Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

I apologize for not responding to all the comments. I read all of them but I cant figure out how to quote with the new layout.



Insert Coin. Press START. You Died. Continue?

Around the Network
jason1637 said:
HylianSwordsman said:

Like I said, if it's in the public interest, and they can run it better than a government program and without corporate greed, why not spend government money on a non-government organization? I mean it's our money, if that's how we want it spent (as a democratic whole, not as individuals obviously), then it should be spent that way.

But we never decided that we want our money spent that way. It was left up to those in congress and President.

Then tell them not to and vote them out if they don't listen.



DrDoomz said:
EricHiggin said:

Guilty verdicts for key media stars tied to big mainstream political issues aren't trending as of late.

Kav apparently was supposed to be guilty and yet get's off scot-free.

Trump apparently was supposed to be guilty and yet get's off scot-free.

So it only makes sense that since Smollett apparently was supposed to be guilty, he get's off scot-free.

Hard to argue with that logic, no? Maybe the world really is flat... and upside down.

As in any kind pursuit for justice, the difference is in the quality of evidence.

Kav and Trump were assumed guilty with no solid evidence linking them to the crime. There was an investigation and a lot of the evidence (w/c were shown to the public) were inconclusive.

Smollet was guilty as sin with a paper trail and witnesses. This was open and shut but the prosecutor just decided to drop the charges. Which made this look corrupt as heck.

Big difference here.

NightlyPoe said:
EricHiggin said:

Guilty verdicts for key media stars tied to big mainstream political issues aren't trending as of late.

Kav apparently was supposed to be guilty and yet get's off scot-free.

Trump apparently was supposed to be guilty and yet get's off scot-free.

So it only makes sense that since Smollett apparently was supposed to be guilty, he get's off scot-free.

Hard to argue with that logic, no? Maybe the world really is flat... and upside down.

Yeah, no.  Smollett had a mountain of evidence against him, confessions from his co-conspirators, receipts for the items, signed checks, pictures of the co-conspirators with him, video evidence that showed him walking around calmly right after it allegedly happened, etc..  Plus his story was rather ridiculous to begin with starting with the premise that two guys were walking around Chicago on one of the coldest nights in years with a rope and a bottle containing some substance and recognized a B-List celebrity they could attack.

Kavanaugh had one woman making an allegation with details so vague that they could never be substantiated.

Trump just survived a two-year investigation which looked high and low for any evidence of guilt and couldn't find anything on him.

I wasn't serious, that's why I made the joke about why guilty verdicts aren't trending, as if the decisions are being made by the public socially. That and since it seemed like there was actually more than enough hard evidence against Smollett, and how he blamed the corrupt system, which is what it seems he used to get away with it, makes me wonder if the world really is flat and upside down, because the laws and rules don't seem to always apply, even though we're told they do.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Immersiveunreality said:
o_O.Q said:
its just ironic that jussie smolettes is the kind of guy who would argue that america has a patriarchy that has built in structural racism and homophobia... and look at what happens... as a black homosexual he commits fraud to game the system with the expectation that he'll be scrutinised less because he's black and homosexual and then when he's caught he gets away with murder metaphorically

its just so amusingly ironic

It makes me sick how he now tributes to the dividing of people, he feeds racism and homophobia with his bs.

this is what people that constantly agitate for going overboard in the pursuit of ending discrimination do not understand - you leave the door wide open for trolls and insincere people to exploit the agenda for their own personal gain

look at what the notion of "believe women" has done, its now empowered many unscrupulous women to feign victimhood for personal gain because they know that they now have a cloak of invulnerability, ironically because of their sex from people who are trying to end sexism... its mindbogglingly incoherent



EricHiggin said:
DrDoomz said:

As in any kind pursuit for justice, the difference is in the quality of evidence.

Kav and Trump were assumed guilty with no solid evidence linking them to the crime. There was an investigation and a lot of the evidence (w/c were shown to the public) were inconclusive.

Smollet was guilty as sin with a paper trail and witnesses. This was open and shut but the prosecutor just decided to drop the charges. Which made this look corrupt as heck.

