Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

General US Politics Discussion


  • Replies 8.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Yokelsson

    852

  • sivispacem

    812

  • Eutyphro

    694

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

^^^ See what I mean about how punching Trump supporters in the face is a social duty?

lol   It's a street corner, not a boxing ring. If you're expecting a fair fight, you're gonna have a bad time.     EDIT: And let's be real, there's nothing more cowardly than a chickensh*t Nazi t

Recommended Posts

Svip

Wait, everyone said there would be war if moved the embassy to Jerusalem?  I think what they said was that there would be no resolving of the conflict between Israel and Palestine with the US as mediator.  Which seems pretty on the ball.  The eventual 'peace proposal' by the Trump administration was basically siding with Israel, and hardly something Palestine could ever agree on.

 

Also, I'd like to point out, that President Trump basically recognised Western Sahara as Morocco's, despite a long-lasted conflict between Morocco and the indigenous people who live there, that claim it as their own.  Hardly surprising why Morocco would grant Trump a medal for that.

 

Trump's foreign policy boiled down to a transactional approach.  He may well have avoided foreign entanglements as much as he could, but it was hardly for some sort of high moral reason, but rather because he felt that those countries that benefited from American rescue operations were mooching off the US, because Trump has no concept of what 'soft power' means.

Edited by Svip
Link to post
Share on other sites
Potter145

Okay you just picked 2 points that were secondary to the bigger point of my post. 

 

Do they like it if the US says this territory is part of Marocco. Does Israel like that Jerusalem is the capitol? Of course. But don't focus too much on these secondary things and semantics. 

 

The fact is, after 4 years of Trump, there are less troops, more peace deals, less conflict overall right now. Not perfect, no, but much better than Bush or Obama. His foreign policy was clearly better, when not perfect. Did he achieve world peace? No. He isn't a Saint. But in 4 years he has achieved pretty much most of what you can realistically achieve in that time frame given the resistance and needed negotiations. 

 

As far as I know, Obama didn't made peace between Israel and Palestine. Trump didn't as well. But at least he made clear that Jerusalem isthe Capitol, which btw Obama wanted to do as well. 

 

Israel is not perfect but it is a safe garden for Jews all around the world that had to live with being hunted and attempted genocide for centuries. And Iran literally wants to kill Israel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Potter145

Do you really think Iraq, Syria or Yemen benefit from rescue operations? That's easily debatable as most foreign interventions by the US establishment was never about morality or humanity or helping but about overthrowing unwanted governments, territory, control, resources and military presence and power, reaching closer to the Russian border. NATO plays a big part their as well. 

 

Trump never cited morality for his foreign policy, but always realism. He wanted every ally to pay the fair share, he legitimately questioned if NATO made the world truly safer in its current from and has in the past. 

 

And the reason why he actively avoided new wars and reduced troops is because he promised that in 2015 and he always said that these were wars that didn't had any benefit from the people all over the world. First and foremost it was not in the interest of the American people, which is correct, and I don't know how you can say these interventions were. If you think that, Dan Crenshaw, Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham will agree with you. 

And secondary, it also helped to cool the temperature and actually benefits me as a german if there is less conflict in the middle east and not active actions against Russia. This has always plagued Germany being forced by the US establishment to not have economic relations with Russia which truly hurts our independence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Your view on Israel may be a bit naïve.  There is good reason why there are still numerous Jews living outside Israel.  A lot of Jews don't like the general right-leaning politics of Israel, and that's not surprising.  Socialists movements throughout history have had a lot of key Jews among their ranks.

 

I know past presidents promised moving the embassy to Jerusalem as well, and went back on it.  Those promises were also silly to make, when they could not deliver on them.  But what good does moving the embassy to Jerusalem actually do?  Sure, it makes Israel happy.  But would Israel ever really abandon the US?  They rely on them heavily for military support.  If anything, giving up that bargaining chip was a huge mistake in terms of asking Israel to concede something in return.  So it was mostly about preaching to the choir.  Did not make anything better, just probably a little worse.

 

I mention those two specific items, because they highlight Trump's tenure as particularly transactional.  And I am also not sure whether the world is safer today than it was four years ago, ignoring the pandemic for the moment.  During Trump's time in office, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran have all been allowed unhindered (basically) to ramp up military spending, with only inadequate attempts at sanctioning.

 

And to your other post's point, do you really think I agree with US intervention in the Middle East?  Of course not.  I am glad Trump did not get the US bogged down in more foreign entanglements, but I also believe we should recognise motivation rather than merely outcomes.

Edited by Svip
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Potter145

Do you want to talk about Israel now? Saying some Jews are socialists and don't like the conservative government is arguing what? There is literally no point in saying that. That's literally true for most of the things in life. I was just pointing out that in case of persecution, you can be sure that Israel will try to protect you if you are a jew. 

It doesn't mean that being a jew defines you as a whole. I know there are disagreements. 

But most Jews in that area live in Israel and most of them support the government, so. 

Saying 75 million people don't support Biden doesn't make him less legitimate. I'm in no way naive, just pointing out the historic and philosophical context of Israel which many people seem to forget. 

 

But emphasizing socialists movements and Jews is really a shot in your own foot. You know where I can go with this, but I don't, because I think you know what I'm trying to suggest.

 

Also I think your assessment of Trump's motivation is simply wrong, resulting from your disliking of his presidency in general, but not actual honest analysis and comparison of other presidents like Biden or Obama which you prefer. 

