Printable View
He could just meet with some unfortunate accident like Priwhatsisface , but noooo.... Americans love to drag this shit out.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But if he wasn't running for president again on the false assumption that the last election was stolen from him, and they had still charged him (which would certainly have happened), you'd argue...what?
Quote:
which would certainly have happened
Well why didn't it happen sooner? They waited until it had what they perceived to be maximum impact. It could of course backfire. It could fuel a surge in popularity for him, if he can convince people that this is motivated by politics and not justice. He can certainly argue that if their motivation was justice, they wouldn't have wasted so much time before unleashing this on him.
As much as I like a conspiracy theory, the Dems couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery. This is just random people acting randomly. Once the first indictment came in, the rest wanted their fifteen minutes of fame. Surely, they could have indicted him on Jan. 7th, 2020 but that's too easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And of course it's going to fuel a surge in popularity for him. It's America ffs, they love the idea of a pretend billionnaire going against the pretend establishment.
I'd bet at this point the majority of the people are gonna hope he burns in hell, and a slight minority will think he deserves sainthood, no matter what actually happens. I really don't see how someone could be on the fence with him at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Are you saying "maximum impact" as in political? As in, suggesting the justice system over there is biased against republicans? With all the Trump-appointed federal and state-level judges? Or to get the maximum sentence for him? Nah, I'm pretty sure they've just been holding off prosecution until they have a solid case.
It takes time to put together a case and when the case is against someone as high profile and with the resources available to them as and ex POTUS, that means you gotta be very damn sure your evidence is good and your charges will stick.
It's not like they caught him speeding on the M5. He's accused of things that require hard evidence and proof. I'm sure they spent a couple months just playing out different scenarios of charging him with various crimes until they found a set that seemed foolproof.
The only problem with foolproof is that people underestimate the ingenuity of fools.
That's because you live in a normal country with a normal mass media. He's actually still pretty popular, especially amongst the gun-toting, bible-humping, tinfoil-hat-wearing demographic, which is substantial in 'Murica.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Sad, but true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The chatter about his likelihood to win the Rep nomination is getting quieter and quieter over the past months, though.
Well I didn't say I'm on the fence about him. What I'm on the fence about is the motivation for charging him with trying to fix an election, and whether his corruption amounts to anything more serious than some of his predecessors.Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
Yes.Quote:
Are you saying "maximum impact" as in political?
No, biased against Trump. I mean, idk if there's party bias going on, to a degree there always is but I don't think they would be doing this to any republican candidate. This looks to me like the "elite", for lack of a better word, do not want him in office again. The "elite" is not a party politics concept, mega rich powerful wankers are not exclusively aligned to one party. He's got enemies within his own camp, that's for sure. And he's got enemies who don't give a toss about reps/dems politics and only care about business. So no, I don't think this is one party attempting to stifle another, rather it's a a system attempting to stifle one man (maybe).Quote:
As in, suggesting the justice system over there is biased against republicans?
Or maybe you guys are right and it just happens to be that this is precisely how long it takes to prepare these charges and it's a massive coincidence that it just happens to be as we approach election time in the States.
I didn't say that either, I meant the US folks who are still supporting will likely keep supporting no matter what, and those against him aren't gonna suddenly start thinking maybe he's alright after all. I don't see where any surge in his popularity would come from.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What's an example of a president as corrupt as him? Personally I'd say the first one even entering the conversation is Nixon, and he was far less productive.
I see. I mean, it's easy to think Americans are just a bunch of extremely politically divided people, but there's a healthy number of people who are politically flexible, and who are not so easily swayed by public opinion. These people are who really decide elections, at least in a fair democracy with more than one party that has a chance of winning. The politically partisan folk who always vote the same way don't do anything important. But those who can go either way, they do.Quote:
I didn't say that either, I meant the US folks who are still supporting will likely keep supporting no matter what, and those against him aren't gonna suddenly start thinking maybe he's alright after all. I don't see where any surge in his popularity would come from.
