Of course, bumming isn't illegal in Canada, so JKDS is fine to be gay. Good job he's not living in a fucked up place like Uganda.
Of course, I'm just trying here to ram the point into JKDS' face.
Law is not morality.
Printable View
Of course, bumming isn't illegal in Canada, so JKDS is fine to be gay. Good job he's not living in a fucked up place like Uganda.
Of course, I'm just trying here to ram the point into JKDS' face.
Law is not morality.
Strawman harder.
But you're saying "it's law so don't do it".
This isn't a strawman... I'm asking you what the difference is between the UK govt telling me I can't smoke weed, and the Ugandan govt telling their citizens that men can't kiss on the lips.
Should men in Uganda just accept the law, and if they get caught kissing, deal with the consequences without complaining because they comitted a crime and they knew it?
Why is the right to be a bummer protected but not the right to be a stoner?
To be fair, I think one of jkds points is that while it's not directly up to you to decide what is legal, you do have a free choice about whether or not to abide by the law. And so even if you think the law is unjust or immoral or that the punishment is absurdly out of proportion to the crime, you can avoid the whole conundrum by following whatever laws happen to be in place.
If applied on a case-by-case basis, this argument makes sense. Saying you're powerless to control your desire for weed doesn't really cut it as an answer, since you admit yourself you can go a long time without it and not experience withdrawal.
Before you think I'm taking jkds side, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that one part of his argument is logical. If I decide that I should be allowed to murder someone for no other reason than because I think the world would be better off without them, and therefore it's a moral act, I have to accept that decision doesn't jibe with the law's interpretation of morality. Just because I can make a case for why it should be legal to murder someone, doesn't mean I should ignore the realities that exist in the real world, where getting caught will land me in jail.
That said, another part of his argument is not logical. He argues that it's just the people who are breaking the law who are responsible for all the incarcerations. Obviously the law has a lot to do with that as well, because of the drug laws being so unreasonable. If they were brought more in line with a 'punishment fitting the crime' principle of law, then the number of people in jail for drug crimes would be much lower. So the legal system has its part to play as well.
The law needs to recognize that whatever it does, people are going to use drugs. Up the punishment? People still use drugs. So the law can decide that's wrong and put them all in jail for as long as it wants, but the main consequence of that won't be stopping drug use, it will be making the prison population larger.
That to me isn't what the law is there for.
I want to elaborate on this point you made, how the legal system itself has a heavy amount of responsibility for our incarceration rate and not just entirely the individuals fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
A few people are arguing, if you do drugs and get caught, that's your choice, you do the crime you do the time. It places the entire fact that someone is heavily criminally sanctioned for a drug crime, entirely on the individual, not the cop, the prosecutor, the judge, the prison system or the entire criminal justice system itself.
Also one person pointed out that our criminal justice isn't racist. In theory, it isn't racist. In practice it is racist. Like I said, WHites and Blacks use and sell drugs at virtually the same rates, I think there might even be a slight higher probability that Whites use and sell them more.
But the ones being arrested, charged, sentenced and incarcerated by a heavy majority are Black people. This is why I consider the War on Drugs, to be synonymous with being called "The War on Blacks".
In theory justice is blind to a persons race, in practice, she's one of the most racist SOB's in the whole country.
There are so many examples of how racist our criminal justice system is, I could write a book on it. This is my personal quote on the matter after my studies of the system, and taking a Race, Crime and Justice class from a retired police sergeant with a PHD in Criminal Justice (for that matter, the man was White who was teaching the class. "From the Routine Traffic Stop, all the way up to the Death Penalty, and at every level in between, Blacks get discriminated against in this great country of ours.".
And I'm just going to do one fact that shows ample evidence, that the legal system, hell even the law makers themselves are racist, if you look at the results of their laws on black lives. For that matter though, laws that have heavily impacted the Black community, have also heavily impacted lower income Whites as well, just not to the same extent.
Ok so in 1980 we had 25,000 Federal inmates serving time in prison. Today, we have roughly 200,000 people serving time in Federal prison. To keep things simple, I'm not even going to touch on state, local, and county levels of jail, prison or other forms of incarceration. The majority of this 175,000 additional Federal Prisoners have been Blacks, and Non-White Hispanics.
