|
Yep. And here we go with an entire all in approach to theocratic fascism It's coming and I see no way to stop it These people are insane and can't be reached across the aisle. This is the Republican base and will be for some time https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/24/us/white-christian-nationalism-blake-cec/index.html An ‘imposter Christianity’ is threatening American democracy quote:Three men, eyes closed and heads bowed, pray before a rough-hewn wooden cross. Another man wraps his arms around a massive Bible pressed against his chest like a shield. All throughout the crowd, people wave “Jesus Saves” banners and pump their fists toward the sky. ... Just read the whole thing really. We are so very very hosed BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jul 24, 2022 |
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I don't know what the "old GOP" is defined as but, sure. Compared to what they get up to NOW? I'd gladly take the plain old grumpy old white rich guy party that occasionally pays lip service to Jesus here and there over whatever the gently caress this is supposed to be. I mean... the "old GOP" wanted exactly the same poo poo as the current one. Repealing Roe etc has been the objective from the moment it passed. They just haven't always been so loudly belligerent with it, which is why if you care about decorum more than action it seems like they've gotten more extreme. They're just saying the quiet part with more and more volume while their actions and beliefs remain completely unchanged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I think Gripweed's point was that they're burned out on "we're going to get him" when each path to getting him has gone nowhere. Telling them we're going to get him and you're not paying attention to reality is not a convincing argument against that at all. My point is the specific paths to getting him they used as evidence of failure to get him haven't failed at all and are literally progressing. https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1547093929513742337?s=20&t=AEgA8unKul2chmub8P-1Wg Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:remind me: did anyone above sergeant rank get anything stiffer than a reprimand for Abu Ghraib, or did they all skate. Remind me what that has to do with anything we're talking about? You're talking about a random unrelated event that happened in a warzone under a completely different legal system. They're not remotely similar crimes, not remotely similar situations, not the same legal system, and the reasons those crimes are difficult to prosecute have no bearing whatsoever on Trump. So no, I'm not following you down this random tangent you've pulled out of your bag of "US bad" to distract from the actual topic of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:My point is the specific paths to getting him they used as evidence of failure to get him haven't failed at all and are literally progressing. Oh ok we're using MuellerSheWrote as a source. Yeah man, maybe he won't wiggle out of this one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:I mean... the "old GOP" wanted exactly the same poo poo as the current one. Repealing Roe etc has been the objective from the moment it passed. They just haven't always been so loudly belligerent with it, which is why if you care about decorum more than action it seems like they've gotten more extreme. They're just saying the quiet part with more and more volume while their actions and beliefs remain completely unchanged. Hell, there's a real good book called The Clothes Have No Emperor that chronicled a lot of daily poo poo happening during the Reagan administration and it really shows that the main difference between now and then is social media. There's plenty of stuff in it which could be completely believable anecdotes about Trump if you swap some names around: quote:11/30/81 This is the exact same energy as Trump's anecdotes about big strong men crying when talking to him about whatever bullshit he's trying to push.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Oh ok we're using MuellerSheWrote as a source. Yeah man, maybe he won't wiggle out of this one. Yeah they are legitimately grifters and shouldn't be trusted. Not an accusation I'd make lightly but that's what they are!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Oh ok we're using MuellerSheWrote as a source. Yeah man, maybe he won't wiggle out of this one. Mueller she wrote isn't the source, just a convenient aggregation of multiple sources, including NYT, WAPO, NPR, and CNN. Of course you knew that because it says nytimes.com on the embed you quoted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Mueller she wrote isn't the source, just a convenient aggregation of multiple sources, including NYT, WAPO, NPR, and CNN. Dude you linked a weird aggregate list from a known grifter Twitter crank. It's an absolute waste of time to have a discussion on this if your response is to just toss over a list from a crank and expect someone to go through and refute each point out whatever. Maybe Trump will wriggle out of the investigations, maybe one will get him 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Dude you linked a weird aggregate list from a known grifter Twitter crank. It's an absolute waste of time to have a discussion on this is to just toss over a list from a crank and expect someone to go through and refute each point out whatever. Maybe Trump will wriggle out of the investigations, maybe one will get him It's not a weird aggregate list, it's an sourced list of federal investigations known to be ongoing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:I mean... the "old GOP" wanted exactly the same poo poo as the current one. You're right but somehow it still feels different. More mean spirited and dumb. But that