The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[Guy Chamberlin]

6 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

Open my earlier post. He explains his logic. Reallocate not defund.

 

That was the logic behind "Defund the Police" too. 

 

If you're standing up to tyranny, which law enforcement division do you shoot?  According to Jason Aldean, you couldn't get away with spitting on a cop in a small town, but maybe you could take out an FBI agent or two. 

[Ulty]

6 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

This wasn't your first post after I linked the full clip of the exchange? 

 

Oh! So he couldn't answer a simple question about white nationalism and instead claimed that white supremacy is a myth and some insignificant part of our country's past? And so he embraces endorsements from douchenozzles like Stephen Miller and tries to parrot Trump's rhetoric every chance he gets. And he doubles down with an even more idiotic tweet of his own that you were good enough to share with us. "Punctuality" and "the written word"?

Interesting to see what sort of characters appeal to you.

 

Yeah, that's mine. Do you have additional comments or questions? 

[DevoHusker]

Just now, Ulty said:

Yeah, that's mine. Do you have additional comments or questions? 

Nope, just verifying

[DevoHusker]

3 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

That was the logic behind "Defund the Police" too. 

 

If you're standing up to tyranny, which law enforcement division do you shoot?  According to Jason Aldean, you couldn't get away with spitting on a cop in a small town, but maybe you could take out an FBI agent or two. 

 

My position isn't with the FBI as a whole, or even as law enforcement, but rather with the bloated at the top aspect. (if you looked at the stats) You could repeat that with just about any Government agency...throw a dart. 

 

And, I am pretty sure that no one is advocating shooting FBI, local law, or anyone else. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

My position isn't with the FBI as a whole, or even as law enforcement, but rather with the bloated at the top aspect. (if you looked at the stats) You could repeat that with just about any Government agency...throw a dart. 

 

And, I am pretty sure that no one is advocating shooting FBI, local law, or anyone else. 

 

I just used your post as a jumping off point. Didn't mean to infer your position. 

 

But in fact the militia movement is very much advocating taking arms against whatever law enforcement threatens their aims: 

 

One of his guests, Lance Migliaccio, said that if it were legal and he had access, he would “probably walk in and shoot” Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and someone Mr. Trump has identified as one of his enemies.

 

So far, the reactions from Mr. Trump’s supporters have been more intense and explicit than those expressed after Mr. Trump was indicted in a separate case by the Manhattan district attorney Alvin L. Bragg in late March.

 

Shortly before that indictment, Mr. Trump posted an article on Truth Social, his social media platform, that included a photo of himself holding a baseball bat on one side, and Mr. Bragg in an adjacent photo. Dueling crowds of pro-Trump and anti-Trump protesters appeared in Lower Manhattan when Mr. Trump was arraigned there in April.

 

On Saturday, in his first public remarks since the latest indictment on seven charges related to the retention of classified documents and efforts to obstruct justice, Mr. Trump attacked those investigating him as engaged in “demented persecution.”

 

The F.B.I. has been the target of much criticism from far-right Republican lawmakers and the former president’s supporters. In the wake of the heated partisanship, F.B.I. field offices are reporting all threats related to their personnel or facilities to the Washington headquarters, in an unusual step. A law enforcement familiar with the move said the F.B.I. was trying to get a handle on the number of threats around the country directed at the agency.

 

The recent bout of warlike language coming in response to Mr. Trump’s indictment echoed what took place among Republican officials and media figures last summer after the F.B.I. searched Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida, as part of the documents investigation and hauled away about 100 classified records.

 

“This. Means. War,” a commenter wrote in response to an article on the search by The Gateway Pundit, a pro-Trump outlet wrote at the time, setting the tone for others. The post was quickly amplified by a Telegram account connected to Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s onetime political adviser. Hours later, Joe Kent, a Trump-endorsed House candidate in Washington State, went on a podcast run by Mr. Bannon and declared, “This just shows everyone what many of us have been saying for a very long time. We’re at war.”

 

Indeed, within days of the heated language that followed the search of Mar-a-Lago, an Ohio man armed with a semiautomatic rifle tried to breach the F.B.I. field office near Cincinnati and wound up killed in a shootout with the local police.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/10/us/politics/trump-supporter-violent-rhetoric.html

 

 

[nic]

1 hour ago, Scarlet said:

Yeah that's what I assumed.  Your rage isn't because you're willing to let the process play out through the courts.  

You misinterpret rage I think. I don't rage. I get even.  

 

Edit: Who brought the lawsuit doesn't change my opinion on the ruling. Maine had one election official knock Trump off the ballot. That state has split electoral votes of which Trump received one in 2020. I don't vote in Maine, so there is nothing I can about that.

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, Ulty said:

Ah, that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

No, this is a load of total bull$h!t that your right-wing media has sold to you.

 

If you truly believe this and want to make the argument, then please support these sweeping claims with facts, evidence, and/or logic. 

Look no further than the, how do you say…douchenozzle???….that got fired at Harvard.   Stories have been posted showing clowns equating Gay’s firing to racism.   And I’ve noticed you replied to zero of those posts condemning their words that make a mockery of actual racism.  