An 800% increase in Federal Prisoners, represents a drastic change in our Criminal Justice system between 1980 and 2016. For people still claiming that no one is at fault except for the individual if they find themselves in jail or prison, this begs the question "Are Americans 800% more evil today, than they were in 1980?".
The thing with murder though is that it directly impacts on another person's life.
Who has the right to say what an adult must supress? I can go without weed, but I don't want to. Homosexuals can go without cock, but they don't want to. What's the difference? Is the difference simply choice? I chose to smoke weed, homos don't tend to choose to be gay. That is the only difference. But why can't an adult make such a choice? I can choose to become an alcoholic, so it's not about choice.Quote:
Saying you're powerless to control your desire for weed doesn't really cut it as an answer, since you admit yourself you can go a long time without it and not experience withdrawal.
The point JKDS makes is... it is illegal, so don't do it. That applies to gay men in Uganda as well as stoners in England. It's equally absurd. If they made alcohol illegal, would JKDS stop drinking wine? Would keith? Would it suddenly become immoral to do so? Would those who ignore the new law deserve the prison time they get? Even if it's years?
JKDS' argument is absurd, which is why I'm being absurd.
We made alcohol illegal between 1918 and 1932. It was considered a complete and total fucking disaster of public policy. It's the only time in our nations 240 years that we actually repealed a Constitutional Amendment with another Amendment (And believe me, it is super difficult to add new Amendments to our Constitution). Sure, a few individuals may have stopped drinking, but I recall reading a statistic that said the murder rate went up 1000% due to organized crime. Just look at all the dead Mexicans in Mexican border towns since 2006, when the Drug War down there really started getting out of hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Hardcore derails are the best.
I'm sure the upcoming election will reclaim this thread in due course.
Well to be fair, Criminal Justice policy is heavily influenced by law makers, including the President and his pick for Attorney General.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
For that matter, Trump wants Stop and Frisk 50 states wide, and Hillary Clinton does not, in fact I think she opposes the practice. Glaring difference between the two candidates if there ever was in terms of the President being able to directly impact ordinary citizenry's lives, even if it's only one Criminal Justice issue.
My point was simple: If there's a law and you break it, be it murder, drugs, or jaywalking, you the individual are at least partly responsible for the consequences of getting caught. In that JKDS was correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Where he was wrong was in absolving the law itself of any responsibility for the consequences of how the law works in practice.
...homosexuality, blasphemy, critisising the head of state, denying the Holocaust, insulting a foreign diplomat, having an ice cream cone in your back pocket, refusing to sing the national anthem...Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
America is fucked whatever happens. Clinton or Trump. Fucking hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyS1985
Alabama is a wonderful place for law.
It's illegal (and therefore immoral in keith's world) to play dominos on a sunday. It's illegal to wear blue jeans on Noble Street. Bear wrestling is banned. In one town, opening an umbrella on the street is illegal. In another town, selling peanuts after sundown on a wednesday is a no-no.
But you can marry your sister. Which, again, makes it moral in keith's world.
I never said "law is morality", nor is that my point.
I have not absoled the law of any responsibility.
I am providing a retort to those who claim we should feel sorry for all the drug users that willfully chose to break the law. Woe is the druggie who can freely control his actions, but chooses not to because fuck the man.
For the record, Uganda is nothing like the UK or the States. To think otherwise, or to even compare the two, is beyond laughable. And no, just because I'm gay does not mean I think gays in Uganda take no personal responsibility for deliberately breaking the law. I suppose it was neat to assume that, tho?
Yall are acting like you woke up one morning and suddenly this is illegal and now your business is ruined and so are your habits and woe is me, woe is me. There is no woe. For your entire life this has been illegal, yet you choose to blatently, even proudly, ignore it.
Ps: yes, I do think drug laws are too harsh. But no, the answer to that viewpoint isn't to become a criminal.
This is where you absolve law of responsibility.Quote:
But no, the answer to that viewpoint isn't to become a criminal.
I'm not the reason I'm a criminal, law is.
One way to reduce crime rates, is to make less things illegal. One way to increase crime rates is to make more things illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ghandi was pretty successful by doing this very thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I'm not saying it's ok to break laws just because you disagree with them. But some laws are fucked and should be rebelled against.