The argument that this is purely a politically motivated event would have a great deal more merit if it came from pretty much anyone else other than Trump. The problem he has is that he's stupid enough to say potentially incriminating things on the phone. The "find x votes" comment might not even be a conscious attempt to suggest election fraud, it could just a dumb fucker expressing his frustration in a dumb way, and that probably should be his defence, that the comments are being taken out of context, that I think is sufficient in the UK where "reasonable doubt" is what matters, even if you think it's the less likely outcome. "Reasonable doubt" doesn't mean better than 50-50 chance. If I on a jury and I was precisely 49% sure someone was guilty of murder, I wouldn't be voting to convict. That's way too much doubt. idk what percentage I'd pull out of my arse for acceptable doubt but it's less than the probability of aces being cracked.
In election terms? GW Bush. At the very least, the election vs Gore was worthy of a thorough and unbiased investigation. Comments like "cast as wide a net as possible" with regards to nulling black peoples' votes in Florida are worse in my opinion than "find x votes". idk what other stupid shit Trump has said to incriminate himself but that alone isn't earth shattering.Quote:
What's an example of a president as corrupt as him?
Trump is currently charged with 91 felony counts. 91. So far, not counting his civil suits. I know you like to hate all politicians equally and think they're all just as corrupt, but c'mon man.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Like I understand American law. 91 counts might mean 91 different ways of charging the same crime. I mean, this is a country where you can go to prison until the sun goes supernova.
It is not legal to charge someone twice for the same crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's called Double Jeopardy.
You can charge them with multiple crimes for the same action, and it's not uncommon to do so in lesser trials. A prosecutor may levy charges of manslaughter, murder 1, murder 2, and press them all, hoping for the highest level of conviction, all in 1 trial for 1 killing.
What they can't do is press the trial for murder 2, lose, then press another trial for murder 1.
BUT the 91 charges against Trump are only kinda lumped up. Each instance of fraud he committed is an individual crime, even if he committed multiple instances of fraud to cover up a single event.
Has there been more criminal politicians in US history? Almost certainly.
Has anyone produced such a wealth of publicly available admissions to crimes as Trump? Certainly not.
It may not be that he's more corrupt than others, and only that he's more brazen. But I strongly suspect that he's far more corrupt than the average politician.
That's not what I meant. idk about USA law, but in the UK you can be charged with multiple different charges for the same crime. For example, if you're caught driving at 150mph, not only are you charged with speeding, but also dangerous driving, reckless endangerment, driving without due care and attention, basically any charge that is relevant will be thrown at you. Some might be dropped in a plea bargain, some might be abandoned, some might not hold up in court while others do, but the point is one crime can result in multiple charges. That's what I meant. 91 charges for 1 crime seems excessive, but then again 700 years in prison seems excessive, so you never know with USA.Quote:
It is not legal to charge someone twice for the same crime.
It's called Double Jeopardy.
I'm not so sure about this. I just think he's more overt, partly through being dumb, partly through his ego.Quote:
It may not be that he's more corrupt than others, and only that he's more brazen. But I strongly suspect that he's far more corrupt than the average politician.
"Average politician" is a bit vague and I'd probably agree if we're including local-level politicians who don't have relatively more influence than their peers, but if we were to say "elite politician" so we're talking about cabinet ministers, senators, lawmakers and the like, then I'm not so sure. I think they're all as corrupt as hell.
I can't believe no-one has brought up the fact that Trump self-reported his height and weight as 6'3" and 215 lbs. That's the same dimensions as Muhammad Ali in his prime.
So yeah, Trump is either secretly the most ripped 77 year old who's ever lived, or he thinks we're all gullible fools. I wonder which it is?
It's not 91 charges for 1 crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.politico.com/interactive...-tracker-list/
Well I didn't actually think it was, it just wouldn't have surprised me.
So there's basically four charges against him...
The Capitol "riot" -
idk if trespass is socially considered criminal in USA but here in the UK it's not. and idk if Trump can be reasonably held legally accountable for the behaviour of a few idiots who attend a political protest. Morally speaking, this isn't something I have a problem with. If those people genuinely thought the election had been rigged, they had every right to protest, and if that protest takes the form of trespass, well that's not particularly very serious.