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Ulty said:

 

Simply dismissing white nationalism and racism as if they are mythical concepts that don't exist is irresponsible and dangerous. 

Where did @DevoHuskermake this statement or dismissal?  Please reply with your evidence. 

[TGHusker]

David French speaks out.  The SC must not be bullied or threatened by ruling against trump in the Colo ballot case.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/enough-scotus-warned-by-conservative-no-free-pass-for-trump-over-new-violence-threat/ar-AA1mteTK?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=a4daa1cc5dea432c8b9a08c8f0555964&ei=21

According to conservative columnist David French, the Supreme Court should give absolutely no consideration to how Donald Trump's supporters would react if he is banned from running for office — and the court should stick to the letter of the law.

In his column for the New York Times, French claimed the time had finally come to say "enough" over worries the former president will incite more violence, while also maintaining that the 14th Amendment was correctly interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court when they booted him off the ballot.   More to the point, he added the court's eventual ruling on the Civil War era amendment with regard to the former president is likely to divide the country, and that the justices shouldn't try and find a way around that. They need to step up like previous courts have done in critical cases ranging from Brown v. Board of Education to the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling that threw a woman's right to making private health decisions into chaos.

 

"This is where we are, and have now been for years: The Trump movement commits threats, violence and lies. And then it tries to escape accountability for those acts through more threats, more violence and more lies," French wrote.

"At the heart of the 'but the consequences' argument against disqualification is a confession that if we hold Trump accountable for his fomenting violence on Jan. 6, he might foment additional violence now," he wrote before adding, "Enough. It’s time to apply the plain language of the Constitution to Trump’s actions and remove him from the ballot — without fear of the consequences. Republics are not maintained by cowardice."

 

 

As French explained, spending time debating the exact meaning of what constitutes an "insurrection" could go on forever, but there is no doubt, "It’s true that Trump wasn’t declaring a breakaway republic, but he was attempting to “seize and hold” far more than the Capitol. He was trying to illegally retain control of the executive branch of the government. His foot soldiers didn’t wear gray or deploy cannons, but they did storm the United States Capitol, something the Confederate Army could never accomplish."

"So no, it would not be a stretch for a conservative Supreme Court to apply Section 3 to Trump. Nor is it too much to ask the court to intervene in a presidential contest or to issue decisions that have a profound and destabilizing effect on American politics," he advised. "Fear of a negative public response cannot and must not cause the Supreme Court to turn its back on the plain text of the Constitution — especially when we are now facing the very crisis the amendment was intended to combat."

 

Warning that, "If the court rules against Trump, the nation will be told to brace for violence. That’s what seditionists do," he pointedly wrote of the modern GOP, "Republicans are rightly proud of their Civil War-era history. The Party of Lincoln, as it was known, helped save the Union, and it was the Party of Lincoln that passed the 14th Amendment and ratified it in statehouses across the land.

"The wisdom of the old Republican Party should now save us from the fecklessness and sedition of the new."

[Lorewarn]

3 hours ago, Ulty said:

I'm all for calling out stupid questions and bad journalism; fact-based questions would be very refreshing indeed. But he came across as very petulant and chose to make a stand in refusing to discuss a topic that everyone should be against.

 

He took a stand against bulls#!t journalism and a bulls#!t question, and in so doing also unequivocally went on record saying he condemns any form of vicious racial discrimination. So he is (per his claim) against it, while also discussing the topic in such a way as to expose the loaded premise of the question actually being asked in the first place.

 

The question wasn't *really* about white nationalism, and as such he refused to agree to the framing. Basically responding in kind, and like I said before, he actually revealed himself more to me in the answer with his addendums and disclaimers, but I see no valid criticism on the basis of, 'He DiDn'T cOnDemN wHiTe SuPrEmAcY!!'

 

 

[Ulty]

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Look no further than the, how do you say…douchenozzle???….that got fired at Harvard.   Stories have been posted showing clowns equating Gay’s firing to racism.   And I’ve noticed you replied to zero of those posts condemning their words that make a mockery of actual racism.  

Yeah, I hadn't read enough of the details of that matter to really know the ins and outs so I didn't comment on it here. But I should have read more about it (and still hope to) so I can make some educated comments on the substance of it.  I am really glad that you brought it up though, can you remind me of some of the specific posts that "make a mockery of actual racism?"

 

Some comments based on what I have heard and seen so far:

- My knee-jerk reaction without having absorbed all the facts is that her termination (or forced resignation?) was justified. Her statements in the congressional hearing were clumsy and unprepared (more on that in a minute), and if the plagiarism allegations were true, then she simply could not stay.

- It is not surprising that both the right and left would jump on the racial component of this case. Being the first black woman to lead Harvard is no small thing, and for any president of a major university to be gone amid scandal this quickly should certainly be subject to all sorts of second-guessing. Knowing that any adverse action against a black woman of that stature would be met with cries of racism, I would assume that Harvard's board or whoever was calling the shots would have had a solid justification for any action. These universities still think about diversity and inclusion issues very carefully (even if they still mess up quite often), even though many states are trying to outlaw DEI efforts.