A vote for Clinton is now a proxy vote for Shaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Being a scofflaw is a great way to push for the repeal of a dumb law. I might even go so far as to say it's the most important ingredient.
Should you feel guilty for your risk aversion? No.
Should it be a huge shock when a scofflaw gets penalized (lol that's a funny word) before the law changes? No. However the absurdity of he punishment dealt out is precisely what makes this an effective protest, as it hits home with the other scofflaws and garners sympathy from the masses.
Side note: the west 50 years ago was not all that different from Uganda in respect to gay rights. You know who you owe much of the freedoms you enjoy as an out gay man? Yeah, criminals.
It should be asked, for any law, if it's worth taking away someone's parent over the offense.
Sending someone to prison isn't necessarily depriving a child of their parent, but often times it is. Even if it's not, it's a great standard for parsing what should be punishable by fines or community service vs. what should be punishable by prison time.
I've never heard an argument which says that a person smoking pot is worse for society than a child w/o both parents - even if one of them is a pot head.
So, even if MJ is illegal, the punishment for said crime is cruel and unusual, IMO.
A+ point, gent.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
MLK was correct. It is the duty of a good man to break a bad law. Not all of us can be so good though.
It's easy to speak of rebellion and great leaders like mlk and ghandi.
But what have any of you ever done that even comes close to mirroring them? You arnt rebelling. Youre just breaking the law. To rebel is to provoke change. Ignoring the law while complaining that it's tough doesn't do jack.
The reason laws change isnt because of criminals. It's because law abiding citizens took up the cause and actually put the work in. Even now, with marijuana legalization becoming more and more popular, I'd bet you two just sit and ride the coattails.
Some historians claim that criminals have been at the forefront of the creation of many new rights that are taken for granted today. It's very interesting stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I'm not saying you're wrong, but that it's not the entire story. There is much we don't yet understand about how societies change, but there is compelling evidence that it takes both law abiding citizens as well as criminals.
This sounds great until you game theory it. People would take advantage of such a policy, and in fact often try to even without it. But again, its not the State that chose to "take someone's parent away". It is the rare case where the crime is one of accident, or negligence. Usually it was intentional. Some could argue that intentionally committing a crime, even though you have children, should warrant an even greater punishment. What kind of example are you setting for the kid? Is a criminal lifestyle something beneficial to his upbringing? Does being around drugs have a net positive impact on him growing up? Is the kid actually better off without the criminal?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
These are tough questions, and I grapple with them often. But as hard as these questions are, theres an even tougher one.
Why on earth did you choose to commit a crime, the punishment for which could leave your child without a parent? Who is the bad guy here?
I intentionally used "scofflaw" as it is a term coined during the prohibition era. These otherwise law abiding citizens who suddenly became criminals overnight played an inarguably important role in bringing on repeal. Scofflaws were not Ghandis or MLKs. They were your neighbor, the office secretary, your cousin, the garbage man.
Of course the litigators, lawmakers, judges, etc, played a big part, but what drove them? It was the turning of popular opinion when people realized prohibition made criminals out of law abiding citizens, it lined the pockets of legitimate criminals, and the law failed to do what it set out to do in the first place.
30 years ago, the head of the DEA could claim to not know that there is a disparity in harm caused by meth use and cannabis use. Now the collective internet rolls its eyes. Politicians are being very careful around the issue or outright calling for legalization. Many municipalities have decriminalized possession. Where do you think the drive for this change comes from? Out of thin air? Philosophical debate at law schools?
I mean, your argument is that no one who partakes in illegal consumption of cannabis has helped to bring on the spread of legalization? I can't see how else to read:
Quote:
The reason laws change isnt because of criminals. It's because law abiding citizens took up the cause and actually put the work in. Even now, with marijuana legalization becoming more and more popular, I'd bet you two just sit and ride the coattails.
Again, I'll refer to the scofflaws who preferred man on man butt sex to smoking cannabis-- you mean to tell me that it was only the law abiding sodomy free straight and repressed, non practicing gays who brought about change? And how does this stance square with your seeming high opinion of MLK and Ghandi?
I wasn't suggesting different punishments for people depending on whether or not they have kids.
I was suggesting a bit of humanity on the part of deciding how to punish things.
Whatever the punishment, it should be equal for all.