Georgia election interference -
I mean if it can be proven beyond doubt that he consciously tried to overturn an election he knew he had lost, then this should at the very least bar him from running in elections again. And I can even accept the criminal nature of this. I'd have to question though if Trump is worse than Bush in this regard, which supports the case that the charges are politically motivated.
Classified documents -
Not really been following this but if the dumb fucker has been grossly mishandling classified documents then he certainly needs to be held accountable for that. Is it criminal? Depends on the context I guess.
Hush money case -
I really couldn't give a fuck about this. If he wants to pay some whore to shut her mouth, that's between him and the whore. I'd be surprised if this is criminal.
"trespass." lolQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It doesn't matter if it's a bunch of idiots you incite to treason, it's still inciting treason.
"treason" lol
Occupying a building is trespass.
When someone is running for office in a close race, and they phone the guy counting the votes, and tell him exactly how many votes they need to win +1, what do you infer from that? He's hoping the guy will find some votes in the couch cushions?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You should be on his defense team. That's even better than the free speech defense.
They're classified documents. You can't just keep them lying around in your house for your butler to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you're using campaign funds to pay them off, as he's alleged to have done (and who would doubt he's really that stupid?), then yes it's definitely against the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ong you're really not this dumb. If I force my way into a gov't building, threaten to kill some of the occupants, tear the place up and take a shit on someone's desk, that's going a wee bit beyond trespassing.
What I infer is not the same as what can be proven in a court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Sure, and this should be much easier to prove than the context of a comment.Quote:
If you're using campaign funds to pay them off, as he's alleged to have done
This is fine, but if I go to a political protest, and some idiot behaves as you describe, that doesn't mean I'm doing anything more than trespassing.Quote:
Ong you're really not this dumb. If I force my way into a gov't building, threaten to kill some of the occupants, tear the place up and take a shit on someone's desk, that's going a wee bit beyond trespassing.
There are instances in the UK where trespass is criminal, railways and some government buildings, but to actually charge someone with criminal trespass in the UK would either be because they were also committing a more serious crime, or because of legal overreach. So someone making threats to kill or causing criminal damage while also committing criminal trespass is likely to face full charges, while someone only committing criminal trespass is likely to only face arrest and minor legal action at worst.
Occupying a government building as an act of political protest is morally acceptable, in my opinion. Certainly not treason.
Right, it was just a peaceful sit-in that a bunch of them unjustly went to prison for.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I get you're trying to play devil's advocate here, but you're doing a really bad job. Try starting from somewhere that's at least half-aligned with the facts.
It only has to go beyond a reasonable doubt. That means a reasonable person would think that in all likelihood he was up to no good. That's the question. Now maybe you can convince 1/12 jurors that actually he was just hoping they'd find the exact number of votes he needed behind the couch cushions, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No-one is charging Trump with trespassing. Afaik, they haven't charged him with anything over the jan. 6 ya'llqaeda events. So it's probably a moot point.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think we disagree what "reasonable doubt" means. The comment "find x votes" is not incriminating enough on its own. It doesn't look good, but if that's all he's said, and with no other evidence to suggest an attempt to overturn the election, then it's plausible it was just a dumb comment. Plausible is reasonable doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's not about what a juror thinks is more likely, that would imply a 50% probability threshold, it's about whether the defence is plausible enough to create enough doubt as to call it "reasonable". If 51%+ certainty is enough for you to convict someone, good for you, but it's not for me, nowhere near enough.
Well presumably they're charging him with inciting a riot, which is going to be difficult to prove because as far as I'm aware he didn't instruct people to riot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Actually read more than the headlines on the link I posted, ong.
The Jan 6 stuff against Trump isn't about the protest. It's about his personal efforts to stall the electoral process and the peaceful transfer of power.
I get that less of this hits the news in other countries, but there's so much evidence on his factual knowledge that he lost and that he was politically strong-arming even his own vice president to break the law. E.g. the now famous, "You're too honest." audio tape where Trump is trying to convince Pence to break the law and Pence wont do it.