could just be me being old and absorbing so much of it over decades. It just seems quaint to think back on what used to get conservatives riled up and recall that it was poo poo like men having long hair, the Rolling Stones and people smoking pot. Now, it seems like it's anyone to left of someone like John McCain that sets them off. But the more I sit here and think as I write, I imagine you're correct and it's always been a matter of requiring a bug up your rear end in some form to qualify and call yourself a true red blooded patriotic conservative american and, without anger at something...some "other", some enemy...there's no real motivation behind the mindset beyond that. Time was, it was Vietnam protesters, uppity smart black people like Muhammad Ali or Kareem Abdul Jabaar and, of course, gay men. I'm 55 and totally exhausted at constantly having to drag "conservatives" kicking and screaming into the 21st Century on Every Single loving Issue all of the loving time. Over and over again. To the point where, the more terrible they become, the more palatable the old guard seems in retrospect. But you're absolutely right. The American liberal left wing has it's fair share of problems but the right in this country is just loving MEAN and insufferable for the most part. They're no fun to be around on any level, are consistently mad about (something) and seem to aim that mean spritedness at the weakest members of society. Everything they seem to be about is harsh and every solution they offer is punitive in nature. They talk constantly about freedom in a country that jails more of its own citizens per capita than any other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:What? What does poo poo in a sock mean?  “I've got a sock full of poo poo and I know how to use it.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:You're right but somehow it still feels different. More mean spirited and dumb. I mean, at the same time they were griping about these things they were also smearing McGovern with being in favor of "amnesty, acid and abortion"? I mean they're telling you the agenda right there- the things you're thinking of in quaint terms as getting mad at the longhairs with their pot and rock music!!! was actually prosecuting the drug war, oppressing women and feeding poor people into the machinery of the American war machine to slaughter foreigners and salt their homes and jailing them for refusing. These people haven't changed, their goals and values haven't shifted an inch, they're just less polite about it now and the only reason it feels fundamentally different is the poisonous effects of nostalgia
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
Pretty much the goal since what, the 60s? I'm not sure if it all took place after the southern realignment or if the wheels were turning already, but the American oligarchy decided to play the long game and dismantle FDR's New Deal America and pretty much succeeded. They probably didn't know what it would look like 50-75 years down the road, but there's a pretty straight line from the party then to the party now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:I mean, at the same time they were griping about these things they were also smearing McGovern with being in favor of "amnesty, acid and abortion"? I mean they're telling you the agenda right there- the things you're thinking of in quaint terms as getting mad at the longhairs with their pot and rock music!!! was actually prosecuting the drug war, oppressing women and feeding poor people into the machinery of the American war machine to slaughter foreigners and salt their homes and jailing them for refusing. These people haven't changed, their goals and values haven't shifted an inch, they're just less polite about it now and the only reason it feels fundamentally different is the poisonous effects of nostalgia You're totally right and you worded your argument really well. I have to sit here and think on this. My entire life, I feel like I've been up against closed minded angry people and nothing ever really gets better. Maybe in flashes here and there but, like you pointed out, it's the same god damned tired arguments over and OVER again, only maybe framed differently and with ever moving targets. There's just no bottom to it and it never seems to stop. My old man was pretty conservative. He died 10 years ago and I remember him being up in arms when I was young about nose rings, purple hair, tattoos, and anyone who had the audacity to question the absolute authority of the cops. The ONLY thing he ever said or remembered about my girlfriend at the time was her nose ring and he never failed to mention it. It's like I said. These people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into anything resembling change or poo poo they're (for some reason) uncomfortable with and they are uncomfortable with everything. They LOVE Elvis but back then, his hip gyrations were leading us into sin. The Beatles had LONG HAIR! The Stones DID DRUGS! Nowadays, more people have tats than don't, gay people are largely out, piercings are ubiquitous, hair comes in all different colors and weed is increasingly legal but I remember a time and place when ANY of that was SHOCKING and unacceptable. A Mohawk could send them into a tizzy. Boy George, Prince and George Michael were "gay", as if it meant anything. Conservatives are the last to know or accept annnnything - from art to music to fashion to personal expression to sex to...EVERYTHING. Name it. They're SO loving miserable and mad, and should be, but always aim it all the wrong people and the weakest and least powerful members of society. They act like POOR PEOPLE have taken all the money in the richest country on earth and are robbing hard working people off. Then they try to frame their world view with whatever it is they think the bible