US Presidential election

[Jerryattrick]

I agree with you. They should be chasing the 74 million or a portion thereof. This won’t do it. But as a colleague pointed out, if a president can do what he’s done without a formal consequence, what does that say in terms of precedence?

It says the presidential system is crap a bit like allowing henry VIII powers here. Plus there are only two partys and they are both right wing.

humorous that people on here are so quick to urge censorship and suppression.

 

[Baghdad_Rob]

You have to remember that this was a terrorist attack on the capitol, so it's fairly easy to argue that the people that condoned this and egged it on committed treason.

Did you see the TV interview Kamala Harris did talking about the riots and commenting that they will never stop in their protests and "neither should they". Some of the protesting involved people trying to firebomb federal buildings. How is Kamala Harris saying they shouldn't stop their (violent) protest against government buildings not considered egging people on?

She also encouraged people to donate to a bail fund in order to free protestors, some of whom were caught on video throwing firebombs and various acts of violence. Not sure if specifically in Minnesota, but there were plenty of people who were arrested multiple times having been constantly released.



Seems to be a bit hypocritical of Harris to condemn Trump for encouraging protests that then turned violent when she herself seemed happy to promote protests that had already become violent.

If Trump has committed treason then Harris has definitely overstepped that mark.

 

[EagerExile]

There's a bit of a difference between trying to overthrow democracy and protesting about white police criminally killing black people - which you need to acknowledge Rob. However - violence should never be the answer.

 

[Buddha]

There's a bit of a difference between trying to overthrow democracy and protesting about white police criminally killing black people - which you need to acknowledge Rob. However - violence should never be the answer.

Agreed EE.

One caveat though. Sometimes when met with violence the only way to respond is, unfortunately, with some violence of your own .

For instance, I think most of us would agree that Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was failing, and that it is a good thing that Winnie took over and declared that, "We shall fight them on the beaches...", etc., etc.*


* I know that Chamberlain and not Churchill declared war on Germany, before any bright spark points that out to me!

 

[Baghdad_Rob]

There's a bit of a difference between trying to overthrow democracy and protesting about white police criminally killing black people - which you need to acknowledge Rob. However - violence should never be the answer.

So you think it is ok to try and burn down government buildings demanding change if you feel your cause is morally justified?

 

[jogills]

Trump's problems will begin after 20th January. His beauty pageant history and the associated links between Donald and Epstein is just one that might explode.

 

[EagerExile]

So you think it is ok to try and burn down government buildings demanding change if you feel your cause is morally justified?

No - read what I said! Violence is not the answer. But to equate the causes of the two sides is just plain wrong. Black people in America have a hell of a lot more justification for complaint than the loons and rednecks we saw in Washington.

 

[MedwayModernist]

Two sides of the same coin in my opinion.

Previously, I would have agreed with you, however now I just don't think that argument is valid, this is fundamentally because we're now in a situation where one side increasingly believes in absolute and utter tosh.

It's one thing to argue policy over what is happening, it's another thing for one side to simply not acknowledge objective reality, and even go to the point of promoting ludicrous conspiracy theories.

 

[MedwayModernist]

Did you see the TV interview Kamala Harris did talking.......

A+ level whataboutery there.

 

[ThreeSixes]

No - read what I said! Violence is not the answer. But to equate the causes of the two sides is just plain wrong. Black people in America have a hell of a lot more justification for complaint than the loons and rednecks we saw in Washington.

Surely you are not equating the death of ONE criminal, with the theft of an election affecting a whole country?

It DOES depend on your personal opinion whether a protest is justified or not

 

[EagerExile]

Surely you are not equating the death of ONE criminal, with the theft of an election affecting a whole country?

It DOES depend on your personal opinion whether a protest is justified or not

Baghdad Rob was equating the two things (black rioters v Capitol invaders). I was trying to point out the difference of legitimacy between the issues - so I think you and I are on the same page ThreeSixes...

 

[ThreeSixes]

Previously, I would have agreed with you, however now I just don't think that argument is valid, this is fundamentally because we're now in a situation where one side increasingly believes in absolute and utter tosh.

.

Do you believe the world was made in 6 days by an invisible being? Do you believe that people should be legally be allowed to own automatic rifles and ammunition? Do you believe that a woman should be allowed to decide whether or not to continue with a pregnancy? Do you believe that people should be allowed to eat meat?

