By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

I defend what is correct and I defend that we follow established rules, if there is one thing I hate the most is politicians trying to change rules to make it beneficial for them. If there is a set of rules today, why change it? What are the interests behind the decision? From what I see usually the left wants to change rules to increase their voting base while the right wants to keep the rules. And I am always in favor or keeping the rules. You should not change the rules so you can win.

Myself I'm 100% pro voting inside prisions. If I'm not wrong, people serving jail time in US cannot vote, which I think is 100% wrong, these people should be able to vote. At the same time, I am against voting below 18 years old of whatever is the adulthood age in the country, and when I see politicians trying to bring it down to 16 it's always to increase voting to left leaning parties for obvious reasons. Also I am against illegal immigrant voting and it baffles me that people are pro it. Its an obvious tactic to increase voting for pro mass immigration parties that in exchange will be able to bring more people in that will vote for those politicians and etc. I am also 100% pro mail in voting as long as it is really possible to avoid fraud.

It is hard for me to reconcile the first paragraph with the second. You say that we should keep the existing rules, because changing the rules in ways that help a party is wrong, yet then you advocate for changing the rules in a way which would help a party. How do you draw this distinction, and might you be making a rash judgement on the first point given the revelations of the second?

You got me wrong. I am against changing election rules, especially if those changes helps only one party and this goes both ways. But that does not mean I don't think there are injustices in the system today. Should changes happen it would need to be widely discussed with society and it would need to be very clear the reasons, consequences of it and most important it would need to be very clear that the objective is not to simply boost one party.

Of course with time things change, society changes and evolves. Hell if you would never change anything women would never be able to vote.

I gave you 4 examples, all of them increases vote turnout and are beneficial to the democratic party. Two with demands that I agree needs to be discussed and maybe changed and two that I truly believe are only to boost one party.



EnricoPallazzo said:
sundin13 said:

It is hard for me to reconcile the first paragraph with the second. You say that we should keep the existing rules, because changing the rules in ways that help a party is wrong, yet then you advocate for changing the rules in a way which would help a party. How do you draw this distinction, and might you be making a rash judgement on the first point given the revelations of the second?

You got me wrong. I am against changing election rules, especially if those changes helps only one party and this goes both ways. But that does not mean I don't think there are injustices in the system today. Should changes happen it would need to be widely discussed with society and it would need to be very clear the reasons, consequences of it and most important it would need to be very clear that the objective is not to simply boost one party.

Of course with time things change, society changes and evolves. Hell if you would never change anything women would never be able to vote.

I gave you 4 examples, all of them increases vote turnout and are beneficial to the democratic party. Two with demands that I agree needs to be discussed and maybe changed and two that I truly believe are only to boost one party.

Yeah, I get that, but it just seems so weird to be so adamantly against something and then immediately start listing exceptions. At the core of the voting rights debate is a conversation about rights and injustices.

That said, the main fronts of the voting rights debate are twofold:

1) Voting for individuals who have been convicted of crimes. You already stated that you agree with the democrat perspective on this issue. An interesting anecdote regarding this is that in 2018, Florida held a vote regarding re-enfranchising individuals who had their voting rights revoked because of a criminal conviction and the people overwhelming supported it. However, immediately, the Republican state government started trying to chip away at it, attaching conditions and going against the will of the voters.

2) Voter ID. This goes in the opposite direction. It is an example of Republican governments adding new rules which restrict voting by demanding individuals have certain kinds of documentation. These laws predominantly disenfranchise poor, often minority voters who generally vote Democrat.

You spoke earlier who it is typically the left who seeks to change the rules in unfair ways to benefit themselves. This is not what I have seen in America. The left fights for things like voting rights from ex-cons which you seem to support, while the right seems to favor disenfranchisement of voters.

I suppose my question is: are you unaware of this dichotomy, or do you disagree with my assessment?



SpokenTruth said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

Damn did not realize how much money we was using on police. As long as it gets redirected to schools and such then yeah I'm all for it. Which presidential candidates are in support of this? If I actually bother to vote that'll be a big factor.

Of the 2 major party nominees? Neither.  In fact both Trump and Biden want to increase direct police budgets.

Only Bernie Sanders stands directly with these policies.

I'm guessing this is either inaccurate or of very low relevance to Bernie Sanders, as  he endorses Joe Biden for President.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
SpokenTruth said:

Of the 2 major party nominees? Neither.  In fact both Trump and Biden want to increase direct police budgets.

Only Bernie Sanders stands directly with these policies.