These sentences being passed down for those convicted of the Capitol "riot" are what I expect to see from Russia and China when dealing with political opponents.
"Seditious conspiracy" is what they're being convicted of, which is conspiring to overthrow the government. Revolution is illegal.
USA wouldn't exist as an independent country if it wasn't for the founding fathers committing this exact "crime".
If they were being charged with election tampering or something like that, different story. But revolution? This should be protected under the constitution, given it's this very concept that gave birth to the country.
From my quick research, this "crime" was created during the civil war as a weapon against the Confederation. Those fuckers wanted to keep slavery so it's hard to sympathise with them, but there was also a "substantially similar" law used to suppress criticism of a war, and it was also used against slaves and free blacks after Nat Turner's revolt to stop black people from assembling.
It's a political tool, used to suppress political opponents.
Interfering with an election is a reasonable crime, though 20+ years in jail would be a ridiculous sentence for such a thing unless it actually succeeded and resulted in an illegitimate government. Criminal damage and assault are obviously reasonable crimes, as is rioting and affray. The government already has tools to deal with those who went too far. But they want to go further and put these people away for a very long time. Why? Is this reasonable justice? Or is it intended to send a message that challenging the government will result in your life being effectively over?
What is happening in USA right now demonstrates that they are morally no better than Russia and China. And neither is the UK for that matter, with Julian Assange still in prison for actual journalism.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Salty morning for you, Ong.
America is far from perfect, and you wont hear me defending any sense of nobility or goodness about my or any country.
All countries have dirty laundry. I see very little use in comparing dirty laundry other than to offer the perspective that the world is a harsh, unforgiving place, and humans are often a part of that problem.
How's this for perspective:
posted on Jan 6Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM
I'm not defending the exact repercussions that are happening, but it would be naive to not predict that there would be repercussions.
The repercussions are by politicians, so they are political. yawn
And neither is the UK and pretty much every country in the world. Iceland probably comes closest to perfection, with 140 people in prison, 23.3% of those being foreign (2022 figures). Off on a tangent but I just calculated how many people that is and it's 36.62, so 23.3% is strangely specific given the result is so far off an integer. I guess the figures weren't taken at exactly the same time.Quote:
America is far from perfect
Anyway, back on point. This is probably a vote winner for Trump. If they'd gone to jail for 2-3 years, nobody would really be thinking they had been treated harshly enough to allow it to affect their vote. But now people have a moral reason to vote Trump - he'll pardon most of them. Whether they deserve that much leniency is a fair debate, but 22 years for leading a revolt, what that does is remove USA's moral integrity when they criticise other nations for harshly supressing acts of revolution.
At least American security forces didn't open fire randomly at the crowd. USA aren't as brutal as many regimes out there. That's something to be grateful for. Our countries' governments might lack moral integrity, but democracy does mean they have to show restraint. But still, these sentences are oppressive as fuck. Not good, and it results in at least some sympathy for their cause rather than anger and a sense of justice.
I see the eco-twats have come to America. The US Open (tennis) was delayed after protesters disrupted play, with one being glued to the floor. At least they went straight to annoying sports fans, rather than gluing themselves to roads so they block ambulances. We've been dealing with this type of protest for a while now. "Just stop oil" they call themselves here.
They really fucked up here by gluing themselves to roads, there were many repots of ambulances held up during emergency calls. That turned a massive amount of the public against them, it did irreversible damage to their cause. It doesn't help that these people are usually upper class twats with massive country houses and Range Rovers (SUVs), basically hypocrites. At least the bicycle twats get a shred of respect for sticking to their principles.
When they're throwing orange dust on a snooker table, ok they're not doing anything that I would consider criminal, and it's high profile so gets the attention of the masses, that's better protest. But their reputation is in tatters so nobody pays them any attention.
Whether an SUV or a bicycle makes little difference beyond peacocking.
If their primary vehicle is a private jet or helicopter, then we can talk.
Consumer-level emissions of GHGs are not one of the bigger wedges in the pie charts of shame (GHG emissions by humans).
