**** Elections thread *****

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

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?

---

It has been well established that increasing the severity of the punishment does almost nothing to deter an ignorant person's choices.


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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

So what if they make a law saying it's illegal to challenge law?

Check fucking mate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

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?

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

So what if they make a law saying it's illegal to challenge law?

Check fucking mate.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

---

Add a law saying no trial by jury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Add a law saying no trial by jury.

---

Unconstitutional, wouldn't come close to getting through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Unconstitutional, wouldn't come close to getting through.

---

Change the constitution.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

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.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyS1985

BLM

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I think people who agree with me are smart.

---

:P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

:P

---

For obvious reasons.

Next debate on Sunday. What's their strategies this time, any guesses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Next debate on Sunday. What's their strategies this time, any guesses?

---

It's being held at my workplace, too.

Well... not in my department, but on my campus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Next debate on Sunday. What's their strategies this time, any guesses?

---

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.

Hillary will be the same as last time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

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.

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.
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Washington Post

One of Trump’s most prominent social-conservative supporters, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, told BuzzFeed’s Rosie Gray: “My personal support for Donald Trump has never been based upon shared values.”

---

I doubt Republicans are going to care about this.

Reactionary left-wing responses have been fanatical, not measured and appropriate, IMO.

Hillary will get a better turnout because of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

Hillary will get a better turnout because of this.

---

Thing is that this probably makes it more likely that people will vote Trump.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deanglow

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.

wikileaks gonna blow this shit open again soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

---

So even if he gets elected they'll just block everything anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

So even if he gets elected they'll just block everything anyway.

---

I'd like to see them try.

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 see them try.

---

:(

I'd like to seem them seek compromises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

:(

I'd like to seem them seek compromises.

---

Oh they will. The GOP brass is tremendously weak-kneed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I'd like to see them try.

---

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 ImSavy

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.

---

I agree.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

---

Should he do that before or after he looks presidential? I'm still waiting for that part of his strategy to come to fruition...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Should he do that before or after he looks presidential? I'm still waiting for that part of his strategy to come to fruition...

---

He's been doing it and it has been working.

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.

---

Somebody who was serious about murdering a hero with a drone is less of a douchebag than somebody who jokes about good sex. Right.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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 wufwugy

He's been doing it and it has been working.

---

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

Somebody who was serious about murdering a hero with a drone is less of a douchebag than somebody who jokes about good sex. Right.

---

No idea what murdering a hero with a drone is about - sounds a bit tinfoil hat to be honest.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

When has he been soft on Putin?

---

1. Praising him in public (you can argue that's not being 'soft' but it's not being hard either).

2. Threatening to disband NATO, which basically would be giving Putin a green light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

---

Give examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

1. Praising him in public (you can argue that's not being 'soft' but it's not being hard either).

---

Strong negotiation skills. The President needs strong negotiation skills. Clinton has presented weak ones.

Quote:

---

2. Threatening to disband NATO, which basically would be giving Putin a green light.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Give examples.

---

^^ 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 Poopadoop

^^ 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.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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 Poopadoop

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.

---

This feels a lot like you're just victim of propaganda.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Russian expansion beyond Russian-speaking territories should certainly be opposed.

---

This was the argument used against Hitler's Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

But they don't have such ambitions. So there is nothing to oppose.

---

As was this.

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.

Quote:

---

This was the argument used against Hitler's Germany.

---

Is Putin killing Jews? I just want to know why you feel it's appropriate to compare the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Is Putin killing Jews? I just want to know why you feel it's appropriate to compare the two.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

---

Right. Fair enough. Now apply this to America.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Right. Fair enough. Now apply this to America.

---

I don't know what you mean.

Edit: Nvrmind I get it.

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.

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?

---

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 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?

---

Key is in bold.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Russia dominating Europe is a threat to us.

---

No it's not. It's no more a threat than Germany dominating Europe.

Just utter nonsense.