Edited by Potter145
Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Considering that Israel has had three elections since April 2021 and is about to have a fourth one without any being to form a coalition, I am going to go out on a limp here and say that a majority of Israelis don't support the government.  And consider a majority of Jews, both ethnic and religious, live outside Israel might also be a point worth considering.  Again, I support Israel's right to exist, but I still believe I can be critical of Israel without it somehow being critical of its raison d'être or Jews in general.  But you are right, I actually don't wish to discuss Israel, so let's agree to disagree.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Potter145

I support criticism of Israel. I'm not ignorant. Many questionable regime changes they supported in the past and some harsh segregation measures. Partly understandable because it is the middle east after all where many people live that wish death to Israel. I'm trying to have a true view of Israel without pink glasses, but overall, I would give them the benefit of the doubt given the historic background. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

To make this into a broader point, because I kind of want to get off Israel again, I see a lot of people, and I wish to stress that I am not accusing you of doing this, that see criticism of Israel without criticism of Saudi Arabia or Iran as a sign of a bias against Israel.  But that's a wrong reading, I criticise Israel because I care about Israel.  I believe it's a country where its wrongs can be righted.  I have no such hope for Saudi Arabia or Iran.

 

And in a similar fit of naïveté, I believe the same for the USA, which is why I am more critical of them than I am of Russia or China, because I give a sh*t.  Being critical does not imply one's loathing of something, but rather that one holds it to a higher standard, and thus a sign of genuine affection.  Of course, that does not go for everyone, but there is generally more nuance in this aspect.  One person only has so much capacity in life, so I'd rather focus on what I believe can be changed for the better, and avoid those I've abandoned all hope for.

 

Of course, deep down, I do wish better for those countries I have given up on, but that task is better handled by others.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pooka Mustard
4 hours ago, Potter145 said:

Where are the riots right now from conservatives or Trump supporters now that Biden is officially the president?

 

But Antifa in Portland attacked a building by the democratic party and they are marching in Seattle right now. 

Quashed and stopped thanks to widespread condemnation of the capitol attack from all sides, plus the guards deployed to ensure the process goes smoothly. I don't know what's going on with the latter TBH.

 

4 hours ago, Potter145 said:

As I try to be as principled as possible, I wouldn't say Pelosi incited violence, but imagine actually holding her to the same standard.

Unlike Trump, she doesn't have a base of rabid gun owners who would do anything for her, and she isn't actively provoking any such base or letting her aides and associates provoke them unquestioned. It's these nuances that you guys miss when trying to compare Trump's response to tweets from Pelosi or AOC. Trump has a fanbase willing to do anything for him (even up to armed conflict), AOC or Pelosi don't. Context matters.

 

4 hours ago, Potter145 said:

We already see Chinese state media saying that the deletion of Trump is proof that free speech is unattainable. We already see them happy that Trump is out. We see them banning people from the Trump admin now. 

 

It's pretty clear what China prefers.

China can prefer what it wants to prefer. "China prefers X" does not mean that X is bad for us. It's perfectly normal for China to agree with you on something, so don't take it as an indicator that this something is bad. 

 

4 hours ago, Potter145 said:

If you think some people making selfies in the capitol overthrow the democracy in the name of Donald Trump, who said peacefully and patriotically, condemned violence multiple times, then it's pretty clear you just repeat what fits your narrative and don't apply the same standards to other events. 

Yeah, I'm sure people taking selfies in the capitol is much more threatening than the people who showed up with guns, erected a noose outside for Mike Pence, and if there wasn't any secret service members on duty, were one hair away from killing senators. Donald Trump's "peaceful" transition does not alleviate the months of previous incitement that led up to this moment. It's a last minute save by someone who finally realized he'd lose more than he'd gain by riling his base up. If the gains were higher, he'd have cheered instead.

 

4 hours ago, Potter145 said:

Applying your guys logic I would need to assume that BLM as a whole is violent and all politicians who supported it should be removed. But since I try to be principled I don't have this opinion.

BLM as a whole is not violent, indeed. So are a ton of conservatives, as much as I think they're wrong about literally everything. That doesn't help the fact that the capitol sedition was either directly or indirectly fueled by Trump, or he let his aides say whatever and did nary a thing to keep people sane. Then again, what do I expect from someone who failed to condemn white supremacy ("stand up and stand by") and even calls them nice people? (His Charlottesville speech)

 

4 hours ago, Potter145 said:

You still haven't given me an answer why Facebook and Twitter shouldn't be shut down, as riots were planned on those platforms and murders were regularly streamed on Facebook including a mass murder of Muslims.

Facebook and Twitter took steps. Granted these steps came too late, but they did take steps. Parler on the other hand couldn't give a damn, and so...the original hoster yanked it off, many turned it down, etc. No worries however, as it has apparently reappeared on some host who is willing (and already was) to associate with far-right loonies. It wasn't the end of the world for Parler.

 

4 hours ago, Potter145 said:

Social media is something that really only emerged in the last 2 decades and that's why it was never part of any constitution. Pretty obvious. Not every company needs to be held accountable, for example this forum is small enough that it is not that important if you get deleted for different views. But Twitter and Facebook are big enough that regulation in that department is needed. I'm liberal but I'm not against certain required laws.

Free speech is mighty and everything (even though in its most basic form it means the GOVERNMENT can't arrest you or fine you for it, with nary a mention about private companies), but even it's imperfect. I'd argue that if you want to keep free speech, you'd have to deal with abusers of it. Just because you can say whatever crap you want, doesn't mean you can use it to incite people to kill others for you, or keep spewing toxic stuff.

 

I can criticize Trump. I can criticize Biden. I can criticize China, the USA, Russia, or what have you. I can criticize whomever I want, and talk about any pressing issue without the fear of the government silencing me. If I can do any of that, I'm good. That's what free speech is. That's what you won't find in countries like North Korea. Try criticizing Kim Jong Un there. Try it in the USA instead. You can still do all of that just fine. But when what you're trying is "trial by combat," be glad that the only thing you had to deal with is a block by Twitter or Facebook, and take that time off to reflect on everything you have done wrong. You have that luxury in the United States.

 

3 hours ago, Potter145 said:

But man, that's one way to show you really haven't looked much into Trumps foreign policy. 

Do you know there are strategies, tactics and optics regarding foreign relations.

I may have not seen much into Trump's foreign policy, but what I do know is that he pretty much sent the order to off Soleimani without even congressional approval. One morning the entire planet woke up and suddenly we learn Trump did this, on his own. It's folly to think that such a move would be calculated or won't have much consequences, especially when it's done right behind the backs of literally everyone.