I'm guessing this is either inaccurate or of very low relevance to Bernie Sanders, as  he endorses Joe Biden for President.

Its pretty accurate. Biden doesn't support defunding the police. Bernie does.

That said, the issue goes a lot deeper than "how much money are we giving police". Obviously, there is a lot of space between Biden and Trump which makes it easy for someone on the left to make the decision between the two.

Bernie and Biden actually put out a joint policy recommendation document which speaks for a few pages about the police:

https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/UNITY-TASK-FORCE-RECOMMENDATIONS.pdf

The relevant portion starts on page 7.



sundin13 said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

You got me wrong. I am against changing election rules, especially if those changes helps only one party and this goes both ways. But that does not mean I don't think there are injustices in the system today. Should changes happen it would need to be widely discussed with society and it would need to be very clear the reasons, consequences of it and most important it would need to be very clear that the objective is not to simply boost one party.

Of course with time things change, society changes and evolves. Hell if you would never change anything women would never be able to vote.

I gave you 4 examples, all of them increases vote turnout and are beneficial to the democratic party. Two with demands that I agree needs to be discussed and maybe changed and two that I truly believe are only to boost one party.

Yeah, I get that, but it just seems so weird to be so adamantly against something and then immediately start listing exceptions. At the core of the voting rights debate is a conversation about rights and injustices.

That said, the main fronts of the voting rights debate are twofold:

1) Voting for individuals who have been convicted of crimes. You already stated that you agree with the democrat perspective on this issue. An interesting anecdote regarding this is that in 2018, Florida held a vote regarding re-enfranchising individuals who had their voting rights revoked because of a criminal conviction and the people overwhelming supported it. However, immediately, the Republican state government started trying to chip away at it, attaching conditions and going against the will of the voters.

2) Voter ID. This goes in the opposite direction. It is an example of Republican governments adding new rules which restrict voting by demanding individuals have certain kinds of documentation. These laws predominantly disenfranchise poor, often minority voters who generally vote Democrat.

You spoke earlier who it is typically the left who seeks to change the rules in unfair ways to benefit themselves. This is not what I have seen in America. The left fights for things like voting rights from ex-cons which you seem to support, while the right seems to favor disenfranchisement of voters.

I suppose my question is: are you unaware of this dichotomy, or do you disagree with my assessment?

I don't think it is weird at all. I just don't like rule changing as a tool to benefit a certain political group, instead of a tool to make justice for a group that needs it. Again, how can I be against giving women voting rights in countries where it is forbidden for example? Let's say for example the democrats wants to pass a law to allow teenagers older than 14 to vote. Well we can clearly see why they would be doing it.

As for voter ID sorry I may not be the right person to answer it because in my country voter ID is obligatory. Funny enough voting is also obligatory and you get a fine if you do not vote. And we have no trouble with voting ID because before the elections the government broadcasts for months and months for everybody to update their voting ID document if necessary. And if for some reason you dont have it you can just use any ID like your driver's license to vote. But to be fair my home country has a very long and large history of corruption everywhere. I was very impressed when I moved to Europe and realised there is no voting ID here. Brits are crazy, what forbid me to go voting under another person name?

Anyway, why does the republicans want to have voter ID? When did this discussion started? Was it a counter attack on democrats expanding voting for immigrants for example in a way to keep a level field? Is there any history of fraud in elections due to people not having voter ID? Why can't minorities have a voter ID? what would be the problem for them to get one? If there is no reason to do it then I'm totally against it and the rules should kept the same.

What dichotomy? That republicans want to restrict voting and democrats want to expand it? It depends, I dont think voter ID is restricting voting but then again I'm the worst example since my poor home country does it and we have no trouble with it so a rich country should be able to do the same and in theory this should bring no different in voting counting for both sides and also has the advantage of helping preventing fraud. At the same time I see democrats asking for 16 year voting, illegal immigrant voting, convicts voting, mail voting. I don't think there is a fair comparison here. But maybe I need to study more about the subject.



You guys seen the videos of those secrete police that just kidnapp people off the street, that are peacefully protesting?