Big difference here.

NightlyPoe said:

Yeah, no.  Smollett had a mountain of evidence against him, confessions from his co-conspirators, receipts for the items, signed checks, pictures of the co-conspirators with him, video evidence that showed him walking around calmly right after it allegedly happened, etc..  Plus his story was rather ridiculous to begin with starting with the premise that two guys were walking around Chicago on one of the coldest nights in years with a rope and a bottle containing some substance and recognized a B-List celebrity they could attack.

Kavanaugh had one woman making an allegation with details so vague that they could never be substantiated.

Trump just survived a two-year investigation which looked high and low for any evidence of guilt and couldn't find anything on him.

I wasn't serious, that's why I made the joke about why guilty verdicts aren't trending, as if the decisions are being made by the public socially. That and since it seemed like there was actually more than enough hard evidence against Smollett, and how he blamed the corrupt system, which is what it seems he used to get away with it, makes me wonder if the world really is flat and upside down, because the laws and rules don't seem to always apply, even though we're told they do.

My apologies then.



Around the Network

https://youtu.be/LzejJ_IZBVU

Disgusting.



TallSilhouette said:

https://youtu.be/LzejJ_IZBVU

Disgusting.

She's such a POS. Dumb as a post too. I'm tempted to count how many times in that video, she flashes that stupid grin of hers while responding to a question with a non-answer.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

o_O.Q said:

this is what people that constantly agitate for going overboard in the pursuit of ending discrimination do not understand - you leave the door wide open for trolls and insincere people to exploit the agenda for their own personal gain

look at what the notion of "believe women" has done, its now empowered many unscrupulous women to feign victimhood for personal gain because they know that they now have a cloak of invulnerability, ironically because of their sex from people who are trying to end sexism... its mindbogglingly incoherent

The thing that some people don't understand is that there's a big gap between the extremes.  

"Believe women" doesn't mean believe every single woman regardless of their claims.  No one has claimed that woman's claims are a replacement for investigation.  The point is that someone's claims shouldn't simply be dismissed, (nor believed without evidence) but investigated.  



the-pi-guy said:

o_O.Q said:

this is what people that constantly agitate for going overboard in the pursuit of ending discrimination do not understand - you leave the door wide open for trolls and insincere people to exploit the agenda for their own personal gain

look at what the notion of "believe women" has done, its now empowered many unscrupulous women to feign victimhood for personal gain because they know that they now have a cloak of invulnerability, ironically because of their sex from people who are trying to end sexism... its mindbogglingly incoherent

The thing that some people don't understand is that there's a big gap between the extremes.  

"Believe women" doesn't mean believe every single woman regardless of their claims.  No one has claimed that woman's claims are a replacement for investigation.  The point is that someone's claims shouldn't simply be dismissed, (nor believed without evidence) but investigated.  

But the term "Believe women" is an extreme on itself that only focusses on one part of the problem as it only envelops one gender.

And if a term focusses on a problem that is common for both genders but chooses to only focus on one side of it then it can even be considered sexist,and it is a fractured point to make when you start it with dividing people.

Edit: everyone knows that people claims should not simple be dismissed nor believed without evidence but investigated but that is only logical and does not connect to the separation of genders within that term you defend so can you atleast explain why a "believe women" or a believe men" is needed but not just "believe people" ?

Last edited by Immersiveunreality - on 28 March 2019

Immersiveunreality said:

But the term "Believe women" is an extreme on itself that only focusses on one part of the problem as it only envelops one gender.

And if a term focusses on a problem that is common for both genders but chooses to only focus on one side of it then it can even be considered sexist,and to make the point you suggest women do not have to be singled out for it.

Some people think that those types of movements should be driven for the people that need them most.  (I don't agree with that though.)
They're not saying that men don't also have those issues, but that women tend to struggle with those kinds of things a bit more.  

The only reason I would consider a movement sexist for only focussing on one side, is if people on a side tend to diminish the bigger part of the issue.  

If people from a movement dedicated to men being open about being raped, started attacking women who got raped, then I'd at least start to question their intentions, I could see that movement being considered sexist.