It won't affect libs on here, pretty sure they don't have sex anyway.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Details matter. "Non-voters" are not who we have been discussing. Noncitizens are the issue. Yes, they are subject to the laws created by actual citizens who elect their officials - as they should be since it's their country. Noncitizens may or may not have input in their own country of citizenship depending on where they are from. But why should noncitizens have any input whatsoever on the laws of somewhere that isn't their country?
If I go for an extended stay in Canada, why would I expect to vote there or have input on their laws? It's not my country of citizenship. I visit towns, cities, and states outside of my home residence. Why am I not afforded the ability to vote in their elections as I am "also subject to the laws created by the people voters elect" while I'm there? Being subject to a jurisdiction's laws is hardly a qualifier for the privilege of voting.
I said it before as the concept is simple. If you want to vote, do what is necessary to become a citizen and earn the privilege of voting. That's a basic, fundamental right that comes with citizenship in our country. Otherwise, what is even the point of being a citizen? Why do we even care if it simply doesn't matter?
Is that a selfie? It's pretty much how I imagine you every time someone says trump bad. I'm sorry I tried to engage you beyond that level. Allow me to help you get through hump day: Trump sucks. You're welcome.Yep. That's not the only time you'll find people who can't do certain tasks while supervising those who can.
I'm finding it wildly entertaining that you have your panties in a wad all because a city some 2000+ miles away has appointed a noncitizen to their elections board. Is your own life so dull and mundane that this is what you choose to worry about?
Unfortunately, trial courts make errors just like the rest of us. Thus, no 3. is yet to be determined (if true, however, it's exactly what I asked for an explanation on - the solid legal argument used by the judge). I'd love to have you enlighten us about letter A. in terms of what isn't accurate. Are you saying that the evidence was allowed in by the judge? Are you saying the CNN clip with Anderson has been altered? Please. And number IV. could be either true or false and it does not matter as to the original inquiry of why wouldn't the trial judge allow such prior inconsistent statements to be used to impeach the impeccable character of Ms. Carroll.
First, it's one or maybe two shows (I honestly haven't watched any of it other than a good bit of what was posted here). Let's not draw any conclusions on such a short sample size. Second, anyone who thinks that he was just hitting on Joe needs to rewatch the posting. The first five or six minutes were spent ragging on orange and his kids. But that's fine, it's humor, and if it is their intent or goal to actually try to hit them both, I applaud it. People don't laugh at themselves nearly enough.
As to who Stewart prefers, I'm not so sure. It would be hard to find someone more pro Israel and pro middle east peace than Trump. And (despite blaze's continual attempts to claim otherwise) he is the president who got us out of war vs. the current one who seems to relish the war by proxy model. And Joe hasn't exactly been expressing warm and fuzzies about Israel as of late with his crumbling numbers amongst the vocal guaranteed voting block he thought he had sewn up. He doesn't want them voting for the couch instead and has been pretty anti lately to placate them.
And if Stewart is mostly just anti Trump v. any D candidate, he certainly is not the first to realize that Joe has become a liability as the decent into senility continues. I wish we had better choices from both sides of the aisle.
I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. Clearly, visiting is not the same as actually living somewhere.
It makes good sense - and is good democracy - to have a say where you live. Not so much if you are just a tourist.
Again, there's a difference between visiting and living somewhere.
People who live someplace should be able to participate in their own governance.
Democracy 101.
Citizenship is an interesting concept. I'm not saying we should abandon the concept, but I'm not entirely convinced of its value in the modern world generally or in politics specifically.
When it comes to voting, some residency and competency requirements make sense. But we wield citizenship like a weapon against democracy. How is that a good thing?
He's disagreeing. Living somewhere as a result of their generosity and benevolence doesn't endow one with the rights of someone who is a citizen there. If you want that stature, become one of them.
I see it 180 degrees the opposite. Citizenship is not a weapon against democracy at all. It is an unapologetic supporter of democracy.
