|
some plague rats posted:WHY All right, I am completely done with you. If this is posting about posters and I have to eat a probe, so be it. For a long time now you have been bizarrely, almost obsessively attacking me over and over again on this board whenever you think you see some kind of a gotcha, even when I post something uncontroversial that the rest of the board mostly agrees with. And you don't do it civilly AT ALL, you keep coming after me with anger, as if you are just itching for a forum fight. Well I am not interested in an internet fight with you on a dying comedy message board. I really don't get it, but for some weird reason you hate me, so I'm done. I am putting you on ignore.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Rigel posted:All right, I am completely done with you. If this is posting about posters and I have to eat a probe, so be it. I don't even know who you are. Have you considered that maybe your argument just isn't very good
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
Rigel posted:All right, I am completely done with you. If this is posting about posters and I have to eat a probe, so be it. this is, rather than answering the question, complaining about the temerity of the questioner for asking it. do you have an answer for the question yet, or are we expected to take it as a matter of faith
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:52
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:this is, rather than answering the question, complaining about the temerity of the questioner for asking it. We've literally never had a criminal prosecution of a former president before despite many opportunities to do so. The answer (and the reason why this time is different) is kind of obvious. There's not a big conspiracy, you are going to need the support of the people for such a monumental, historic, earth-shaking step. I'm not sure you appreciate just how much of a big deal this would, and hopefully will, be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 04:59
|
|
|
Rigel posted:We've literally never had a criminal prosecution of a former president before despite many opportunities to do so. The answer (and the reason why this time is different) is kind of obvious. There's not a big conspiracy, you are going to need the support of the people for such a monumental, historic, earth-shaking step. I'm not sure you appreciate just how much of a big deal this would, and hopefully will, be. please understand that answering the question "why" with "to me, it's obvious" is a singularly unhelpful argument. the institutions of American power are capable of doing far worse without even the shadow of public support. ask anyone who used to be able to get an abortion, or the corpses of the al-Awlaki family for details. what about putting a laughably corrupt man on trial for his obvious crimes demands everyone involved be sure it's polling at 60% favorability before pulling the trigger.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 05:06
|
|
|
Rigel posted:We've literally never had a criminal prosecution of a former president before despite many opportunities to do so. The answer (and the reason why this time is different) is kind of obvious. There's not a big conspiracy, you are going to need the support of the people for such a monumental, historic, earth-shaking step. I'm not sure you appreciate just how much of a big deal this would, and hopefully will, be. rigel what conditions would have to come about for you to consider your beliefs about the jan 6 committee to be proven untrue? This is a sincere question, and not just shitstirring. For me, and I suspect many of the doubters, if Trump faces the threat of actual jailtime and prosecution he can't simply ignore, I will consider Jan 6 and the consequences thereof to be a meaningful event. What would it take for you to come to believe that Jan 6 hearings were ultimately political theater?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 06:21
|
|
|
Rigel posted:We've literally never had a criminal prosecution of a former president before despite many opportunities to do so. The answer (and the reason why this time is different) is kind of obvious. There's not a big conspiracy, you are going to need the support of the people for such a monumental, historic, earth-shaking step. I'm not sure you appreciate just how much of a big deal this would, and hopefully will, be. the reason why this particular time is different is not obvious to me. Can you please elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 12:00
|
|
|
Rigel posted:We've literally never had a criminal prosecution of a former president before despite many opportunities to do so. The answer (and the reason why this time is different) is kind of obvious. There's not a big conspiracy, you are going to need the support of the people for such a monumental, historic, earth-shaking step. I'm not sure you appreciate just how much of a big deal this would, and hopefully will, be. It's really not. You keep citing this like it's such common sense we all must just get it but people obviously don't. You need to back it up with something. Do you have historical evidence? Data that backs up your assertion? Many unpopular actions are performed by the government, you need to provide evidence on what makes this an exception.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 12:17
|
|
|
The opinion of anyone not named Merrick Garland is irrelevant to opening a criminal investigation in this case
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 12:46
|
|
|
Dubar posted:The opinion of anyone not named Merrick Garland is irrelevant to opening a criminal investigation in this case Luckily I can read his thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
Not to imply that Mueller She Wrote isn't going to have this problem licked by tomorrow, but one of the various ongoing investigations might want to go on because its looking like ol Donnie's options in 2024 are the big house or the white house if you catch my meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 13:02
|
|
|
Mueller She Wrote is Welcome to NightVale for Sorkin fans. That 52k PPP "loan" which they don't have to pay back was spent on R&D for new techniques in liberal wish fulfilment. Listening to that garbage makes you actively less politically informed in the same way as watching Tucker
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 13:11