 

4 hours ago, Potter145 said:

As we saw at the Biden inauguration, rich donors and the Hollywood elite, including certain journalists and politicians are back in "power". It is the establishment the left was naturally criticising pre Trump Era. Meaning the wars and the system itself. Bernie Sanders, etc. 

I've no idea why you think the "establishment is back." The establishment was never gone for it to be "back." It was always there. Both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party are beholden to this establishment of rich magnates. Honestly? The left in America only chose Biden because he wasn't Trump. Given the choice, they'd have gone full speed ahead on Bernie instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FanEu7

I'm definitely worried that Biden will start some sort of war again. Trump was too dumb to do it but Biden is the typical US President who acts nice and charismatic but then f*cks over some third world countries while Americans don't really care and are fine with living in their bubble. I mean the fact that even Bush is more popular than him shows that pretty well. He was at worst a really stupid President with a cult, not someone responsible for millions of deaths.

  

Edited by FanEu7
Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Bush started two wars in his first term, and was resoundingly re-elected in 2004.  So clearly Americans love war.  That's how democracy works, you give the people what they want.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Potter145
1 hour ago, Pooka Mustard said:

Quashed and stopped thanks to widespread condemnation of the capitol attack from all sides, plus the guards deployed to ensure the process goes smoothly. I don't know what's going on with the latter TBH.

 

Unlike Trump, she doesn't have a base of rabid gun owners who would do anything for her, and she isn't actively provoking any such base or letting her aides and associates provoke them unquestioned. It's these nuances that you guys miss when trying to compare Trump's response to tweets from Pelosi or AOC. Trump has a fanbase willing to do anything for him (even up to armed conflict), AOC or Pelosi don't. Context matters.

 

That is in your own head and just again mental gymnastics to move the goalposts even further as I have expected. 

 

Until you provide me quote of Trump demanding something from his armed supporters and his armed supporters actually doing that, I call this bs and simply your anti Trump bias without any evidence to go by. 

 

You know that riots can occur all over the country, not just in center DC? We have seen it throughout this summer. And you are right in your assessment that the storm of the capitol was in fact condemned by everyone, unlike violence from Antifa, which is increasingly played down by the left or even encouraged by some with comments like supporting uprisings all over the country or like Harris said to the riots this summer "they won't stop and they shouldn't stop". Or a Democrat on CNN actually said that "peaceful protests are a good way to protest, but they don't always need to be peaceful".

And you are also right that Trump deployed all the National guards to DC.

He did not deploy them throughout the summer riots because for him to have the right to do that a governor first must ask for their support, which they didn't do in most cases. 

I would also debate you on the fact that the democrats don't have people on the street that would do anything for them. 

You know what they are called? Antifa, and they are more organized than any Trump street group ever was. They will intimidate republican congressmen on the street like they did with Rand Paul or Ted Cruz and they will hold massive riots if they think the election was illegitimate if the media and democrats told them like in 2016/17.

 

The fact that you completely ignore Antifa and blow the capitol riot completely out of proportion shows your massive bias that blinds you to simple truths and thoughts. 

 

I'm trying to be as truthful as possible by acknowledging all violence but not making everyone responsible for everything immediately. 

I'm against the capitol riot, but also against all the riots throughout this summer and in 2017 when Trump was inaugurated. 

You don't seem to have that same view. Totally condeming the capitol riot, demanding censorship and consequences for Trump supporters and at the same time finding excuses for the violence this summer and in 2017 or even lying to an extent, saying that there was no violence. Complete hypocrisy and mental gymnastics on your part. 

 

All I want to say is there is a double standard. I'm not saying Trump had no responsibility but I'm also not saying that Pelosi actively incited violence. Just trying to open your eyes about the double standard you yourself uphold without even realizing. And once I offer another argument, you keep moving the goalpost.

 

You using the word incitement again and again like the media, which is a typical propaganda tactic made famous in the 20th century, doesn't make it more true if you don't provide clear and actual evidence of him actually inciting violence. 

The only argument you have is him accusing election fraud, but then please be precise in your speech and say that from the beginning and don't say he called for armed protests, which you try to suggest all the time. 

 

You are very confident in the notion that the Trump supporters wantedto kill congress people in the name of Trump. Which is again blowing everything out of proportion. Using the same logic, I could say Antifa wanted to kill Tucker Carlsons wife and children when they came to his house screaming and knocking the door. And there are many more examples where I can easily say Antifa planned to kill someone. You can not disprove that since they didn't kill anyone but you can always say they planned to do so, which is a mind trick in the end. So I assume you haven't watched all the video material out there, because then you would see, that these were people making photos, being let in by police in some cases or politefully asked by police to leave in other cases, the security was very light. You probably only saw the clash with the police barrier shown multiple times on TV. It is a lie that this was an attack as per request of Donald Trump to overthrow democracy by killing congress people. This is what you suggest. And this is what AOC suggests as well. And you completely ignore that not only Trump supporters stormed the capitol. The people storming the capitol weren't even armed. 

 

Your lie about Trump and white supremacy confirms my suspicion that you really don't give a f*ck about the truth if it doesn't fit your ideology but just repeat the repeated lie by the far left media that Trump doesn't condemn white supremacy. 

 

 

 

Amazon broke the contract with Parler that's why they are rightfully getting sued. 

 

Parler was following the US law, but they didn't enforce extra steps of censorship like big tech wanted. 

 

Parler didn't broke the law. But the fact you think Twitter TOS is above the law speaks volumes. If private companies can do what they want, that means they can have their own TOS without being accused of being far right. 

Parler has their own TOS, they remove active calls for violence and threats and anything unlawful, but not what falls under free speech. Just like on normal US soil outside of social media. 