says on any given day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:You're right but somehow it still feels different. More mean spirited and dumb. I think what you're describing is a result of generational shift. Politicians in the 80s and 90s were forced to code language and subdue their goals. At the same time material conditions were good which meant most disagreements among politicians were ideological rather than existential. Now obviously, in the real world, many things were just as bad as they were today - this was the era of Rodney King after all - but much of that was successfully hidden from the white, middle class electorate who were not at all ready to hear just how bad things were for people in the margins. Today, conditions are far worse and information is much cheaper to acquire. Conflicts are now both ideological and existential, as people want a more just world and also are in increasingly desperate positions. This is true on the right as it is on the left; they are also angry about an entire generation of politicians unwilling to speak openly and act decisively, it's just that the right sees "open racism" as the solution to their ills. They're true believers, basically, not just cynical capitalists taking the shortest distance to their goals. In this way, Democrats are a full generation behind their Republican counterparts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Remind me what that has to do with anything we're talking about? You're talking about a random unrelated event that happened in a warzone under a completely different legal system. They're not remotely similar crimes, not remotely similar situations, not the same legal system, and the reasons those crimes are difficult to prosecute have no bearing whatsoever on Trump. So no, I'm not following you down this random tangent you've pulled out of your bag of "US bad" to distract from the actual topic of discussion. a program of torture was implemented with sign-off at the highest levels, Jarmak. something wholly forbidden under American laws. the people involved were utterly, unequivocally guilty of serious crimes, and it was even to democrats' political advantage to punish them. what happened to them. and why. surely, the legal system you assure us is capable of handling one man's unrepentant criminality was able to bring -some- justice to the men and women who said "start ripping goatherd's assholes inside out, we'll tell you when you can stop," yes? otherwise it sure would look like given the choice between punishing institutionalized torture (pursued for no reason or benefit beyond the pleasure of those who ordered it) and preserving the norm of criminal immunity for the elite, Democrats come down firmly on the side of letting the criminals skate. the burden of proof is on the person claiming that THIS time the rule of law is going to apply to the powerful, because for the full duration of your life and mine it has been bipartisanly agreed by the people who matter that the only person who did anything wrong in our prisoner-mutilation-for-funsies program was the guy who let the rest of the country know about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:a program of torture was implemented with sign-off at the highest levels, Jarmak. something wholly forbidden under American laws. the people involved were utterly, unequivocally guilty of serious crimes, and it was even to democrats' political advantage to punish them. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just a random "us bad" non-sequitor so you can avoid actually arguing the issue under discussion. I've already addressed it and I will not again. Edit: Additionally, you're not even sticking to the scandal you attempted to make this about. You originally asked about Abu Gharib, and this just seems like an incoherent mash-up of Iraq War scandal mad libs. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Jul 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 02:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just a random "us bad" non-sequitor so you can avoid actually arguing the issue under discussion. I've already addressed it and I will not again. I think the point is that people committed much more egregious, actionable offences within all of our lifetimes and absolutely no one faced any consequences, and it's unclear why you think this time will be any different. The precedent for never punishing the president and his cronies has been loudly set and it's unclear why you think this time will be different, especially considering that the man under investigation has a lifetime of not being punished for his illegal dealings to show. Shoving your fingers in your ears and going "Nuh uh this is different" is not really a compelling argument tbh You threw out a tweeted list from some psycho, most of which is paywalled. Which proceeding do you think will actually get him and why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 02:18
|
|
|
There was a female 1 star general that got formally reprimanded and demoted to colonel which effectively ended her career. So yeah, worse than a slap on the wrist but not by much. Also, she's made reputable claims that the heinous poo poo was being done mostly by contractors, sent over there pretty much personally by Rumsfeld.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:08
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:a program of torture was implemented with sign-off at the highest levels, Jarmak. something wholly forbidden under American laws. the people involved were utterly, unequivocally guilty of serious crimes, and it was even to democrats' political advantage to punish them. You need the support of the people to go after a former president or senior officials. That is why this is different. The people at the time absolutely did not believe they did anything wrong, and I'm not sure they do even today. By contrast, there is very strong agreement outside the chud base that Trump needs to be prosecuted. You can call it cowardly if you want, but there's not a chance in hell the justice department is ever going after a former president and/or his team without popular support.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:09