We need to change something when we comprise 4.4% of the world pop, but we hold 22% of the world's prisoners.
Spoiler - they're Americans on American soil.
Freedom, indeed.
I'm not saying that decriminalizing drugs is a solution, but we need to find a new way to think about sentencing guidelines.
It has been well established that increasing the severity of the punishment does almost nothing to deter an ignorant person's choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
It's bad that the laws are disproportionately imprisoning men and blacks.
It's bad that our incarceration rate is so high.
It's bad that families are torn up over non-violent offenses.
It's bad that criminals commit crimes, too.
I don't think you can point a finger in either direction without missing some of bad guys.
JKDS, something doesn't jive at the root of your position, and I think I've put my finger on it:
You seem to be adamant that criminals deserve to be punished even if the only thing making them criminals is an unreasonable law. This seems acceptable with one caveat: should you believe this and also believe there to be unreasonable laws, you have a moral obligation to do everything in your power to see that those offending laws are repealed. Short of this, your unwavering stance on criminals, who are only criminals due to unreasonable laws, makes you a shitty person.
Yes! If you think a law is unreasonable, you absolutely must act against it. But legally. There isn't reason not to do so legally.
But how can you say someone is a criminal only due to an unreasonable law? Does the person take no responsibility at all for their actions? Couldn't one of the poor oppressed drug dealers just...idk...not sell drugs?
If your options are have nothing nor sell drugs and have something what do you think the choice is going to be?
It's pretty obvious it takes two things to make a criminal: A law, and someone who breaks that law. Trying to shift the blame around so that it falls only on one or the other party is wrong. It's both the law and the person who breaks it who are responsible, full stop.
The Law isn't the foundation of morality (which is a slippery concept to begin with); it's based on it. Sometimes the Law gets things wrong. I think everyone can agree on those things as well.
When the Law does get things wrong, people have a moral duty to fight it. But why should that fight be waged solely on the Law's terms (i.e., legally)?
Sometimes legal options aren't productive. In that case, your best strategy is to make upholding the law so costly to the state that they have no choice but to change it. The fact that men like Ghandi and MLK had huge numbers of supporters who were also willing to break the law was what gave their movements weight and effected legal change.
Were all those people bad for breaking the law? I don't think so. Would they have had the same success through strictly legal means? Seems unlikely.
In terms of philosophy and Criminal Justice policy this is a good post to read over, so much so that I want to add to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
IIRC MLK made a now famous letter from the Birmingham Alabama Jail, when some people called him out for not trying to change Jim Crow laws on entirely legal terms and strictly through the courts, and instead tried to do it on then "illegal" terms, which because of him are now legal today.
The letter is best summed up by these two sentences as a description of it.
"The letter defends the strategy of nonviolent resistance to racism. It says that people have a moral responsibility to break unjust laws and to take direct action rather than waiting potentially forever for justice to come through the courts."
We have plenty of problems with our Criminal Justice system in this country, whether you yourself are a Cop supporter, or BLM protester.
BLM, for all the condescension and even being called a "terrorist group" has a main motive in mind "Hold Police accountable for their actions".
Right now, based on killing, after killing, after killing, of a Black person by a Police officer, it is pretty much seen in the public eye that Cops can kill Black people, with outright, legal impunity, and extremely rarely, are ever held accountable for their actions, and with only some exceptions, like Michael Slager, requiring overwhelming evidence against them before they are brought upon charges.
Jury, after jury, after jury, will automatically give a presumption of innocence to a Police officer if they're accused of a wrongful killing. An ordinary citizen on the other hand, is afforded no presumption of innocence, but a presumption of guilt, even under the exact same circumstances as the Police officer. There are certain segments of American Society, particularly the ones who qualify as Jury members in a pool of potential jurors (usually they are never Black people), who will buy into the idea that if you bear a uniform and a firearm, you are automatically not guilty of any crime you're accused of.