I assume you haven't been on Parler as the most popular accounts there have been from Sean Hannity, Tulsi Gabbard and many Republicans, who are not left, but definitely not mostly far right. Which is an easy defamation tactic for the media to defame organisation's or in this case, companies. And people who do not like to think on their own fall for this very easily. 

 

 

The fact you do not understand the laws and constitution of the US, proven by your last remarks about free speech, actually is a good way to end this. 

 

Free speech means you can say what you want, unless you call for violence or threaten someone. So this is what you already want. 

Free speech doesn't mean you can incite violence. 

 

I agree with you that the establishment was never away and that people voted against Trump, and not for Biden. 

Edited by Potter145
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

The argument in question is about the morality of abortion.

Actually, it's not. Either you didn't read the initial exchange in question, or you misread it.

The direct comment Svip was addressing was:

  

On 1/17/2021 at 12:27 PM, Potter145 said:

The number one cause of death worldwide in 2020 was abortion.

To which Svip responded:

  

On 1/17/2021 at 2:45 PM, Svip said:

But so we are clear on the numbers.  About 30-40% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions (i.e. miscarriage), while about 20% end in induced abortion.  And the number of miscarriages might be under-reported, since a lot of pregnancies end before they are known to the woman that they were even pregnant.

So assuming when you say 'abortion', you mean induced abortion, and going by your definition of 'death', then it wouldn't the leading cause of death, spontaneous abortions would be.

Now this was in the wider context of a discussion on the "morality of abortion", but that's not the actual question that was being addressed at the time. Svip was making no comment to which your response her was relevant, he was simply pointing out that the assertion that "abortion was the number one cause of death worldwide in 2020" is inaccurate as the definition of death used by Potter145 would also encompass spontaneous abortion (IE miscarriage) which represents a total at least 50% higher than induced abortion.

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

I pointed out that one set of numbers in a data set not following benfords law while the other numbers in the set do is strong evidence that those numbers have been manipulated, which in the case vote counts would mean electoral fraud.

This would only be true if electoral results were a data set known to follow Benford's Law, but it has been proven categorically they are not.

 

Can you find a single academic study that assesses the viability of the application of Benford's Law to electoral results as a predictor of fraud which concludes that it can be used in this manner? I've cited four distinct studies using far larger data sets than the one in question here that have all concluded that Benford's Law cannot be used to determine electoral fraud; I cited these and provided detailed explanation for why this is from a mathematical perspective but as usual you choose to ignore it. Issues such as first-digit bounding (created by relatively uniform sizes of electoral wards) and the lack of orders-of-magnitude representation across much of the data set would indicate to anyone versed on the basic principles of Benford's Law that alignment would not be expected.

 

You also overlook, either because of wilful ignorance to what Benford's Law actually is or obtuse denial in the face of overwhelming and incontrovertible contrary evidence, that the data points you cited don't actually support your thesis.

Benford's Law does not concern digit ordering, it concerns frequency distribution. Whilst the cited example alleging "fraud" show digit ordering in alignment with Benford's Law in five of six cases, two of these six data sets have frequency distribution which falls well outside that stipulated by the law.

 

The greatest irony, of course, is that you asserted blindly that you "did your research" and found the "application to be sound". If you'd actually done even the most cursory research, you would have identified that this is simply not the case. 

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

On your third cherry picked data set, you finally found one piece of evidence to support that your claim might have merit. 

The data set I chose to rebut your point is no more "cherry picked" than the data set you used to support it. The difference is that you need a high proportion (~80+%) of data sets to show alignment with Bendford's Law in order for your assertion of its applicability in this instance to be valid. Conversely, I only need demonstrate a comparatively small number do not align with Benford's Law to dispel the notion of its applicability. 

 

That the data sets chosen by the individuals you cite (I hesitate to call them "yours" because you've made zero effort at any kind of validation, verification or testing of hypotheses) are themselves cherry-picked is not open for debate. Their cherry-picking is painfully obvious from the fact they concern locations which are not relevant to the claims of electoral fraud being made. The inference here is that whoever made them tried initially to test their hypothesis using data relevant to the argument at hand, failed to find the result they had intended, and "went shopping" through other possible data sets until they found a handful that did support their argument (sampling bias), even if these had limited relevance to the claims being made.

 

Conversely my approach in choosing New York and the Bronx was to pick the first sufficiently large data set to allay your complains that came to mind. Neither approach provides the scientific or empirical basis for determining the applicability of Benford's Law, but luckily the numerous academic papers I've already cited and which you chose to ignore cover that at length. 

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

As I explained during that discussion, a set of numbers not following the law is not evidence that the named candidate cheated

A set of electoral results not following Benford's law is not evidence of anything, including data manipulation, because electoral results are a data set proven not to follow Benford's Law. The fact you seem to want to pretend they do despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary speaks only to your manifest ignorance combined with a farcical overestimation of your own competence and authority.

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

This is a straw man as you're leaving out of your explanation the very part that we were actually discussing

Raavi's exact words were "suffering from a complex mix of mental trauma and psychiatric disorders". You excluded the latter half of this sentence when making your argument, thus misrepresenting his point. Even a child would be able to understand how this is a straw man. Either you can't read, or you're being a disingenuous prick.

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

I didn't say anything about culpability, that is yet another straw man on your part.

Your initial claim was that premeditation "does mean their mind is sound enough to know what they are doing". Pretending this doesn't concern culpability is a frankly ridiculous position, especially given the context in which the comment was made. You're literally discussing mens rea and pretending you aren't. 

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

It was tested against multiple data sets.

You're only fooling yourself by asserting this. If you'd actually tested data sets outside of the one, yes one, you cited, then you would have presented the results of this. You didn't, ergo there is no evidence you made efforts to test your hypothesis. 

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

The majority of Americans support the death penalty. That is indisputable fact.

A much larger majority of Americans believe that the appropriate sentence for murder is life imprisonment. That is indisputable fact. There's no "goalpost moving" at all. If you can't comprehend the relevance of this fact then I'm sorry, I don't think anyone will be able to help you.