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It's really not. You keep citing this like it's such common sense we all must just get it but people obviously don't. You need to back it up with something. Do you have historical evidence? Data that backs up your assertion? Many unpopular actions are performed by the government, you need to provide evidence on what makes this an exception. Prosecuting and jailing a former national leader against the will of the people is one of the classic hallmarks of a failed democracy. We see and condemn it all the time when authoritarian regimes do this. This is not the same as going after a congressman or even some random Senator. When the people do not support the criminal prosecution of a former national leader, they are going to see it as a slide away from a functioning and just democracy, and at best maybe we would only see riots and some violence for a little while, but the reaction would probably be much worse than that. This concept is so strong and ingrained that even when we had a former president dead to rights on crimes after Nixon, even when the people were moving towards possibly supporting prosecution, we still couldn't do it. The crime has to be big enough and the support has to be strong. Some of the people who looked at the 1/6 hearings and went "these hearings are interesting and entertaining, but I don't really get why these televised hearings are important", really aren't getting it. You have to build popular support for this step. You are acting like I have the burden of proof here, but I do not. The weight of history is with me, you are the one making bold claims, saying that it really shouldn't be a big deal to prosecute a former president without popular support, no not having the people with you before taking this step is a huge problem. Rigel fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Jul 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This concept is so strong and ingrained that even when we had a former president dead to rights on crimes after Nixon, even when the people were moving towards possibly supporting prosecution, we still couldn't do it. What are you talking about, "we couldn't do it"? We couldn't do it because his vice president loving pardoned him. A single powerful person unilaterally settled the issue. This is the problem with your whole deal, you have attributed all past political prosecutions or lack thereof on the will of the people, with zero basis whatsoever, and you've completely excised the idea that people in power might have their own interests. Rigel posted:The weight of history is with me No, you have assembled an absurd explanation for historical facts that completely rules out any consideration of the concept of powerful people have interests beyond doing the will of 50%+1 of the American people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:03
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:No, you have assembled an absurd explanation for historical facts that completely rules out any consideration of the concept of powerful people have interests beyond doing the will of 50%+1 of the American people. We almost always condemn this when it occurs in other countries. Your insistence that there would be no significant problem at all if we started prosecuting and jailing former national leaders against the will of the people is just completely absurd to me. Yet, you get to just assert that as a fact and demand I prove why it isn't so, and I don't get to just assert that you are wrong. This topic does not naturally lend itself to proof, we aren't debating the possible outcomes of different tax policies. Rigel fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Jul 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:07
|
|
|
almost the entire last ~page of posts is this argument, maybe just drop it or take it to the Jan 6th thread? doesn't seem to be very productive edit: specifically, Rigel's argument seems to be an unfalsifiable appeal to the will of the people, if they included recent polling that might be stronger. It seems like kinda handwaving. Also, Jarmak might've laid Rigel's argument out better last page? But I still think it's not really going anywhere Jarmak posted: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. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Jul 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:13
|
|
|
edit: Alright, argument over. But this post had decisively blown their argument out of the water, I just want everyone to understand that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:13
|
|
|
You keep pointing to Nixon but there was popular support to charge him. The pardon was an unpopular decision made by someone in power who gave the pardon for his own interests, not weakening the office he now held. You're right in that the lack of popularity caused it to be seen as a black mark against democracy but you're all over the place. I think you have the vibes right but you're all over the place in your argument since you just don't seem to have anything to back it up beyond your gut which is cool but not how D&D should work. Either way a majority of Americans believe Trump should be charged. A majority also believe he won't be. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/poll-trump-should-be-charged-for-jan-6-about-half-of-americans-say
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:18
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:almost the entire last ~page of posts is this argument, maybe just drop it or take it to the Jan 6th thread? doesn't seem to be very productive Is the argument dropped or not? Because I can keep going if it's still on. I got all day
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
Dubar posted:The opinion of anyone not named Merrick Garland is irrelevant to opening a criminal investigation in this case It's basically this. The last page of arguments has basically been arguing about why you think it is likely or not likely that they will charge Trump with something. That isn't falsifiable until they actually do or don't. If you've laid out your reasons why you think they will/won't, then find another angle to talk about it. Back and forth of "they will" and "they won't" isn't interesting or something you can prove until they do or don't. And Rigel, please don't just make a post entirely directed as a personal attack on another poster. Just a heads up. I'm dismissing all of the reports related to that whole argument. But, just wanted to put that out there. Gripweed posted:Is the argument dropped or not? Because I can keep going if it's still on. I got all day I don't want to speak for Fritz, but you can keep going with it. Just find some angle that isn't a back of forth of "they will" and "they won't" over and over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I don't want to speak for Fritz, but you can keep going with it. Just find some angle that isn't a back of forth of "they will" and "they won't" over and over. this ^^
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