|
|
|
Rigel posted:You need the support of the people to go after a former president or senior officials. That is why this is different. The people at the time absolutely did not believe they did anything wrong, and I'm not sure they do even today. By contrast, there is very strong agreement outside the chud base that Trump needs to be prosecuted. You can call it cowardly if you want, but there's not a chance in hell the justice department is ever going after a former president and/or his team without popular support. What on earth are you basing this on? That's an absolutely wild claim. To give an easy example, polls at the time showed that when the house voted to subpoena Nixon over Watergate support for impeaching him was in the mid-30 percents. The vast majority of people were strongly opposed to impeachment and that was of the sitting president. You're going to have to put forward a bit more of an argument here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:34
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:What on earth are you basing this on? That's an absolutely wild claim. Impeachment is a purely political process by politicians who might not even be up for re-election. We are talking about a criminal prosecution that has to be carried out by career prosecutors. You can't expect the DOJ to charge a former president with a crime if the people don't support it. We have leaders in congress calling for Trump to be prosecuted, and he's very likely under several criminal investigations. It is very much different this time. edit: When the house began the process of impeachment at the committee level, a clear majority of 57% had come around to the idea that Nixon should be impeached. So your argument, such as it was, was misleading. Rigel fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jul 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Impeachment is a purely political process by politicians who might not even be up for re-election. Hang on, are you trying to say that people who need to be re-elected to keep their jobs are less likely to do unpopular poo poo than lifers? Even if that was true, wouldn't that massively undercut your argument??
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:51
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Hang on, are you trying to say that people who need to be re-elected to keep their jobs are less likely to do unpopular poo poo than lifers? Even if that was true, wouldn't that massively undercut your argument?? You need to go back and re-do your work. The people actually did support impeachment when it mattered. edit: and no, I was saying the exact opposite: impeachment from politicians is more likely than an unpopular criminal prosecution Rigel fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jul 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:52
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Impeachment is a purely political process by politicians who might not even be up for re-election. That doesn't make any sense. Elected politicians are more beholden to public opinion than career bureaucrats. That's the entire premise of elected politicians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:56
|
|
|
Rigel posted:You need to go back and re-do your work. The people actually did support impeachment when it mattered. what is your definition of "when it mattered"? at the point where Nixon had already fired everyone, completely isolated himself politically, and just become completely radioactive? Asinine. Not to mention but hang on a loving minute, why does this "popular support" thing only apply to good stuff? How come one bunch of unaccountable lifers can decide in the face of absolute public opposition that I'm not allowed to get an abortion but when it comes to a different bunch of unaccountable lifers prosecuting a rich guy for his crimes it's "oh sorry people just don't want it hard enough"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Rigel posted:
W H Y WHAT are you BASING this on
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:That doesn't make any sense. Elected politicians are more beholden to public opinion than career bureaucrats. That's the entire premise of elected politicians. Who is "the public" to them? Not the whole country, it is their district and/or their state. As for the "career bureaucrats", we aren't talking about just anyone. It is a former president. Everyone involved in that prosecution is going to be instantly famous (or infamous depending on who you are). Its bad enough to have to deal with death threats from a few crazies, but if the majority of the nation is against it, you really can't expect relatively powerless normal people who probably are not wealthy to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:what is your definition of "when it mattered"? When it was actually time to get ready to vote. The people were behind them then. Your poll that the people didn't support it at some earlier point is loving irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:04
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Who is "the public" to them? Not the whole country, it is their district and/or their state. As for the "career bureaucrats", we aren't talking about just anyone. It is a former president. Everyone involved in that prosecution is going to be instantly famous (or infamous depending on who you are). Its bad enough to have to deal with death threats from a few crazies, but if the majority of the nation is against it, you really can't expect relatively powerless normal people who probably are not wealthy to do that. Has anyone, anywhere, come out and said anything like "we at the DoJ aren't going to prosecute Trump because we're scared". Because it really seems like you're just fully making stuff up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:07