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

the people in question is what the discussion

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

judging the efficacy of the system right now

So which is it? A discussion of specific individual cases, or a discussion of the efficacy of the system? Make up your mind

 

As I noted in my previous post, one-third of death row inmates exonerated between 2010 and 2019 had been sentenced after the year 2000. I have no doubt that forensic measures have improved the accuracy of conviction since 1973, nor have I suggested otherwise, but this ignores the fact that 54% of US miscarriages of justice are not down to the quality or quantity of forensic evidence but down to official misconduct- that is, factors such as the creation of false evidence, or denying exonerating evidence from the defence.

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

how on earth could you construe it as proving my points to be nonsense?

Because it has literally no relevance to the point I'd made, or the one that was being discussed:

  • You took issue with the notion that some individuals on death row may be innocent (?)
  • You argued as if the prospect for future death sentences to be miscarriages of justice was so trivial as to be unworthy of further discussion, despite the fact that 0.47% of all individuals sentenced to death since 2000 have already been completely exonerated (??)
  • You pretend that the fates of those already on death row are irrelevant in the context of the conversation, for reasons I have yet to determine (???)
17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

If you and Raavi

You weren't even addressing Raavi, you absolute mook.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously with your assertions as to your accuracy and your demands on others to "go back and read X" when you don't even know who you're talking to?

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

An entirely useless comment given the fact that the entire discussion we are having relies on this assumption to be accepted by both sides.

There's a distinction between "guilt in the eyes of the law" and "factual guilt". The law, and especially the human application of it, is far from infallible. The acceptable of the fallibility of the law and the prospects for miscarriage of justice is a core tenet of arguments against capital punishment. I know these aren't realities you readily accept but the notion that someone has committed a crime being distinct from the notion of someone being convicted of committing a crime is entirely relevant to the discussion at hand. 

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Damn near every other study and expert estimate comes up with a much lower number

Ah yes, magical studies and mystery expert estimates that you refuse to cite even after being explicitly asked to.

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Couldn't find a number on it. I'd like to but there's only so much time I'm willing to put into a point you'll throw away anyway.

If you can find a number on this I'd love to see it. Given your posse's confusion as to how a death sentence could better protect society from a criminal than life in prison, I'm wagering it's significantly higher than they're thinking.

The last I can find stats for shows a total of around 2,300 inmates escaped in the year 2018. That covers both prisons and county jails, convicted individuals and those being held in custody for other reasons.

In 2018, the total US prison system population was approximately 2.3 million total. That makes the rate of escape around 0.1%. 50,000 of that population, or just under 2.2%, were serving life sentences. If you assumed the rate of escape of lifers was akin to that of the general population, then you'd be looking at approximately 50 individuals with life without parole sentences who escaped.

 

However, the reality is much more complex:

  • The overwhelming majority of inmate escapes occur either within the local jail system, or within day release programs. The official figures include people who, for instance, return late from day release or are accidentally released due to administrative errors as "escapees" which substantially inflate the figure. 
  • Escapes within state prisons are around 9-10 times more common within minimum- and medium- security environments compared to maximum-security. Current figures are hard to come by, but from what I can discern only two escapes (involving a total of 5 convicts) from a US Maximum Security facility have occurred since 2010. The majority of life-without-parole convicts are held within maximum security facilities, though some further into their sentences end up in medium security facilities.
  • Inmates sentenced to life without parole probably have the most motivation for escape, but the least actual opportunity. 

From the research I've done so far, which is admittedly somewhat limited, it appears that at least two escapees (one from each of the 2 maximum security prison breaks noted above) since 2010 were serving life-without-parole sentences. I've so far struggled to find any further examples and any detailed breakdowns of even basic stats such as escapees by prison security type, but I am fairly confident in saying that escapes involving live without parole prisoners are exceedingly rare. 

 

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

My intelligence was directly insulted by being subjected to comments like this:

"[a fetus] Which are not living beings"

"A fetus, until the allowed abortion limit, is no more alive than a cancerous growth."

Firstly, your "intelligence being insulted" by other people's comment not even addressing you is frankly a ridiculous, and certainly not a justification for your behaviour.

 

Your contentions here are also highly questionable:

  • In the first example, the important word is being. This isn't a claim that a foetus isn't alive, it's a claim that it's not a living being. The Oxford Dictionary defines being in this context as "the nature or essence of a person." What the post suggests is simply that a foetus is not a person, not that it isn't alive.
  • The second is sort of true, although it's not really much of a point. There are no "degrees of living", it's a binary proposition. Something is either living, or it is not living. A cancerous growth is equally as living as a foetus because both are alive.
17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

I back it up every time, see above in this very post.

You absolutely do not, and typically, as this post shows, your "backing up" is a result of ignorance of the initial context of comments, or misrepresentation.

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

With that comment I responded to eight people, seven of which I disagreed with. How many of those seven did I hurl insults at? Just one.

Yes, the one you have a petty personal grievance with. 

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

It's stated in the study that those resentenced to life (which is more than twice as many than are executed) are more likely to be innocent

This isn't actually the same thing as you claimed. You claimed that "life in prison has a higher inaccuracy rate" compared to the death penalty, but you're only looking at a subset of people sentenced to life in prison (IE those whose who are resentenced). This is far too small a proportion of the wider group of lifers (significantly less than 1%) to reasonably extrapolate from, and it also ignores that questions over guilt are potentially a significant factor in this resentencing which would obviously mean that this group had a high prevalence of false conviction than those sentenced to life without parole in general. And you have the audacity to question my use of statistics?

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

More evidence to back every other study or expert estimate on the subject ever.

Again, if you can't cite these directly your assertions are meaningless.

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Not if those extra efforts are a contributing factor for you getting rid of the death penalty. 

What proportion of the costs do those extra efforts comprise? Tell me.

Anyway, my contention with the death penalty is not from the perspective of economics. The fact it's vastly more expensive is secondary to the core issues.