But the bigger question in your proposal, or at least the first question is, how does one define visiting versus living? My point is that it doesn't matter whether you do or not and we don't ever have to debate the issue. There are citizens and they have the privilege, right and obligation to provide input into the affairs of their country, and then there is everyone else. Just 'living" somewhere doesn't afford one that level of input. You should be more invested and committed. What's wrong with expecting someone to become a citizen if they expect or want to have input over that country and it's policies?
At my age my memory is suspect, but what war did Trump get us out of?
Are you giving him credit for the Afghanistan withdrawal? No problem from me if you are. It was the right thing to do. But most people seemed to disagree with that move - and I doubt Trump wants his name linked to it - so I'm a bit surprised.
Or is there some other war I'm forgetting? There's always something.
1. Why not?
2. What benevolence and generosity?
3. Yes, I agree people who want to live here should strive to become citizens. I suspect most of them would love to do exactly that. We should stop making it harder than it needs to be.
So to be honest my post was a little unfair cause I’m not sure which trial you’re talking about. There’s was one to determine liability and one to determine damages. She was cross examined on past statements in the first. She was not in
The second but they didn’t try to. Trump did try to bring up those comments on the stand
But the judge didn’t allow it on the basis it was irrelevant to damages and had already been addressed in the liability trial.
Are you serious or just trolling?
Perhaps you are falling victim to the revisionist history or simply been reading the wrong info. Yes, it's Afghanistan, the 20 year war of multiple administrations of both parties that he got us out of. And he is still very prominent in claiming such and absolutely links his own name to it. Now, if you are talking about the actual troop draw down and final physical withdrawal that was the debacle under our current president, then you would be correct that Trump does not want his name linked to it.
And this is another one of those funny things about time and how the spin takes place. Certain posters, echoing the talking points, like to act as if Biden was the one who got us out of there. Yet, all of the incredibly bad things that came out of the actual physical withdrawal were somehow the fault of Trump. It simply makes no sense from a timeline perspective. The decision to withdraw and leave was Trump's. The actual execution happened during Biden. Seems kind of ass backwards to claim the withdrawal but blame orange for the problems. But that's how it's done.
It's all good. Let's just wait and see what happens after the appeals are completed. None of us know. He may get hammered. He may completely walk with his bank account being unchanged. I just know that anyone who watches that as well as her many other contradictions must be a moron to think that orange did as she claimed. None of which means that he isn't a complete womanizing manwhore who has taken full advantage of being powerful, rich, and famous. If one subscribes to the old mentality of he may not have done this, but he sure did other things, then he is surely getting what he deserves. We need to get real though and stop thinking of these politicians as paragons of virtue. Carter was a shitty president. I have no idea how he was as governor.
Why not what? Again, you seem to want to ignore the entire idea of what it means, in both directions, to be a citizen of any given country.
The ability to live somewhere of which you are not a part of, that they would so graciously allow you that opportunity and that you would benefit therefrom.
And that is an entirely different conversation. But that circles the entire way back to my original point. I don't agree with you and it's ok that we differ. However, you at least recognize that there are end goals involved that aren't being talked about.
I didn't realize he was claiming Afghanistan as his win.
We were still in Afghanistan 7 months after he left office, so he didn't really get us out, but I do give him credit for getting the process started.
Nobody I know blames Trump for the withdrawal problems. But Trump supporters are quick to hyperbolize about those problems.
You seem to be more interested in attacking. I suggest you look for areas of agreement. It would be easier to carry on a conversation if you did.
You could, for example, have eliminated the first 2 offensive sentences of your comment, and just started by affirming you were talking about Afghanistan.
You might have noticed that I did give Trump some credit.
And you could have entirely dropped the nonsense about people blaming Trump for the withdrawal snafus.
That would have been a basis for some agreement and further discussion.
Jesus, the stupidity. The bias is that we have a country with permanent, legitimate residents we call citizens, and those citizens determine the conditions in which they live. There are those who are voluntarily among us who are not citizens, and as such should have NO say in the conditions we determine either for ourselves or for them. There's your perfectly fair and reasonable bias.
