because consequences of not following it are worse?

This is a load of psuedo-nietzchian hearts of darkness nonsense.

You seem to assume that deep down everyone's repressing their c*ntish nature when they engage in society.

Says a lot tbh

You totally ignore the will people have to do good and carry on as though we need restraining from our nature all the time. There's an equal train of thought that says a group of people will tend towards the decent thing and the common good

Water John

'The Lord of the Flies' Golding is that type of doctrine, from the 1950s.
Instead read 'Humankind' Bergman. When a group of boys did really get stranded on an island, they created a very positive society.

aloyisious

Trump added to his moves against anti-racism teaching by issuing another executive order yesterday blocking federal funding on training how to stop racism. The good thing about such orders is that an incoming president can cancel the predecessor's orders.

breezy1985

Water John wrote: »

'The Lord of the Flies' Golding is that type of doctrine, from the 1950s.
Instead read 'Humankind' Bergman. When a group of boys did really get stranded on an island, they created a very positive society.

If it was me as a teenager stranded on an island would have involved a very peaceful mix of foraging for food and masturbating. No time for anything else when I was 13

StringerBell

Well Manic you've lost your fiver.

Barrett the nominee comes as no surprise.

banie01

aloyisious wrote: »

Trump added to his moves against anti-racism teaching by issuing another executive order yesterday blocking federal funding on training how to stop racism. The good thing about such orders is that an incoming president can cancel the predecessor's orders.

Shít like this is precisely what is wrong with the presidential system IMO.
The Executive trying to ramrod through personal opinion as policy, strategy and legislation and being able to do it with a pen stroke as an EO.

The entire system of legislature over there is a shambles.
One could argue that bi-partisan politics in the US are dead.
But honestly, when a bi-cameral system is hamstrung by a lunatic executive it highlights the major issue with FPTP and US style "winner takes all" politics.

There is no longer any effort to bring the "losers" along. The losers rapidly become disheartened, maligned and ignored.
In a system where the losers can win the popular vote, or be underrepresented to huge extent in the senate...
It is a recipe for seething resentment and disaster.

fr336

Its very simple for the angry red states - go it alone. See how poor you become without the blue states propping you up.

amandstu

Has anyone an opinion on Bloomberg paying felons' fines.

Is it an invitation to dispute the result (in Florida) in the courts?

If Florida goes Democrat by a decent margin ,I'd say Trump's goose is cooked .

Is the need for felons to pay off their fines to be able to vote naked vote suppression in the first place , but is Bloomberg's activity illegal too? (or can it be argued as such as a delaying tactic?)

Timberrrrrrrr

amandstu wrote: »

Has anyone an opinion on Bloomberg paying felons' fines.

Is it an invitation to dispute the result (in Florida) in the courts?

If Florida goes Democrat by a decent margin ,I'd say Trump's goose is cooked .

Is the need for felons to pay off their fines to be able to vote naked vote suppression in the first place , but is Bloomberg's activity illegal too? (or can it be argued as such as a delaying tactic?)

How is it illegal? For a felony tonregain the right to vote they must pay off any fines/costs. It's nigh on impossible to wade through the red tape just to even find out how much is owed, its also expensive to do it.

The fund helps pay these costs and fines and pays for legal people to help people with a felony conviction to regain their rights to vote.

banie01

For Blomberg's effort to wipe the fines to be "illegal" the GOP would have to make a very strong case that the fines were cleared in exchange for a vote for Biden.

They would have to prove that the votes were bought.
Rather than as appears to be the case, that Bloomberg is clearing the fines of felons to allow them to exercise their franchise for whichever candidate they choose.