 

17 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Again, two parts of the same system. The group you're referring to as the majority of murders is comprised of the very people that are the minority of criminals, not that it makes any difference to the point I was addressing. 

We're discussing the application of the death penalty here. The only way to rationally approach discussion is from the perspective of capital crimes. Habitual and career criminals may consider the impacts of their actions from a sentencing perspective, though to what degree I would sincerely question, but that's not really applicable to murderers is it?

  

 

 

7 hours ago, Potter145 said:

Until you provide me quote of Trump demanding something from his armed supporters and his armed supporters actually doing that

Aside from your abject failure to address my rebuttal of this on the previous page, this is an utterly illogical position to hold.

I love the fact you cherry-pick specific comments, some not even made before the Capitol riots, in order to falsely portray what was actually said.

 

Statements like:

'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen'

'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore'

 

Could absolutely be seen as insightment from a legal perspective because of the circumstances.

In US law, incitement to violence has two tests:

  • Violence must be intended- that criteria is met, because violence occurred.
  • The statements or comments must reasonably be expected to invoke imminent violent action.

 

Telling a bunch of heavily armed militiamen who already possess the intent to perform violent actions that they need to "fight like hell" to save their country, and to march on the capitol RIGHT NOW to do it, could certainly be interpreted that way- but this would usually be a question for a jury. 

  

7 hours ago, Potter145 said:

And you are also right that Trump deployed all the National guards to DC.

He did not deploy them throughout the summer riots because for him to have the right to do that a governor first must ask for their support, which they didn't do in most cases. 

You've got this totally wrong.

  • He DID deploy the NG during the summer, preventatively, to guard the capitol, despite there being no direct threat.
  • They were not deployed before the Capitol riot despite there being a direct threat to both people and process.
  • Trump refused to deploy the NG once the riot had begun, and it took intervention from Mike Pence before they were deployed.

  

7 hours ago, Potter145 said:

I'm trying to be as truthful as possible

Then maybe spend less time being factually wrong.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bartleby
5 hours ago, Potter145 said:

The fact is, after 4 years of Trump, there are less troops, more peace deals, less conflict overall right now. Not perfect, no, but much better than Bush or Obama.

Is it, though?

 

I'm receptive to the idea that the world might be more peaceful now than it was in 2016. However even if that were the case, we're talking about things like the recent Egypt-brokered constitutional reform deal for Libya to (hopefully) end its bloody second civil war, as well as the war in Syria playing out as it inevitably would have (Assad slowly but surely regaining control). Neither of these things have much of anything to do with Trump - with the sole exception of his sudden withdrawal of troops from Syria which, while I agree in principle shouldn't have been involved to begin with, were removed in such a slapdash and diplomatically-tactless way that it served to undermine American interests and trust in them from their allies.

 

So I hesitate to even call that a net gain, if we consider it relevant to the wider war in Syria (and for the record, I'm not sure we even should).

 

As for Iran, by my reckoning Trump walked away from a mutual agreement with them to reduce their nuclear program - a deal which by any observable metric Iran had been respecting and keeping to. Trump's reasoning for this seemed painfully vague at the best of times, except for displaying a tenuous grasp on objective reality by (for example) conflating unfreezing Iran's own assets with giving them pallets full of money like it was a pay-off.

 

Iran now, by the way, is currently upping its production of enriched uranium, and it's easy enough to draw a line between the US backing out of the deal and this now happening. I'd hardly call this something which made the world safer. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Lastly in terms of North Korea, Trump bucked precedent from previous Presidents by giving Kim Jong-Un a meeting (and a very public one, at that), something which many saw as a bargaining chip in itself. Through sheer incompetence Trump also gave their leader careless compliments and a photo of him saluting a North Korean general; you might balk at criticizing him for such things, but to an authoritarian dictatorship quite literally built on propaganda and the belief in the infallibility of their leader and state, these are no small gestures. These things matter, and in this case they very likely contributed to the bolstering of the NK regime.

 

Not to mention that in the end, despite the commemorative coins and the bluster about NK no longer being a threat, to this very moment they're still producing nuclear weapons. Talks in Hanoi between Trump and KJU fell through, so that means that in the end Trump gave away all of these potential bargaining chips for NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Art of the deal, indeed.

 

Though I'd also like to state at this point that reading your replies, you strike me as someone who approaches this subject in good faith, which I respect. So if you have any information or context you think I may find interesting or be missing, that would be welcomed. But as far as I can tell, Trump has spent his time emboldening these leaders (like Putin in Helsinki and Salman with overlooking the Khashoggi killing), so I really raise my eyebrows at someone suggesting he made the world safer; I rather think it's more of an objective fact that he made the world less so, if anything.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Potter145
37 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

Aside from your abject failure to address my rebuttal of this on the previous page, this is an utterly illogical position to hold.

I love the fact you cherry-pick specific comments, some not even made before the Capitol riots, in order to falsely portray what was actually said.

 

Statements like:

'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen'

'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore'

 

Could absolutely be seen as insightment from a legal perspective because of the circumstances.

In US law, incitement to violence has two tests:

  • Violence must be intended- that criteria is met, because violence occurred.
  • The statements or comments must reasonably be expected to invoke imminent violent action.

 

Telling a bunch of heavily armed militiamen who already possess the intent to perform violent actions that they need to "fight like hell" to save their country, and to march on the capitol RIGHT NOW to do it, could certainly be interpreted that way- but this would usually be a question for a jury. 

  

You've got this totally wrong.

  • He DID deploy the NG during the summer, preventatively, to guard the capitol, despite there being no direct threat.
  • They were not deployed before the Capitol riot despite there being a direct threat to both people and process.
  • Trump refused to deploy the NG once the riot had begun, and it took intervention from Mike Pence before they were deployed.

  

Then maybe spend less time being factually wrong.

 

These were really the best 2 quotes you could find? If this is the best, then you know your are on thin ice. The first quote is so weak that I don't know why you even bring it up. You know that Hillary Clinton said right before the 2020 election that Biden shouldn't concede under any circumstance? 