Trans-ocean shipping is where to point your attention if human emissions of GHG are what you're concerned about. Those vessels burn the dirtiest fuel we have.
How the electricity is made that drives your local industries is a good place to look. My state still runs on coal power plants.
How those industries add still more GHGs to the air is also a good shout.
The industries which are the worst polluters have used propaganda to blame the consumers. It has proven very effective at putting up a smoke screen about the fact that it is them, not us, who are responsible for the vast majority of pollution.
The free market is centuries behind on this. The invisible hand didn't realize that there is not infinite, pristine, flat-Earth-like new environment to exploit. The free market didn't put a price on the exploitation in time. Carbon taxes and Cap-n-trade regulations are long overdue, and that's where to put your attention. Not those specific things, but how to force the international free markets to pay real money for the environments they exploit.
That's not the point though. If you tell me you're vegan and then drink tea with milk in it, you're not vegan, you're just pretending to be. Doesn't matter if you can argue "well me drinking this tiny bit of milk doesn't change the dairy industry", you're still not a vegan.Quote:
Whether an SUV or a bicycle makes little difference beyond peacocking.
If you're going to glue yourself to a road to protest fossil fuel dependency, then you had better be doing everything you can to minimise your own carbon footprint, even if the actual impact you're having is negligible.
I'm not blaming consumers for the current state of affairs. I'm blaming protesters for being hypocrites. There's a world of difference between the two.Quote:
The industries which are the worst polluters have used propaganda to blame the consumers.
The vegan argument is lame.
SMH
lazy
Calling an environmental protester a hypocrite is fine. We're all hypocrites.
Saying it with ire or judgement is where it goes too far.
No one needs to pass a perfection test in order to be upset about bigger problems than their own lives.
No one needs to be perfect to try to be better or make the world better.
Claiming that if you contribute to the burning of fossil fuels, then you have no right to complain about it is the kind of talk that could probably get you a job at a major polluter's marketing team. If you don't watch out, you'll be working for the man soon.
It's not intended to be anything other. It's purely a comparison.Quote:
The vegan argument is lame.
You appear to be making assumptions. I never said this at all. We all contribute, there's no way not to. However, those who disrupt the general public with their protest, they are setting a higher moral bar for themselves.Quote:
Claiming that if you contribute to the burning of fossil fuels,
How the hell can you call someone a hypocrite without judging them?Quote:
Calling an environmental protester a hypocrite is fine. We're all hypocrites.
Saying it with ire or judgement is where it goes too far.
Yeah until I start talking about other things, like corruption. Not liking eco-twats isn't itself going to get me a job with these fuckers.Quote:
...kind of talk that could probably get you a job at a major polluter's marketing team.
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure amongst these eco-twats are people who do everything they can to reduce their impact. They aren't eco-twats, I'm using that term to describe the people who live their life like normal consumers 99% of the time, and then present themselves as virtuous saviours of the planet when they get their placards out.
And even the twats, I'm on their side when it comes to the prison sentences they're getting. Ultimately they are protesting, and that shouldn't be harshly punished. The government absolutely have to act and make it clear that knowingly causing delays to emergency vehicles is not an acceptable form of protest, but I also don't want to see protest being suppressed. There's a balance. Both the protesters and the government are failing in their responsibilities to maintain this balance.
Being able toQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
see problematic tendencies w/o drawing moral conclusions about a person as a gut instinct
is an important skill to avoid jumping to my own conclusions and just being generally wrong about everyone.
Maybe it's an Asperger's "super" power..?
At any rate... there are good reasons to judge people, but plenty of reasons other people use to judge seem like they're just looking down a check list at things they're socially allowed to express anger at, then doing so.
I find life is more pleasant and people more pleasantly surprising to at least try to see them how they see themselves before laying on the judgement.
To call someone a hypocrite is to judge them. You're making a statement about their moral integrity. It's no good saying "I'm not judging you mate but you're a fucking hypocrite", because that's basically in the same world as saying "I'm not being racist but..." before adding something horribly racist.