Jon Oliver, just the other day, did a piece on "Police Accountability" and how our system, on multiple levels, will always, and consistently, fail to hold bad police officers accountable for their actions. While I was earning my degree, I learned that if you're a bad police officer, and about to be fired by your police department for making incredibly incompetent decisions on the job, resign. Once you resign, you don't gain the status of "fired". If you resign, you can still sign up for the multitude of mostly small police agencies (there are 18,000 police agencies supposedly in the United States alone, compared to Australia which has 1 Police agency) and still gain work, even if you're incredibly bad at the job of police officer. Jon Oliver's piece described one cop who was found with half a 5th of Rye Whiskey in his patrol car, and a baggie of weed and pills, who had worked for 9 different police agencies in 9 years, when threatened with a drug test said "I'm not taking no drug test, I guess I'll resign".
These cops are known among Law Enforcement, as "Gypsy Cops", in that they move from agency, to agency, to agency, until they are threatened from being fired from each one. And one way a Gypsy Cop has impacted your news feed on facebook, was the Cop who killed Tamir Rice (who coincidentally, was not brought up on charges by the Cleveland Prosecutor) who was deemed too incompetent for the role of police officer in his prior agency, before he was hired by Cleveland's Police Department.
The most disturbing thing about that video was the prosecutors describing their relationship with police officers.
Not because that is a reality that makes sense and is probably a good system most of the time,
but because when the system fails - by protecting bad cops - the prosecutors are afraid to do their job correctly because otherwise good cops will turn against them, and they wont be able to do their job afterward.
That's wrong on multiple levels.
That's a shocking lack of checks and balances in action.
My quest in life is simply personal happiness. I'm not pretending to be some kind of activist. I couldn't really give a fuck about provoking change. I have no intention of waving "free the herb" placards around while handing out leaflets, I'm too busy smoking weed in my house while talking shit on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
You say "you're just breaking the law" like I'm a common criminal. The ONLY law I break is this one. Of course, if I lived in Colorado, I wouldn't be breaking the law. So I'm only a criminal by virtue of my location. Yet you don't seem to understand that your argument in favour of law is ridiculous.
Law is ridiculous. Why the fuck should I be subject to their ridiculousness? Because we need a law that says we can't kill each other? So that means I must abide by all laws, including the one that says I can't smoke this plant if I'm in England, but I can if I'm in Amsterdam?
Bollocks.
So what if they make a law saying it's illegal to challenge law?Quote:
Yes! If you think a law is unreasonable, you absolutely must act against it. But legally. There isn't reason not to do so legally.
Check fucking mate.
I think that you see the extreme cases, MLK or Ghandi or Jews evading the authorities in Nazi Germany, for what they are. But it seems you don't think that there is a grey area. But I'd point out that each of those three cases is different, and breaking the law was actually more reasonable in the last example, then the first example and least reasonable in Ghandi's case. However, it's easy to lump all these together since the laws were so clearly unjust that it's easy to lose sight of the nuances between the cases. So if we've established a grey area, then the only question is where to draw the line. If you want to make a case for that line being before consuming illegal substances, fine, make that case, but don't pretend it's absolutely an clear binary distinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
As an aside, I'd claim that the individual actor, the criminal, does not even need to consciously think of themselves as protesting an unjust law. For example, an interracial couple would be breaking the law in the 1920's (in certain places, much later than that I'm sure, but can't be bothered to look) and their only intention could be to be with the one they love. They're not having protest sex and raising protest children, they're just living their lives which happen to be in opposition to the law. You don't need to be Ghandi or MLK to be justified in breaking the law.
That brings me to another aside. Sticking to the interracial couple-- in the 20's they had no hope of the law being changed in their lifetimes. Should they still have fought the law in the courts while avoiding its violation?
Is living a lifestyle that includes cannabis any different 20 years ago? Sure, you can claim that one is more important, but that's pretty subjective. And if we think that breaking an unjust law that interferes with your chosen lifestyle is ok when there's no hope of it being repealed for an unreasonable amount of your lifetime (maybe all of it), then does it suddenly become not ok to break that law when legalization is within sight? That seems like a strange claim.
Anyways, I'm late for work-- I'll leave you with this to mull over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE2FciokqUk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullificationQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Add a law saying no trial by jury.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Unconstitutional, wouldn't come close to getting through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Change the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Wanna keep going?
Edit: Actually why bother. Your original argument about jury nullification pretty much proved the value of civil disobedience anyways.
Let's say they go all Alabama on our asses and they make a law that now says it's illegal to wear a hat on a sunday.
Should we all stop wearing hats on a sunday while we complain about it?