Hell yeah it's back onRigel posted:We almost always condemn this when it occurs in other countries. No one is arguing that they should start ailing popular politicians willy nilly. Not in this argument at least. We are disagreeing on why they won't. You think it's because they are scared to do something without the will of the people behind them. I think that it's because of basic class solidarity and power. The people who would be prosecuting the politicians have probably met those politicians socially. They move in the same circles and inhabit the same world. They are all powerful government people. So of course there is a natural disinclination to prosecute. On top of that, politicians, even unpopular ones, have power. Former presidents have power. So to prosecute them is a personal risk. Not from the great mass of people, but the people who actually matter. The connections that the politician has to draw on. That's why it's unlikely that Trump will be prosecuted. To quote Denis Leary, "It's one big club, and you ain't in it"
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:That's why it's unlikely that Trump will be prosecuted. To quote Denis Leary, "It's one big club, and you ain't in it" George Carlin
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:30
|
|
|
I feel like attributing a George Carlin routine to Denis Leary might be ban-worthy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I feel like attributing a George Carlin routine to Denis Leary might be ban-worthy. I.5.a.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I feel like attributing a George Carlin routine to Denis Leary might be ban-worthy. Agreed but there's like a 50/50 chance Leary stole it from Carlin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
Rigel posted:All right, I am completely done with you. If this is posting about posters and I have to eat a probe, so be it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I feel like attributing a George Carlin routine to Denis Leary might be ban-worthy. Oh now we care about people getting their facts right, just disgraceful
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin/status/1551563772807917570?t=2P5yqMaXhJK5WSjd2CC9EA&s=19 Looks like President Manchin has the Rona. Unfortunately, I'm sure he'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
Rigel posted:We see and condemn it all the time when authoritarian regimes do this. Rigel posted:We almost always condemn this when it occurs in other countries. Just want to point out that the reason "we" do this has nothing to do with authoritarianism or taking some moral stance. It is almost always because the previous person was good for US business interests, and was just as authoritarian or even more so than their successor. Bolivia is an extremely good example of this. Jeanine Anez is a far right racist psycho who came to power through a coup, and ordered multiple violent massacres to crack down on protestors. When she was democratically deposed and imprisoned, the US immediately started calling for her release.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Just want to point out that the reason "we" do this has nothing to do with authoritarianism or taking some moral stance. It is almost always because the previous person was good for US business interests, and was just as authoritarian or even more so than their successor. Bolivia is an extremely good example of this. Jeanine Anez is a far right racist psycho who came to power through a coup, and ordered multiple violent massacres to crack down on protestors. When she was democratically deposed and imprisoned, the US immediately started calling for her release. One weird trick to popular will, kill everyone who disagrees with you. Leftists hate it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
The good thing about The Popular Will is it always and only wants good, correct things and everyone who wields it does so for the right reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
the_steve posted:https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin/status/1551563772807917570?t=2P5yqMaXhJK5WSjd2CC9EA&s=19 I mean, no outcome would be good. If Manchin stopped being a senator, he'd be replaced by a Republican who'd be equally obstructive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
Maybe he'll get a rare covid side effect that makes him less of a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I feel like attributing a George Carlin routine to Denis Leary might be ban-worthy. While we're on it, Gaetz is stealing from Carlin too. "Why are most of the folks against abortion people you wouldn't want to gently caress anyway?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:While we're on it, Gaetz is stealing from Carlin too. Not everyone can venmo daddy's money to HOT LOCAL SINGLES
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
Rigel posted:All right, I am completely done with you. If this is posting about posters and I have to eat a probe, so be it. I don't know you or your posts from a hole in the ground but I don't think it's unreasonable for you to state the justification for why you think that you need popular support for criminal proceedings against a president. That's an extremely relevant question because it places the rest of your posts in context so why not just answer it
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted: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. Criminal prosecutions are absolutely political acts, regardless of whether the target is a politician or not. Like half of politics is war on drugs/tough on crime/we need more cops. Pobrecito fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jul 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
Pobrecito posted:Criminal prosecutions are absolutely political acts, regardless of whether the target is a politician is the target. Like half of politics is war on drugs/tough on crime/we need more cops. Felon disenchanisement as well! Laws are mechanics and their enforcement is onto the underclass to empower the overclass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Pobrecito posted:Criminal prosecutions are absolutely political acts, regardless of whether the target is a politician or not. Like half of politics is war on drugs/tough on crime/we need more cops. there is a strange fantasy among democrats that if the judiciary, military, or both do something, it is no longer political my wild guess as to why this is is that as the democratic party's ability/willingness to do anything on its constituents' behalf has waned, the parts of the government still capable of taking actions got fetishized as 'above politics'
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 20:36
|
|