It's like I visit your house and tell you that I prefer a more comfortable chair to sit and BTW, I'll have steak for dinner. Unbelievable. I'm just thankful for your hospitality. If I visit your house I'll sit in the chair you provide and I'll eat the food you serve...or I just won't go to your house at all.
It's astounding that there are people who are so softheaded that they can't grasp the concept of having a country that citizens belong to and that belongs to those citizens. It's fvcking ours, dimwit. Just as with virtually every other country on the planet, as a non-citizen you don't get to tell us shit about how we live or what you have to live by while residing here, excepting advice on what we might do to enhance OUR lives, and not theirs.
ROFL. Perhaps you could not play dumb. We've been in one war since 9/11. You might have heard of it. Many, many good Americans died. To act as if you had some confusion or debate about which war it might be in terms of involving Trump deserves a ruler across the knuckles. Perhaps a message board isn't for you if plan to play such games or act so disingenuously. I'm sorry for offending your delicate sensibilities with the truth.
And he is the one who got us out. It took 20 years to get us so entrenched and you don't just pick up and leave everything there. It takes time. But there was no "win" so Trump nor anyone else can claim it as such. He does claim a complete disruption of the Taliban (which has apparently been rebuilt). But the only real win was finally getting us out of Dodge. And his admin is certainly the one that started the process that ultimately got us out of there.
Also, you are completely ill-informed if you think the Biden apologists (or more accurately the Trump haters) didn't try to blame Joe's repeated mistakes on Trump. Our own Blaze constantly posted how Biden's hands were tied by Trump and virtually everything from leaving behind colossal amounts of dollars in highly technical equipment, releasing terrorists, and our soldiers dying at the checkpoint were all the fault of Orangeman. Go back several thousand posts, it's surely still there.
I am in full agreement on trying to find common ground and carrying on a legitimate conversation, but don't act if you didn't get what you earned. It's a two way street. I'll try to be nicer to you going forward if that proves to be your goal.
I apologize for hurting your feelings but I can't help but mocking your naivety. Whether you're complaining about the jobs noncitizens have been given or lapping up nonsense in a tweet about a PBS broadcast's behind-the-scenes work of the J6 Committee, you're always getting it wrong. Then, to add insult to injury, you get your dander up when someone disagrees with you rather than acquiescing.
Just curious but are you a woman?
At least we don't have to worry about Putin's space-based anti-satellite nuclear weapons with Donald Trump around:
So, dense and a sexist. Check. Trump bad. Now go spin around in circles puppy dog.
I'm a sexist for asking if you are a female? Again and again I try to give you the benefit of the doubt and all you offer in return is condescending insults. So let me ask you this: are you old enough to drive?
Yeah, I was wrong. You're just dense. Now I just feel sorry for you.
Daaaamn, hey @Heels Noir , what color is the back of poop’s woodshed?
I wouldn't know but I'd guess it's the same color as the yellow streak down your back.
lol. That nonsensical gibberish is the best you can do after my roast? No wonder you take such beatings around here.
It's funny how I continue to post all theses rulings showing that this isn't some right wing court like you claim and you have nothing to refute it with.
Guess you weren't genuinely interested in finding common ground, agreement, and carrying on a discussion as purported. Ask me if I'm surprised.
He, and another poster or two, want to continually regurgitate the talking point that this is a super majority conservative court that is made up of trump supporters/biden haters in a 6 to 3 split. The problem is that their actual rulings and opinions don't come out that way so they never want to engage in the reality after rulings.
It goes back to things like abortion. To their way of thinking, there are only two options. You either favor abortion and the constitution supports it, or you are against abortion and how dare you try to impose on women (whatever they are) and their reproductive rights.