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Who is "the public" to them? Not the whole country, it is their district and/or their state. As for the "career bureaucrats", we aren't talking about just anyone. It is a former president. Everyone involved in that prosecution is going to be instantly famous (or infamous depending on who you are). Its bad enough to have to deal with death threats from a few crazies, but if the majority of the nation is against it, you really can't expect relatively powerless normal people who probably are not wealthy to do that. The pressure on bureaucrats comes from the government. A Congressional investigation uncovers malfeasance, or the president leans on an agency to accomplish some goal. The US Attorney General is appointed by the President. Pressure flows onto the DOJ from the top, not the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Has anyone, anywhere, come out and said anything like "we at the DoJ aren't going to prosecute Trump because we're scared". Why would they, when the people seem to support a prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:14
|
|
|
Rigel posted:When it was actually time to get ready to vote. The people were behind them then. Your poll that the people didn't support it at some earlier point is loving irrelevant. And hell, if we're going to play your stupid game, more than 50% of Americans polled support prosecuting Trump. Sounds like the public are behind it! Unless the cutoff has to be higher? What percentage of the population needs to be onboard before the DoJ will arrest a criminal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:15
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Why would they, when the people seem to support a prosecution. I thought your argument was that people don't support it???
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:16
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Why would they, when the people seem to support a prosecution. OK so people support the prosecution now but didn't before, which is why we can expect the Jan6 hearing to result in Trump actually being got even though all the previous hearings and investigations left Trump un-gotten?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:W H Y Impeachment is a political act, a criminal prosecution is not a political act but when done to a former president is likely to be seen as a political act unless it has general popular support. Politicians do political poo poo that is generally unpopular but popular with their constituents all the time, whereas DOJ career officials are historically timid about prosecutions that could be perceived as political... arguably to a fault when it comes to politicians. Exhibit A: Bill Clinton's impeachment was widely unpopular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:23
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:The pressure on bureaucrats comes from the government. A Congressional investigation uncovers malfeasance, or the president leans on an agency to accomplish some goal. The US Attorney General is appointed by the President. Pressure flows onto the DOJ from the top, not the bottom. One way or another, you need the support of the people to criminally prosecute a former president, that is the bottom line here. Whether so that the career officials are willing to do the job, or whether so that the current president and AG are willing to push for it, or both. The people did not support criminally prosecuting Bush and his administration, even after the details all came out. So, they didn't. They do support prosecuting Trump, so we very likely will get at least an indictment at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:25
|
|
|
Rigel posted:One way or another, you need the support of the people to criminally prosecute a former president, that is the bottom line here. WHY You KEEP loving saying this over and over like it's established fact without offering a single reason why it's true apart from some weird assertion about the DoJ not wanting to be celebrities?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:27
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:And hell, if we're going to play your stupid game, more than 50% of Americans polled support prosecuting Trump. Sounds like the public are behind it! Unless the cutoff has to be higher? What percentage of the population needs to be onboard before the DoJ will arrest a criminal? Why do you think I am somehow arguing that the DOJ is unlikely to prosecute Trump? I'm saying they probably will. That was the whole entire point here, someone said earlier that we didn't go after Bush, so therefore we won't go after Trump either, and asked what was the difference. Well, the public support is the difference. Its the whole point I'm making. What about this is confusing to you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
Rigel posted:That was the whole entire point here, someone said earlier that we didn't go after Bush, so therefore we won't go after Trump either, and asked what was the difference. Well, the public support is the difference. Its the whole point I'm making. What about this is confusing to you? The part where public support is something that matters to unelected, unaccountable career bureaucrats. Why would it. The entire POINT of a federal judiciary is they're not beholden to the whims of the public?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:31
|
|