If you're going to question a "problematic tendency", you're making a moral judgement right there because you're deciding something is "problematic". When you say "I find this aspect of a person's personality to be problematic", you're making a moral judgement.Quote:
...see problematic tendencies w/o drawing moral conclusions about a person
"Hypocrite" is exactly this. If I call someone a hypocrite for promoting a virtue they don't adhere to, it's because I see that as a "problematic tendency" in a person, or in plain English, it makes them a wanker. I'm judging them.
We are all hypocrites. It's a flaw of the human brain. We are inconsistent and wrong-headed about all sorts of things.
All of us.
None of us is perfect, nor are we some truth divining machine. We work with limited time and limited information and we make guesses, and ignorant mistakes. We hold conflicting views and believe them all equally at the same time.
We're people. We're hypocrites.
Noticing the reality is not necessarily passing judgement.
I'd just have to pass equal judgement on all people, myself included.
And fine. Maybe I'm doing that. But I'm not upset about it. It's just part of being alive in this body on this rock in space.
Finding a behavior problematic and judging the behavior is not the same as judging the whole person for one of their behaviors.
concerningQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Change the "we should improve society somewhat" to "i demand you stop doing this thing that I won't stop doing, give me attention" and change the other comment to "get a fucking hobby" and that will reflect the position from my pov.
If we're talking about the extinction rebellion protests, their demands all already have majority support and are supported by science. https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/demands/
It is not that they are demanding undemocratic action to be taken and to impose their will. They demand that decisive climate action, which already has majority support, be taken. What is happening in reality is the opposite of what you're making it out to be, which is that neoliberal twats around the world keep issuing new drilling licenses and will be unable to meet even the extremely modest goals of the Paris Agreement, against the will of the people.
Why they are succeeding in that has been made cartoonishly obvious by the orange clown they made the 45th president of the free world. You just go: "We're at a situation where we're looking really strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms, where you turn on the faucet and you don't get any water. You don't get any water." Then you run on that, and when you get elected you forget all about sinks and showers and you issue new drilling licenses in Alaska and do a little quid pro quo with the saudi royal family.
I don't know the specifics of this situation, but the facts I've been presented haven't painted a picture of bad faith protests.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
A person who drives an SUV can still rail at the giant corporations whose pollution absolutely dwarfs anything coming from a consumer vehicle. That's not hypocritical, IMO. Not in a toxic way, at least.
The scale is so far out of whack that your assertion that if someone isn't doing their 0.01% with extreme inconvenience to their life in our culture, then they don't have the right to protest a company doing 15% of the pollution in their own city/county/state/planet is absurd, IMO.
You just basically said all protest is immoral except for some imaginary, hypothetical uber hippy who's so far removed from our culture that surely you'd argue they don't have any skin in the game or smth.
A person need not be without fault to cite far greater faults done by others. Comparing the minimal emissions of GHGs from an SUV to the extreme pollution done by the trans-ocean shipping fleet that brought the car or the parts for the car across the world to be made for you... doesn't equate. That's not a balance, IMO.
And there's only so much choice we have as consumers when it comes to what we can buy. It's not like I have the choice to not buy any plastic when I go grocery shopping. Literally everything in the store is packaged in plastic. Even the produce that isn't packaged, the bags they supply are plastic.
Now, I do use washable, re-usable cloth bags when I buy my produce, but that hardly makes me a saint who has somehow more right to be upset about the over-use of plastics. Sometimes I don't have enough reusable bags and some produce comes home in plastic.
Sure, I'm going to hell, but probably not for that.
Their demands might but their methods don't. In some cases their methods are counterproductive. It was a group called "Just Stop Oil" that really turned the screw by gluing themselves to roads, causing gridlock. When their method is to annoy as many people as possible, while having total disregard for the healthy and safety of people requiring emergency treatment, then their message isn't getting through. And of course by creating such gridlock, they directly cause an increase in carbon emissions. Counterproductive both directly and in terms of getting public support.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I do believe their is public demand for meaningful action to reduce emissions, in particular a move away from fossil fuel reliance into an age of clean renewables, though I don't think there's public consensus on the time scale of such change. There protesters could get a great deal more support if they tried to positively engage with the public instead of going above and beyond to annoy the fuck out of them. They are failing to take this opportunity and are doing harm to their cause as a consequence. Climate protest is becoming associated with hypocritical virtue signalling twats, rather than people like Swampy, the smelly hippie who chained himself to a tree to stop a bypass from being built.