- It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that many folks from academia and from marginalized communities would be appalled at what happened and blame it on racism without evidence to substantiate it. I see it all the time in my work: people claiming discrimination when the facts don't support it, or raising hysteria without solutions. This hysteria is exactly what the right latches onto into in order to dismiss any suggestion of systemic racism or "wokeness" or whatever. 

- It also doesn't surprise me that right-wingers, including posters on this very board, were quick to celebrate her ousting, and claim she never belonged in that role in the first place. I personally don't think her termination was based on race, but a lot of the reaction might be.

- The university presidents (including the one from Penn) walked into an obvious trap from Trump-stooge Stefanik in that congressional hearing. They were completely over their heads in responding to obvious gotcha questions. I'm not saying they should have responded like that idiot Ramaswamy, but their answers were dumb and unbecoming of a major university president. Stefanik didn't have the slightest clue nor interest in what constitutes harassment or conduct policy violations on college campuses, and I doubt she actually cares about antisemitism except as a political tool. But the college presidents walked right into her ambush.

- I don't really know what qualifies someone to be a university president. I've seen a lot of them do stupid things, I've seen a lot who are nothing but political stooges (Sasse, for example), and I've seen a lot who are not capable of doing any of the actual working jobs that make a campus run. Seems that the most effective presidents are good at raising money, hiring competent VPs and Directors to do the real work, and avoid embarrassing themselves and the school. It looks like Gay failed at the last part, so I don't have a ton of sympathy. 

- If I get around to reading more of the facts of this issue, I may change some of these thoughts later. 

 

 

[Ulty]

31 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Where did @DevoHuskermake this statement or dismissal?  Please reply with your evidence. 

 

That comment was mostly based on Ramaswamy's statement in the video where he said: 

Quote

But you're looking in the rearview mirror and using that to pose a question that today is so far removed from what the reality is in America today. This myth of white supremacy, the closest you can find is Jussie Smollett, where you all, speaking of trust in the media, jumped up and down over some false narrative. The best way you're able to find your best instance of white supremacy was a guy who was actually paying his other fellow people to be staging something that didn't happen. So, stop picking on this farse of some figment of something that exists at an infinitesimally small fringe of the American public today and open your eyes to the actual real threats that we face.

Of course, Devo is the one who promoted the post on this forum in the first place, and you said "Everything was impressive about it"

 

But also, Devo said this: 

4 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

You see, the problem is that the left has tried to label any view right of center as "white nationalism". The word racist gets thrown around for anyone that does not hold their same view of the world.

which seems quite dismissive of these concepts.

[DevoHusker]

11 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

That comment was mostly based on Ramaswamy's statement in the video where he said: 

Of course, Devo is the one who promoted the post on this forum in the first place, and you said "Everything was impressive about it"

 

But also, Devo said this: 

which seems quite dismissive of these concepts.

 

If you can honestly feign surprise that liberals use "white nationalist" and "racist" or "Nazi" when the concept being discussed is actually none of those things, then I don't know what to tell you. It is used exactly in the way Maga use the terms "beta", "groomer" and "cuck" when the concept being discussed has nothing to do with pedophilia.

 

It is meant as a put down. 

[Ulty]

4 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

If you can honestly feign surprise that liberals use "white nationalist" and "racist" or "Nazi" when the concept being discussed is actually none of those things, then I don't know what to tell you.

I'm not feigning surprise at anything, bruh. You're mischaracterizing my comments, and you still haven't substantiated your statements.

 

You must not have read my commentary on the Harvard deal a couple of posts up. There are plenty of hypersensitive folks and other crazies who hysterically claim racism at every little thing. I am quite certain that I see these things more often than you do, and as a civil-rights investigator it is the bane of my existence.

 

But the fact that people do this, and the fact that Jussie Smollett was a thing (since your boy Vivek brought it up), does not negate the existence of systemic racism, the rise in hate crimes even though other violent crimes are going down, the rise of hate groups, and the fact that we have actual active leaders in power who push white supremacist ideas and conspiracy theories. Pointing out that "liberals use 'white nationalist' and 'racist' or 'Nazi' when the concept being discussed is actually none of those things," might provides a convenient "out" for some folks to avoid discussing or acknowledging these issues. 

 

Tell ya what...the next time you see someone unjustly pull the "Nazi" or "white nationalist" card, feel free to ask my opinion if you really care. We can think critically about it together. After all, even Archy was thoughtful enough to ask me about the Harvard case.

[Archy1221]

50 minutes ago, Ulty said:

5 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

You see, the problem is that the left has tried to label any view right of center as "white nationalism". The word racist gets thrown around for anyone that does not hold their same view of the world.

which seems quite dismissive of these concepts

Hmmm……..it looks like you, I and @DevoHusker are kinda on the same page 

 

- It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that many folks from academia and from marginalized communities would be appalled at what happened and blame it on racism without evidence to substantiate it. I see it all the time in my work: people claiming discrimination when the facts don't support it,