The problem is the issue for them is like a light switch that is either on or off. They simply refuse to consider or admit that the issue is not a question of whether one is prolife, prochoice, prowhatever. Rather, it is simply a question of whether or not the constitution provides for a right to abortion on demand. They claim it's there, but can never actually show one the words that provide for it other than claiming it's there. You can be prochoice, etc. and recognize that the constitution simply doesn't address the issue. It doesn't make the Court super crazy conservative, just that they aren't going to create so-called constitutional rights out of thin air due to the politics of any given time.
Instead of hammering them all the time with this falsehood, he and others should be celebrating the Court's integrity. Imagine what they could do if they were indeed ruling as supporters of the orangeman and favored him in a 6-3 breakdown!?!?
Actually, this country has been engaged in TWO wars since 9/11, the Afghanistan War (2001-2021) and the Iraq War (2003-2011). But why should you bother with such details?
I would say this court is usually more conservative in it's legal approach, but that's completely different than what @blazers and others have said. They want to act like they are some hardcore, right wing republicans, out to destroy the justice system. Being conservative/liberal in your approach to the law is a normal thing and can sometimes lead to the same conclusions. The freaking out by certain people is due to the politicizing of the court by politicians. My guess is that most of the people complaining haven't read any of the legal opinions and/or listened to oral arguments for the cases they complain about. They just go with the talking points they like.
They haven't unanimously ruled for reparations and to allow any migrant to have full voting rights. Ipso facto they're all white supremacist fascists yearning for the downfall of our democracy.
I'm sorry you feel the need to involve yourself and I just don't have to the time today to fulfill your desire for self abuse.
You can choose to break it down however you like, but the fact is we had been in a war in the middle east since at least 2001 that started with our involvement in Afghanistan and somewhat ended when we finally withdrew from Afghanistan. As far as any connection to our president from 2016 to 2020, that's where things took place the entire time. Technically, you are correct that we also engaged in what was called Operation Iraqi Freedom (as well as other names), but that was all part of the ongoing middle east conflict that never ceased in Afghanistan and it's just being silly if you don't think it wasn't part of the existing theater of operations and overall planning. That aspect was "over" well before the orangeman started keeping you up at night. I mean, if you want to argue that as a real distinction, you're gonna have to also include all those other locations such as Somalia, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, etc. Sure, they weren't on the same scale, but you are kidding yourself if you want to think these were all independent and not layered upon each other with the consistency being the war that began and ended in Afghanistan. So, take your point as a win and go do your little dance in circles. It doesn't matter to the overall topics that were being discussed and is mostly a distinction without a distinction.
Look at that, It's not even noon and you get to have a great day.
I would have to agree with you that people haven't invested the time and effort to really understand things, only relying on summaries or YT/tictok commentary. And that applies to both sides except I'd argue that legacy and social media is predominately shaded towards a liberal side of things so the influence is stronger from that perspective.
However, I don't really go for the conservative/liberal/progressive labeling when it comes to the Court. I'd argue that it's more accurate to describe it as constructionists v. creationists. That is, one can read the Constitution and see the words that are there, sometimes called originalists, and decide it either says something or it doesn't. If you want to change it to other words, there is an amendment process. It is difficult and needs to be a high bar because it's the Constitution and shouldn't be altered as the wind changes directions with the news cycle.
Then there are the creationists. They believe that the Constitution is a living breathing document that really doesn't mean what it says and that it must evolve to match the societal needs at any given time. If the Constitution doesn't say something, so what? We'll just pull it out of thin air and justify it somehow because we need to do this since Congress and others won't. This is exactly what happened with Roe. It was a terrible time, but that doesn't mean the Court needed to create something that didn't actually exist just because they couldn't muster enough of a majority to pass an amendment or federal law.
Incidentally, while I think @blazers is completely misguided in his opinion of the Court and his claims about them, I have to admit that I agree with him that this issue is a HUGE (in my best orangeman voice) problem for the R's in upcoming elections. I believe that a considerable majority are either proabortion/prochoice/don't care v. the prolifers. I've commented before that I thought Desantis, for example, hurt himself supporting the 6 week law. The R's have to get that figured out or it's a very viable point of attack.