Agreed. But don't target the general public, because in doing so, you're sending the message that the public are the ones to blame, and the ones that need to change their habits. If that's the message you're sending, then absolutely you need to set an example. If you're outright demanding the public to stop using things that consume needless amounts of oil, then don't drive a fucking SUV, use the cleanest form of transport that you can reasonably use.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
No, that's just how you're choosing to interpret my tone. Scroll back through the convo and you'll see I don't really have a problem with them protesting at sports events. The hate for them comes from their time gluing themselves to roads. And I made the point that I support these protesters when it comes to legal consequences they're facing. They don't deserve long jail sentences, not the first time they get hauled before a court for taking protest too far.Quote:
You just basically said all protest is immoral...
To be clear, protest is most definitely not immoral. And I understand that protest sometimes need to be in-your-face. But anyone with a brain understands that stopping traffic on one of the busiest motorways in the world is going to result in a small number of people in need of emergency treatment being put at serious risk. If you're going to take that kind of action as an act of protest, then the message you send absolutely needs to be a message you actually believe in.
This just raises the question... why are the protesters targeting the public? They are saying consumer habits need to change, if that's their message then their consumer habits should be setting the example. That means not having a brand new Range Rover on the drive of your rural "farm" that isn't actually a working farm and is just a nice place to live in the countryside for a family and their horses. That's the kind of person we're dealing with here. These fuckers live the life we all dream of, and they have the audacity to annoy and put at risk the general public to demand the public do things they aren't willing to do themselves.Quote:
And there's only so much choice we have as consumers when it comes to what we can buy.
The ultimate example of a social justice warrior twat hypocrite is Bono from U2. He's happy to bang on about whatever cause he thinks will make him look good but he's also more than happy to fly his hat first class to Italy for a charity event. True fucking story.
If you found out that humanity is facing an extinction-level threat and no one is doing anything about it, what actions would you choose to spread the knowledge about it or effect change? Pretend there's a humongous monster sleeping in the town square, and every day people go there to poke it with sticks trying to wake it up, laughing at you when you try to stop them. The fact that most climate protests are peaceful is a bit surprising to me.
The bit where we have to pretend is the bit where you imply those saying "stop poking the monster" aren't also poking the monster.Quote:
Pretend there's a humongous monster sleeping in the town square, and every day people go there to poke it with sticks trying to wake it up, laughing at you when you try to stop them.
"Hey guys, I don't think we should keep doing this, that thing's gonna wake up and eat us."
"LOL hypocrite whatever." *keeps poking*
Given that I don't drive nor do I have children, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say my carbon footprint is lower than the majority of these protesters. That is, they're poking the monster more than I am.
I don't think it's a competition. If the monster wakes up, they're all screwed. The one realizing it's probably not a good idea to keep poking, regardless of how much they themselves poke or have poked, is imo not the being the dumbest person in town. It's all good to have some imaginary moral high ground, but everyone's gonna get eaten.
I tried my best with this philosophical scenario to hoist you up from your notmyproblem howdaresomehypocritblameme pothole, but I guess it ain't that simple.
If the message of the protesters was "consumers are the problem with GHG emissions" and they are personally among the worst consumer emitters of GHG's, then I can see an argument for hypocrisy.
However, in general, I don't think this is enough to stunt their message. They may be misguided about some things, but still right about others. Their message is certainly less convincing if they give off the vibe that they're not taking their own advice, sure.
If they're message is, in fact, correct... If there is a monster, and it is being poked... then even if they're hypocrites (like we are all hypocrites), they're still right.
What are you going to do? Ignore what you know is right because you don't like the messenger?
Trump business got slapped so hard.
The business licenses for all of Trump's businesses in New York state are being revoked and suspended for 5 years.