I don't even wear hats, but I would if they told me I couldn't.
If that was all people did, it is very likely we'd be living in a far more totalitarian society. It probably takes both upstanding legal citizens and pirates/hooligans to make a society progress towards freedom and better laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Do you think we'd have as much freedom and as good of laws today if not for outlaws who gained some of the very important ones?
This organization is probably not an example you'll want to use. It has little to do with holding police accountable for their actions. Though that is the message it and the hoaxing media sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyS1985
Good posts boost. Scholar Intellectual Boost is good boost
Apparently Republican absentee deliveries are crushing in North Carolina and Iowa. And Hillary has abandoned Ohio.
It's a landslide boys.
:PQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
For obvious reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Next debate on Sunday. What's their strategies this time, any guesses?
It's being held at my workplace, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well... not in my department, but on my campus.
If Trump spends more time defending himself and talking about Rosie and Hannity - he's fucked, again. If he can check his ego and quickly turn the conversation back to Hillary on a regular basis - he'll dominate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Hillary will be the same as last time.
If Trump consistently scoffs at any implication that he's not the bestest of the bestest of all time, then he'll win.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
If he directly answers any question he's been asked, he'll lose.
I think Trump will pay less attention to Clinton's accusations and instead focus on his vision. I hear that's what the Unbarraged Farage advised.
Clinton will double down. She tested the waters with the accusations last time, this time she will go full blast.
Trump will be on message for 15min, then be annoyed at how she's besting him again and then go off message. Hell have better talking points and responses though.
Hill still wins tho
This "grab em by the pussy" controversy seems to actually be sticking.
I'm coming down on the flip side. This is good for Trump IMO. The people who care already assumed this about Trump, and this opens the door so much for attacks on Clinton's past. It's in such a big way that I had a thought that maybe Trump leaked them on purpose, but I doubt it; instead it's that he prepped for how to turn this type of attack into a win.
This got loads of eyes on him, got loads of people to see him publicly apologize (the first time ever, on the most important thing he could do it for), and then quickly profess his vision for America. If we're thinking in terms of his movie arc (a good way to think of it), this is great 3rd Act stuff. The biggest question of the story gets overcome.
I'm a little upset that an apology is a good idea. He didn't say anything wrong.
lol
I doubt Republicans are going to care about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Washington Post
Reactionary left-wing responses have been fanatical, not measured and appropriate, IMO.
Hillary will get a better turnout because of this.
Thing is that this probably makes it more likely that people will vote Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Look at what happened with Bill in the 90s. People loved this shit about him. His biggest mistake was covering it up. The kind of people this doesn't appeal to on the id level are young women who don't yet know what real men are like and young men who don't yet know what it's like to be a real man.
In the back of most peoples' minds, they like "grab em by the pussy."
Seems like a non-event to me, just something the media grabbed and is hyping 'cause it's a candid moment and makes him look coarse. Any man knows it's just common gutter talk. Any woman knows the same thing. Jesus, it's not like he admitted to raping babies or something. Who cares.
I don't think the fact that these are the secret thoughts of men, or that similar stuff is common place when men are with other men is a plus for Trump. Everyone can know this, but no woman wants to think this about this brother, father, son, friend, coworker, etc. And men know this. So while it may be true that this is standard, that doesn't make it easy for a man to look his daughter in the eyes and say, "yeah, I know he said all that stuff, but I still support him, because, well, I think and say that stuff too."
The dynamic at play is not simply "is it morally reprehensible to say and think such things?"
Edit: Just actually listened to the full audio. It really is pretty tame. The "grab them by the pussy" being literal is a pretty awful inference. He was crass in a private conversation, but the gist of it was "Fame and wealth make getting women easier, and, being a wealthy famous person, I love it." But again, if I had a daughter, I'd find it hard to say this to her. Not saying I wouldn't try-- I really don't know as I'm nowhere near that position, but I'm sure a ton of men will at best sorta passively distance themselves from this sort of stuff with something like, "yeah, I've heard that sort of thing in the locker room-- guys really are dogs."
Also, I think his apology was strong. If he can stay on script like this for more than a few minutes, he could crush.
google grab her in the pussy
hahaha, my man
I really don't understand all these republicans pulling their endorsements. It just seems like terrible strategy for senate/house elections.