Heres what Trump had to say on the matter:

"More federal law enforcement (is comeing), I can tell you.
in portland, they have done a fantastic job.
They've been there 3 days, and they have really done a fantastic job,... in a very short periode of time.
No Problem. They grab them, throw alot of people in jail, their leaders, these are anarchist, these aren't protesters!
And the police are afriad to do it, do anything. Well I'm gonna do something, that I can tell you!
Because we're not gonna let New York, Chicago, philadelphia, detroit.... and baltimore, and all of THESE.... Okland is a mess.
We're not gonna let this happend in our country. Its all run by librarly democrats." - Trump   (first 40sec of the video below)


Its not even clear what he means, when he says "its all run by lib democrafts".
Is he talking about the towns/states? or about the protests? or these anarchists?
Is it okay to kidnap a protestor if its a lib democrat? I hope that isnt what hes saying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6GOSm7iaUQ


This is insane.
Its like hes useing this as a excuse to target libral democratic run states/cities.
Tell me again why he isnt considered a facist?

Theres stories of people being held for hours, some are beaten,... and then released.
Im not sure everyone they "kidnapped" was even released.

Like what the hell... You cant just take people, for no reason (not charged with anything) beat them up (for no reason), because you dont like that they protest? This isnt very democratic.

What do you call a national (secrete) police, that goes out to oppress your rights? and your freedom to speak to power (protest)?
That kidnap people, dont charge them with anything, beat them up, and set (most of) them free?
And its conviently targeted at the Presidents political opponents (his own claims "its all run by lib dems")?

And its a "great success" and theres "more to come" ?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... its likely a duck.

This is like step 1 to becomeing a facist dictator.

This goes back to his attacks on journalists, and the #fakenews.
If anyone that speaks against him, is silenced, by attacks, or being disreguarded as fakenews (and he can convince people of such).
And anyone that protests, he can suppress with police....

Its a duck guys.... its got tail feathers and everything.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 21 July 2020

Considering those are all blue states/cities, Trump should just let them burn the cities down and when asked about it say "we cant go there, governors do not allow and do not want, they are against any police, there is nothing the police can do that it wont be criticized, no force can be used, no tasers, no gas, no force, no anything. Let's hope the "protesters" stop destroying everything at some point. Probably one day after elections."



ops



Gotta give Trump some credit for accepting this interview, as both he and his staff must have known that it was going to be a bloodbath. The poor guy didn't stand a chance.

It'll be interesting to see what happens should Biden win, given that Trump is still answering the question of whether he'll accept the result of the election with "I'll have to see..." and also saying he believe that mail-in voting is gonna rig the election.



EnricoPallazzo said:

Considering those are all blue states/cities, Trump should just let them burn the cities down and when asked about it say "we cant go there, governors do not allow and do not want, they are against any police, there is nothing the police can do that it wont be criticized, no force can be used, no tasers, no gas, no force, no anything. Let's hope the "protesters" stop destroying everything at some point. Probably one day after elections."

Yes, its much better than useing force, without asking the mayor or governor in the city/states.

Is this better EnricoPallazzo? :

Just move in, with secrete police, and kidnap protesters off the street, drive them away in unmarked vans, to unknown locations, and beat them up.
If you do that enough, eventually they will stop protesting! Just need to use enough force, when you beat them up.

Fear and intimidation, until the public is too weak and scared to say anything! thats how its done!

When the Governor or mayer's come out and say "please dont send them here, they are makeing things worse (escalateing the protest/violence)", you ignore them. Because you know better! It will work, just need to kidnap more people, eventually it'll work.

In a interview about the matter, you say its all fantastic, and that they arrested alot of people, threw them in jail.
(except they didnt charge them with anything, didnt read them their rights, ect).

Also you "know" the solution, is to send these task force of secrete police to kidnap and beatup people, needs to happend in the Lib. democrate area's.
So you need to grow the size of this task force, so you can have them, running around beating up people all over the place (not just portland).


"More federal law enforcement (is comeing), I can tell you.
in portland, they have done a fantastic job.
They've been there 3 days, and they have really done a fantastic job,... in a very short periode of time.
No Problem. They grab them, throw alot of people in jail, their leaders, these are anarchist, these aren't protesters!
And the police are afriad to do it, do anything. Well I'm gonna do something, that I can tell you!
Because we're not gonna let New York, Chicago, philadelphia, detroit.... and baltimore, and all of THESE.... Okland is a mess.
We're not gonna let this happend in our country. Its all run by librarly democrats." - Trump (Quoted)

Replace "these are anarchist, these aren't protesters"  with "these are jews, these aren't good germans" or "these are democrats, not republicans".
Its a slipperly slope, and theres a very high chance this will be abused, if you dont consider it already to be so.

Once you start singeling out groups of people, and excuse kidnapping and beating them up, harrashing them (without any lawfull reason for it), as a form of intimdation and fear, to gain some political outcome (stopping protests, about police reforms)... things have gone sideways.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 21 July 2020