It's not clear yet what monetary consequences will accompany this, but the state of NY is almost certainly going to punish him with a very large bill. Every creditor defrauded by one of those companies is owed compensation and the state now has the legal power to sell his shit off to the highest bidder in order to create the funds to pay those off.
Furthermore, many of Trump's international real estate holdings are owned through one of these businesses located in NY state, so all that property is also now legally under the control of the state to sell off as they please in order to get whatever money they decide Trump owes for all this.
yeah but is he going to be the first president to serve from jail or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I just heard this morning he's going to pitch himself as the speaker of the house. I don't think that's going to happen, but if it did, it would be the funniest thing that ever happened, so I'm not giving up hope. Can you imagine Trump in charge of procedure... But there's a potentially even funnier option. When both the president and vice president die or become incapacitated, the speaker of the house resumes presidential duties... So what if he's just going for Speaker in title and then spends the rest of his campaign on Truth Social going: Let's hope nothing bad happens to Sleepy Joe Biden and Phony Kamala Harris! If something bad did happen, I would become president for life, but let's hope it won't happen!
Endorsed Jim Jordan. I'm afraid this is only the 4th or 5th funniest outcome. Low energy Trump as usual.
My money's still on no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
His political shield is still too stronk for that, I think. If he somehow lost his political base, and had no widespread public support, then maybe, but I don't see that happening, either.
Trump as Speaker would be hilarious if not for the actual damage to effective governance it would add to the surmountable pile of obstacles already in place.
https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1...495316436?s=20
Another hall of fame moment.
2024 is going to be a shitshow if Biden doesn't step down. Still unequivocally behind Israel after they have officially announced that they are going to execute journalists and bomb hospitals and refugee camps. At least until now they've been denying it. On the other side, Trump has to be supremely motivated to get his hands on the UNO reverse card that is the presidential self-pardon. I don't think Biden can count on the lesser-of-two-evils vote after giving an additional $15B to Israel for the express purpose of remote detonating children.
IDK. Early polls can't be trusted for shit.
Still jaw dropping that Trump is leading the Republican party by miles. It's getting more and more possible every day that he'll be in some min sec prison by then.
Day after day, his cronies and now his family are like, "Lolz. IDK. I just sign things." in all the fraud cases. That shit may fly in a boardroom, but it doesn't fly in a court room.
IDK what the full ramifications for the Trump business will be, but they're going to be fierce.
IDK what the full ramifications to Trump himself will be, but it's looking more and more like it wont be a slap on the wrist.
Who knows?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I think you underestimate how much the US (and most of the West for that matter) is behind Israel. They've basically got a free pass to reverse-Holocaust anyone.
Trump serving as president from prison is just the kind of thing voters would be up for. It's like half of people think politics is some kind of reality TV show, and they want the most entertaining episode they get offered.
A majority supports a ceasefire according to polls, and not only do dems as a whole not support it, they just censured the few who do. From what I've learned from the last couple of presidential elections, they largely depend of a small group of hoboes and hillbillies from bumfuck nowhere and if you lose them it's game over. I'm sure MMM can back me up on this, but I'm confident that's a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Meanwhile the discourse around Israel has become increasingly awful. I do not consume any local MSM but it is becoming increasingly obvious that my fellow countrymen who do own a TV are getting blasted in the face by uncut IDF propaganda every evening. People I would have thought a lot more of reveal themselves to have absolutely no moral compass. It is incredibly depressing.
I don't want to falsely accuse republicans to be people who possess any personal autonomy, critical thinking skills, morality, common sense, taste, morality, or good judgement, but even hypothetically: who's the alternative?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Trump on the stand:
Judge, I have this piece of paper in my pocket that explains everything and proves I'm innocent. Can I read it now?
Judge:
No, you are on the stand to answer questions, not to introduce evidence.
Trump:
OK I'll read it, now.
It's repeating a claim that the judge ruled was not a legal position before the trial even started.
Judge to Trump's lawyers:
If you can't control him, I will remove him from this room and rule everything against him in the least favorable manner.
LOL
I said his shenanigans may hold up on an election podium, but they wont hold up in a court of law.
I wish this shit was televised.