 

Quote rebutted and your double standard exposed. 

 

The second quote is also very weak, as I can give you hundreds of quotes from politicians from different parties using the we need to fight like hell or we don't have a country semantics in one way or another. 

 

Weak quote, not proving my point. But I guess you hoped I wouldn't notice and your friends would applaud you for finding at least 2 quotes when everyone has failed so far to bring up even one. 

 

You also lie about me bringing up quotes that are too old. No quote is too old, as they were simply there to expose the hypocrisy. I can't bring up quotes from 2020 since the democrats won in 2020.but in 2016 they lost and throughout the years Trump was president, that's why most of the damning quotes are from this time. 

 

It's funny you trying to debunk my quotes with the argument that they are too old, when the first quote I made is literally the last sentence from Trump speech on January 6th,20 minutes after the breach already began saying "now we March peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol". 

 

You bring up that I only look for specific comments? That is literally projection, as you also haven't responded to everything I said. So no argument again on your part. But try to gaslight me with these strawmens. 

 

You fail to adress MY rebuttals. I love your semantics game so it somehow seems like it is the truth. From now on I will do the same. Saying that "aside from your failure" as if I failed in that regard and copying definitions to sound smart. Really not an argument or rebuttal on your part. You fail consistently to bring up any actual rebuttals outside of semantics. 

 

There was a threat as Antifa groups announced to protest in front of WH. 

 

Right now in DC you have about 30k national guards deployed by Trump. But nothing happened, so I could say there was no threat as well.

 

The democratic governor didn't demand the NG in Washington before the protest was announced and Trump can't just deploy it at his will. So got you again.

 

But since I'm not ignorant I give you that Trump didn't deploy the national guard at first, which is correct. 

 

Everything else you asserted is factually false or a far stretch. 

 

You saying that I'm factually wrong is not a rebuttal. I condemn all violence, you fail to condemn violence by Antifa. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
47 minutes ago, Potter145 said:

These were really the best 2 quotes you could find? 

You evidently haven't actually grasped the point I was making. Try again.

 

47 minutes ago, Potter145 said:

You also lie about me bringing up quotes that are too old. 

If you'd read my post you'd understand the relevance of timeliness to incitement from a legal perspective.

 

47 minutes ago, Potter145 said:

You bring up that I only look for specific comments? 

Yes. Specifically quoting the only instance of the word "peaceful" used in his entire speech and pretending it is indicative of the wider content or context is entirely a display of your ideological bias. Something you made abundantly clear on the various removed non-contributory posts you've previously made on this thread.

 

So don't even try and pretend you're being impartial.

 

47 minutes ago, Potter145 said:

There was a threat as Antifa groups announced to protest in front of WH. 

No, there wasn't. A "protest" is a legally protected action. Armed individuals invading the seat of the legislature to try and overturn the results of an election is absolutely not the same thing. Please point to a specific, clear and present threat of violence against the Capitol which is remotely comparable.

 

47 minutes ago, Potter145 said:

Right now in DC you have about 30k national guards deployed by Trump. 

As true as it is irrelevant. 

 

47 minutes ago, Potter145 said:

The democratic governor didn't demand the NG in Washington before the protest was announced and Trump can't just deploy it at his will. 

This is a half-truth at best. NG deployment is something that requires consent from both local or state government and federal government but the actual process can be instigated by either. The NG deployment during the summer was at the behest of Trump, and it's telling that he didn't engage with the DC governor in the subject back on the 6th. The governor had decided that they would not request NG resource for the Stop the Steal march, but it's unlikely they had anywhere near the visibility of the potential for violence that the federal law enforcement agencies Trump has access to did.

 

Trump, in the knowledge that there was a direct threat to life and process, which he will have been explicitly aware of, could have engaged the governor with this in mind and requested that he permit federal support. But he didn't, precisely because those who were seeking to engage in violence were doing it in his name.

 

47 minutes ago, Potter145 said:

I condemn all violence, you fail to condemn violence by Antifa. 

Signing off a post in which you completely miss the point with a sentence that's a red herring, poisoning the well and a tu quoque all rolled into one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Potter145

@Bartleby

 

Many good points sir. You are correct on most observations. 

 

For me it is simple. 

Was Trump the best president on foreign policy he could have been? No. 

Was he better than previous administrations? Yes. 

And this comes down to actually only 3 things that differentiated him from Obama. 

 

1 - He followed through on his promises to reduce troops (sometimes without tact as you pointed out, as he desperately tried to fulfill his promise). 

 

2 - He was assertive in his demands and actually followed through (allies pay more, move embassy to Jerusalem, end contracts that are too one-sided). You rightfully criticised that part. Just pointing out that this differentiated him. For better or for worse. I would say there is good and bad resulting from this. Bad is that there is no contract between USA and Iran right now. Good in the sense is that you have to be assertive and realistic sometimes when demanding better deals. I know this sounds just like Trump talk to you, but in the end you need to set the expectations that you actually follow through. He did the same strategy with NK, and succeeded on the global scale. He did support Kim Jong Un, yes, but for obvious reasons, to have a relationship there, but not a one sided one. 

 

3 - And this is the biggest one. I would say this stands on it own and you can forget the 2 previous points:

 

He didn't pull the trigger when many people wanted him to. 