I believe the conspiracy theory on this one: this is coordination from the party itself trying to lose the election because if Trump wins then they know they lose power of the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanglow
wikileaks gonna blow this shit open again soon.
So even if he gets elected they'll just block everything anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'd like to see them try.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Trump can end the election tonight if he does the Juanita Broaddrick story right. I don't think there has been a more powerful attack in politics since the one that Goldwater would start WW3.
"Doing it right" is pulling no punches. Flat out and with visual language, Trump needs to tell Broaddrick's story and that Hillary silenced her. Hillary cannot respond to this in any way that doesn't hurt her more. Even the most ardent of Democrats would develop serious subliminal doubt.
The only reason the Clintons are still around is because the media hasn't played the info about them the same way they do others, like Cosby or Donald Sterling. All Trump has to do is give people the sensationalism the media won't, and Hillary will turn to cancer.
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'd like to seem them seek compromises.
Oh they will. The GOP brass is tremendously weak-kneed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Why would it even be an issue for them? If the opposition attempts to block most things as a standard and even a handful of people in the GOP do it's not going to be an issue at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I don't think this whole episode is as nearly damaging to Trump as the media are trying to pretend.
I mean really. Who here has never said something like that before?
Most male voters will think "that's just a man thing to say". Most female voters will think "that's just what men are like". I mean really? Hillary is jumping all over Donald for saying sexist stuff? Your husband got his dick sucked by a slut while in office, then lied about it. If you're that outraged by such male behaviour, then ditch your waste of skin of a man and become a lesbian.
For the record, I'd like to punch Hillary in the pussy.
Should he do that before or after he looks presidential? I'm still waiting for that part of his strategy to come to fruition...Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Both Trump and Clinton are douchebags, I just think Trump's a bigger one. Also, if he gets in he's likely to live the whole four years to fuck everything up, unlike Hillary who will probably be out of commission in two.
Trump is the bigger douche, sure. This isn't a popularity contest though, although you'd have a hard time convincing the average American of that.
I want Trump to win. Why? Because of his comments about Russia. Clinton and her lot have increased the rhetoric aginst Russia, blaming them of hacking, moaning about them moving their weapons about (which they do regularly), moaning about them flying their planes close to US ships in a sea right next to Russia and far away from America. Trump talks of respect for Putin.
I honestly have no idea why Russia are seen as an enemy. Why aren't they an ally? They should be. They helped us defeat Hitler. They have huge influence over their region. They could be big economic partners. They should be.
The UK talk of the need for Trident to maintain a deterrent against Russia. Like a fucking submarine with a handful of missiles is a deterrent to the largest country in the world. They could wipe us off the map in an hour, while we could give them a bloody nose in return.
Of course, there is no need for a deterrent against Russia, because they have literally zero interest in attacking, invading, controlling or influencing the British. They have invaded us zero times in history, we've invaded their territory twice. We're the threat to them, not vice versa.
I have hope that if Trump wins, that we'll see a significant deescalation of tensions between USA and Russia, which of course will result in us following suit.
I fear that if Hillary wins, it'll gets worse and could even get to the point of war.
I couldn't give a flying fuck about internal American politics, you're fucked either way with these cunts in charge.
He's been doing it and it has been working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Somebody who was serious about murdering a hero with a drone is less of a douchebag than somebody who jokes about good sex. Right.Quote:
Both Trump and Clinton are douchebags, I just think Trump's a bigger one. Also, if he gets in he's likely to live the whole four years to fuck everything up, unlike Hillary who will probably be out of commission in two.
Ya, Russia's not going to attack us directly anytime soon, but that's never been the issue. The issue is whether they will be allowed to expand their power in Eastern Europe, or even into Turkey and the Mid East. That's why we still have NATO. It's a powerful country and it needs to be contained.
If any one country ever gets so strong that they dominate Europe, and especially if it's Russia, it's not going to be good for us.
Trump is soft on Putin for some reason even though the guy's a blatant warmonger. It's better to contain guys like that from the beginning than to appease them. That's how World War II got started right?
When has he been soft on Putin?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's all relative I guess. He's certainly been less obnoxious than he was before, but that wasn't hard to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
No idea what murdering a hero with a drone is about - sounds a bit tinfoil hat to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There's a lot more to Trump being repugnant than the jokes about women. There's the fear-mongering, racism, narcissism, etc. It's not just one thing about him it's the whole package.