People don't all believe the "right" thing. You are on a very slippy ground when you start referring to "objective reality". A lot of the "reasonable" views I imagine you hold, would get you into serious trouble in a lot of countries in the world

 

[Baghdad_Rob]

A+ level whataboutery there.

Just pointing out the double standards and the whole "violence is justified if it is our side doing it".

 

[Gills 58]

A+ level whataboutery there.

He's absolutely desperate to try to label the "left" and Democrats as equally bad and hypocritical. It is actually quite amusing. Leave him to it and let him keep digging.

Trump's behaviour is predictable but also truly shocking. That he has so many deluded people following him is sad. They probably have genuine grievances about being left behind by successive governments but have unfortunately pinned their hopes on this disgrace of a human who is cynically exploiting them.

 

[MedwayModernist]

Do you believe the world was made in 6 days by an invisible being? Do you believe that people should be legally be allowed to own automatic rifles and ammunition? Do you believe that a woman should be allowed to decide whether or not to continue with a pregnancy? Do you believe that people should be allowed to eat meat?

People don't all believe the "right" thing. You are on a very slippy ground when you start referring to "objective reality". A lot of the "reasonable" views I imagine you hold, would get you into serious trouble in a lot of countries in the world

Objective reality is not a slippery slope - let's look at your above examples.

1 - creationism - there is currently no evidence to suggest it is true, however you are welcome to your religious beliefs, so feel free to crack on with your own religious practises so long as they don't affect anyone negatively.

2 - This is an opinion, so you are entitled to your view.

3 - This is an opinion, so you are entitled to your view.

4 - This is an opinion, so you are entitled to your view.

Objective truth isn't believing the "right" thing.

Objective truth is accepting the facts as the facts - it's what society is basically based on.

The objective truth has been dissolved by the right since fox started basically, and has come to it's pinnacle with the terrorists in the capitol last week.

The simple objective fact in the US is that the election wasn't stolen.

There was no significant fraud was found (ie that could be deemed to be significant or potentially affecting to the results), despite numerous court cases being raised.

If there had been fraud, simply put, they would've found it by now.

 

[ThreeSixes]

Objective reality is not a slippery slope - let's look at your above examples.

1 - creationism - there is currently no evidence to suggest it is true, however you are welcome to your religious beliefs, so feel free to crack on with your own religious practises so long as they don't affect anyone negatively.

2 - This is an opinion, so you are entitled to your view.

3 - This is an opinion, so you are entitled to your view.

4 - This is an opinion, so you are entitled to your view.

Objective truth isn't believing the "right" thing.

Objective truth is accepting the facts as the facts - it's what society is basically based on.

Will someone that is openly atheist ever be elected president of the US?

 

[jokerman]

Agreed EE.

One caveat though. Sometimes when met with violence the only way to respond is, unfortunately, with some violence of your own .

For instance, I think most of us would agree that Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was failing, and that it is a good thing that Winnie took over and declared that, "We shall fight them on the beaches...", etc., etc.*


* I know that Chamberlain and not Churchill declared war on Germany, before any bright spark points that out to me!

I'd just like to point out that Cha.... oh, never mind.

My attitude to violence is much the same as to the death penalty. I am for the death penalty in principle just so long as it is just about never exercised in practice. There has to be a right to self defence. There has to be a right to defending others, and even to pre-emptive violence. There are times when violence works and more times when it is understandable, but it's usually wrong -the wrong people get hurt and suffer- and it's usually ineffective and sometimes counterproductive. Those who exercise this right must be prepared to have the world judge their claim very closely and to live/die with the consequences of the world rejecting their claim. In other words, I'm really big on inhibiting the use of violence.

 

[MedwayModernist]

Will someone that is openly atheist ever be elected president of the US?

No idea, why does that matter when we're talking about what is and isn't a fact?

Maybe in a couple of hundred years when they've grown out of their teenage phase.

 

[ThreeSixes]

The simple objective fact in the US is that the election wasn't stolen.

.

Of course - I agree, but I also don't think that every killing of a black man by a white policeman is racist, but there seemed to be less horror at the BLM riots.

 

[EagerExile]

there seemed to be less horror at the BLM riots.

Probably because inner city riots are relatively common (while also being very sad and unpleasant), but it's not every day you see a bunch of rednecks and white supremacists storm the symbolic seat of democracy...