Maybe just look back at the last 4 years and look at the attacks on the global stage, where Trump had all the reasons to intervene and therefore expand it to a broader conflict. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Trump conducted unilateral military action in more foreign nations than Obama did, by the way. It's just the nature of these actions was significantly different.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

@Potter145It is ignorant at best to try and draw equivalency between the BLM protests over the summer and the attempted autogolpe of January 6th. Even wholly aside from the actual merits of both original protests, there was only one where people conspired, and temporarily succeeded in stopping the certification of the electoral votes for a new president. Storming the seat of the legislative and preventing the legislative branch from doing its constitutional duty by force. Planning to kidnap and kill elected officials along the way, killing a police officer, attempting to kill others, planting pipe bombs- or as you disingenuously would call it “taking selfies”. All at the behest of a now former-President who refused to accept the results of a free and fair election even after 60+ court defeats, a multitude of recounts, and not a shred of evidence of any real widespread fraud on a level that could swing a county, nevermind a state, let alone a nationwide election. That it in the end thankfully didn’t succeed does not detract from the woeful criminality and emperiling of democracy that was at play there. It is a credit to some quick thinking heroic MPD officers as well as the constitutional checks and balances that proved more robust than the autocratic-adjacent whims of a now twice impeached former president.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
34 minutes ago, Raavi said:

@Potter145It is ignorant at best to try and draw equivalency between the BLM protests over the summer and the attempted autogolpe of January 6th. 

You're speaking to someone whose repeatedly posted comments alleging electoral fraud in favour of the Democrats, mostly comprising the completely debunked "dead people voting" conspiracy theories. It's clear which side his bread is buttered on so there's very little point trying to reason with him.

  • Like 3
  • KEKW 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bartleby
57 minutes ago, Potter145 said:

1 - He followed through on his promises to reduce troops (sometimes without tact as you pointed out, as he desperately tried to fulfill his promise). 

I think this point itself is fair; though I'm inclined to think the way in which he withdrew from Syria had less to do with making good on promises and more to do with his signature rash decision-making, made in this case with rather specific deference given to Recep Tayyip Erdogan....another autocrat he was cuddling up to.

 

Quote

2 - ...I know this sounds just like Trump talk to you, but in the end you need to set the expectations that you actually follow through.

Leaving a joint deal which was mutually struck, was mutually beneficial and which neither party had violated is hardly a display of follow-through, surely?

 

I mean I realize you're saying here that it was one-sided, but it's never been clear to me at all what exactly about it Trump thought was one-sided. As best I can tell, Trump just plain didn't like it for one of two reasons: 1. Iran didn't capitulate entirely and roll over to give the US everything it wanted, or 2. It is/was part of Obama's legacy and was thus not politically expedient for him to keep to.

 

Personally, I'm inclined to think it was a bit of both.

 

Quote

He did the same strategy with NK, and succeeded on the global scale.

Well not really, because like I pointed out he gave away some very real recognition and prestige for what essentially boiled down to a hollow photo op and no worthwhile promises or progress from NK. I don't consider that a foreign policy success - I'd say it's closer to a pantsing.

 

Quote

He did support Kim Jong Un, yes, but for obvious reasons, to have a relationship there, but not a one sided one.

I can't think of anything more one-sided than handing out a presidential visit and getting nothing of value for it in return.

 

Quote

3 - ...He didn't pull the trigger when many people wanted him to. 

With respect to which situation/country? This claim remains impervious to analysis without specific reference to something.

 

For instance, he did in fact "pull the trigger" when it came to the killing of an Iranian national on Iraqi soil, in violation of Iraqi sovereignty. I mean, I realize it (thankfully) didn't end in war, but it's not like he or anybody else knew how that was ultimately going to play out at the time. That it didn't escalate to the point isn't something he deserves any credit for.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

While never a good look for Facebook, in this case I think it is more of an overly aggressive algorithm, that looked for words like "revolutionary" and simply blocked them without human intervention.  Or if there was, some ignorant human intervention.  In any case, not a good look.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I think Facebook has a history of shutting down very far left pages. I don't blame them for not being a fan of incitement to "direct action", violent communist activism, on their page. I don't think it's a matter of ideology. I think Facebook simply doesn't want to platform anyone inciting breaking the law, as they want to 100% rule out being held liable for it.

But it is also true that Facebook removes and bans in broad sweeps, and they make a lot of mistakes.

Edited by Eutyphro
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

"direct action"

 

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

violent...activism

You keep making the false assertion that "direct action" and violence are one and the same, despite the fact they're not. This as been pointed out at least once before, though the conflation would go a great way to explaining some of your previous comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

As far as I know SWP is a pretty passive organisation, all things considered.  Not even sure it would even qualify for "direct action".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Potter145
1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

I think Facebook simply doesn't want to platform anyone inciting breaking the law, as they want to 100% rule out being held liable for it.

But it is also true that Facebook removes and bans in broad sweeps, and they make a lot of mistakes.

 

They make many mistakes, yes. And they are also pressured from outside and don't want to get sued, yes. Some governments, like the German government, make it especially hard for them with new laws that make them accountable for any law breaking activities. Which means they rather delete more then less out of fear content might break the law.

 

The fact is this certain socialist group didn't break the law so there is no reason to ban them other than political censorship. 

But the left doesn't care when it happens to the right so why should anybody care for them now since "we" can use the same arguments on "them". 

 

"It's a private company, they can do what they want, that's capitalism, they have their own TOS, you are not entitled to your political activism on social media, you are inciting violence". 

 

So while you are completely wrong on the fact you think they incite violence or break the law, because they don't. I kind of get why you would use that argument against them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
19 minutes ago, Potter145 said:

So while you are completely wrong on the fact you think they incite violence or break the law, because they don't.

Are you genuinely sure? And also, I never claimed this specific example did break any law. I actually posted about Facebook making many mistakes, and I certainly hold open the possibility this is one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Potter145
1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

Are you genuinely sure? And also, I never claimed this specific example did break any law. I actually posted about Facebook making many mistakes, and I certainly hold open the possibility this is one.

 

I'm genuinely sure. Unless anyone proves me otherwise of course. I predict no one will. But there is also not the need to apply mental gymnastics here to connect them with inciting violence since they are the far left. If this was a far right group who did or said the same things (just with different ideology) you can be sure many leftists on this forum would excuse their censorship because they incited violence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I don't consider it unlikely that a 'socialist workers party' that considers itself 'revolutionary' was infiltrated by some bad actors that started making inflammatory posts, but could also not be the case. There's good odds we will have no way to verify.

Edited by Eutyphro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.