1. Praising him in public (you can argue that's not being 'soft' but it's not being hard either).Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
2. Threatening to disband NATO, which basically would be giving Putin a green light.
Give examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Strong negotiation skills. The President needs strong negotiation skills. Clinton has presented weak ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Also strong negotiation skills. NATO is not fulfilling its treaty obligations at the expense of the US. Disbanding wouldn't give Russia a green light either. Russia is not the Soviet Union.Quote:
2. Threatening to disband NATO, which basically would be giving Putin a green light.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is attacking Russia via proxy and using ISIS as a tool to destabilize. Clinton would continue this. ISIS is Washington's bargain with the devil to beat the other governments of the world. Trump is focused on terrorism and helping people.
^^ This last post is the reason why I can't be bothered. Whatever I say you'll just spin it around to make Trump look like a hero. God forbid there should be any shades of grey in your tidy little black and white world.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm just giving my perception. I don't like being misled, and have learned over this election cycle that many of the accusations about Trump are flat out false. The claim of racist statements is one. He literally has never said anything racist (that I know of), but that has not stopped the media from convincing most people that he has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Trump should just say it was a joke, just a funny joke & if anything it shows women don't have a sense of humour which would explain why they're not funny.
Yup, it's all been made up and they even dubbed the words into his mouth to make it look like he's been saying them. Goddamn media!Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This feels a lot like you're just victim of propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Russia want to expand to include areas where the people speak Russian, and wish to return to the Motherland. That's not really our business. If you think they have plans to invade Turkey, then you're being hysterical. Russia and Turkey certainly have their problems, but it's got nothing to do with territory. Both respect each other's right to exist as a sovereign state.
Russian expansion beyond Russian-speaking territories should certainly be opposed. But they don't have such ambitions. So there is nothing to oppose.
This was the argument used against Hitler's Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
As was this.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The problem is you don't know what Putin's ambitions are any more than the rest of us. So saying 'don't worry be happy' isn't going to cut it. I'm not saying we should launch a pre-emptive war on him or anything, I'm just saying we should be ready for whatever he might have in mind.
Is Putin killing Jews? I just want to know why you feel it's appropriate to compare the two.Quote:
This was the argument used against Hitler's Germany.
My point was that if a country begins expanding it's territory, we shouldn't just assume it's going to be satisfied and stop when we think it should.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The same can be said of Obama. What the fuck are USA doing in Syria? Is that expansion? Looks like it to me. Economic expansion.Quote:
The problem is you don't know what Putin's ambitions are any more than the rest of us. So saying 'don't worry be happy' isn't going to cut it. I'm not saying we should launch a pre-emptive war on him or anything, I'm just saying we should be ready for whatever he might have in mind.
Why should we be ready for Russian expansion, but not American expansion?
Why should be ready for whatever Putin has in mind, but not, say, Erdogan?
Right. Fair enough. Now apply this to America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Here's another way of looking at it: If France was ruled by a dictator who proceeded to take over Southern Belgium because it was French-speaking and the populace was ok with that, should we be concerned?
What if that hypothetical dictator ruled Germany and started taking all it's old territories back (peacefully)? Not our problem?
So russian-speaking is the key term? If you speak whichever language, other countries who speak the same language have a claim for your land? Ok. What about Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and others where people don't speak russian? They fair game too?
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/201...and-lithuania/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-9224273.html
I don't know what you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Edit: Nvrmind I get it.
We're not strong enough to police the world. We need to pick our battles based on our own interests. Russia dominating Europe is a threat to us. America dominating the MidEast is pretty innocuous in comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Key is in bold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
We might have reason to fear a French dictator, but a welcomed expansion into Belgium? Not our business.
Let's say the UK has a referendum and we vote to join USA. Does that have anything to do with Russia? Or France? Fuck them, we voted for it, deal with it.
Furthermore, what reason do you have to think that Putin is a dictator? As far as I'm aware, he's been voted in by a population that loves him.
Your rheotric is out of place. Try saying "leader" instead of "dictator". If Putin is a dictator, what does that make Theresa May?
No it's not. It's no more a threat than Germany dominating Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Just utter nonsense.