Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

Here's the problem - we're at a disadvantage if we don't stoop to their level. Is it worth having the moral high ground if you don't do anything? I really can't say, and I certainly won't say that the other side is just bullshit.

If you step down to their level in this simplistic manner, you win short-term, but lose long-term.

Republicans ain't gonna be holding the office forever, you know. Demographics are on the side of Democrats - at least, it seems to be so at this point.

So, Democrats need to stay on the line that will give them more power long-term.

And by "long-term" I mean "4 years maximum", because Trump won by the eyebroves of EC idiosyncrasies even against the second most-unliked-person that has even run for POTUS that has depressed Democrat turnout by like 10% compared to Obama's one from 2008, with Trump only winning because he managed to only lose 1 million voters in the meantime and because his voters were better placed on the EC map.

Sure, you'll have to sacrifice the interests of Democrat people in Democrat states for the next 4 years... but in the future, you'll be able to help Democrat people in all states, both Democrat and Republican leaning. And you wouldn't have to go through the barrier of the state rights, potentially spending another good 4-8-more years trying to break through Republican deadlock in the Congress/Senate/House - which they're likely to maintain loooong after they'll lose the ability to make POTUS Republican because your election system is that fucking stupid.

This is how you actually sacrifice the "moral high ground" in a useful way - by thinking long-term and using your enemy's winning momentum against them.

[hector13]

As an addendum to the prison statistics thing: that was for all aliens, legal or otherwise. Other folk pointed that out I believe...

[Reelya]

We live in faster times, as they say. In the 1960's a Presidents sexual misconduct was public knowledge within years. By the 1990s, it was public knowledge during the Presidency. Now, it's public knowledge during the campaign.

EDIT Additionally, we've slipped from actors / movie stars to reality TV hosts. The next logical step is clearly a registered sex offender who stars in TV commercials. Jared Fogle 2024.

[Neonivek]

We live in faster times, as they say. In the 1960's a Presidents sexual misconduct was public knowledge within years. By the 1990s, it was public knowledge during the Presidency. Now, it's public knowledge during the campaign. So what's the logical next step? Just pick someone at random off the sex offenders registry and make them president. Jared Fogle 2024.

In all fairness Trump typically settles sexual assault cases out of court.

And my moral stance is to TRY not to hold accusations and things settled out of court against someone.

[miljan]

Civil war? Really? Guys, fellow Americans, for shame. Seriously, that's a fucking massive overreaction. Calm your fucking tits people. It's not the end of the world. That's the real fucking problem with the aftermath of this election, people fucking going off their rockers. Yes, the retarded bigots, "fundamentalists", uneducated racists, and homophobes thinking they have new license is fucking insane, but so are people literally crying, rioting, shutting down highways with protests and what have you. It's all fucking embarrassing, as a self-proclaimed moderate I fucking shake my head in disgust at how most people have reacted to this in one way or another.

Open your fucking eyes, give yourselves a hard slap. It's really fuck all. I want to fucking grab people by the collar tell them to get back to their meaningless existences. Donald Trump is hardly the first controversial president, and as of right now, he's not even the most extreme. Do I have to remind you oh-look-how-sweet-and-progressive-america-is idealists of the relocations and gradual genocide of the Native American peoples? How about American Imperialism? How about the Robber-Barons and the Gilded Age? How about large scale invasions, interventions, and meddling in the Middle East that have effectively radicalized an entire region and destroyed the only powers keeping those radical elements in check, all stemming from once wanting to get one over on the USSR?

AND ON THE OTHER END: Let's remind ourselves that Trump was not only the most liberal potential Republican candidate this year, but also that POTUS ain't shit. You have a Congress full of Far-left Socialists and Far-right Religious Extremists, one group that want's to turn the US into a welfare state and the other that wants to turn us into a christian nation of uneducated retards. Groups whose only redeeming qualities are not being hateful and being kinda okay with money, but not even really, respectfully. The President is the LEAST of the US's problems.

This isn't the 19th century. This isn't even the 20th century. Trump is morally reprehensible by the contemporary morals of his time. He is a self-admitted serial sexual molester.

Lol. A private conversation where they joke around means he is a self-admitted serial sexual molester? This is the problem with some of the media crap posted around and people swallowing it.

[Neonivek]

Ok... I thought the whole "Trump Support Torture" was a... well Trump Bashing

But nope apparently he endorses it and kind of wants to reinstitute it.

That was surprising. I definitely hope he doesn't get around to it.

Him wanting to abolish the Geneva Convention? That is kind of people looking to deep into it. He only suggested it is out of date, not that it is entirely wrong and the US should start using flamethrowers and landmines.

[milo christiansen]

Some of those treaties (I think the anti-landmine one, and certainly the anti-nonFMJ bullets one) were never actually signed by the USA, we generally follow them because we're nice guys, but we are not treaty bound to follow them.

[smjjames]

Ok... I thought the whole "Trump Support Torture" was a... well Trump Bashing

But nope apparently he endorses it and kind of wants to reinstitute it.

That was surprising. I definitely hope he doesn't get around to it.

Him wanting to abolish the Geneva Convention? That is kind of people looking to deep into it. He only suggested it is out of date, not that it is entirely wrong and the US should start using flamethrowers and landmines.

I haven't heard anything close to abolising or ripping up the Geneva Convention.

He has said he wants to bring back waterboarding (I think we signed something at some point we wouldn't do it and not everybody agrees on it being torture), but most of the 'Trump supports torture' stuff is likely coming from what he said in one of the primary debates that he would bring back worse forms of torture 'because we gotta be TOUGH' while giving zero specifics.

It's mainly a case of being extremely vague and allowing people to interpret the heck out of it.

[Reelya]

Actually, Bill Clinton was the one who rolled back landmine production, Bush brought them back. Some of you are nice guys.

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/arms/arms0805/

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Here's the problem - we're at a disadvantage if we don't stoop to their level. Is it worth having the moral high ground if you don't do anything? I really can't say, and I certainly won't say that the other side is just bullshit.

If you step down to their level in this simplistic manner, you win short-term, but lose long-term.

Republicans ain't gonna be holding the office forever, you know. Demographics are on the side of Democrats - at least, it seems to be so at this point.

So, Democrats need to stay on the line that will give them more power long-term.

And by "long-term" I mean "4 years maximum", because Trump won by the eyebroves of EC idiosyncrasies even against the second most-unliked-person that has even run for POTUS that has depressed Democrat turnout by like 10% compared to Obama's one from 2008, with Trump only winning because he managed to only lose 1 million voters in the meantime and because his voters were better placed on the EC map.

Sure, you'll have to sacrifice the interests of Democrat people in Democrat states for the next 4 years... but in the future, you'll be able to help Democrat people in all states, both Democrat and Republican leaning. And you wouldn't have to go through the barrier of the state rights, potentially spending another good 4-8-more years trying to break through Republican deadlock in the Congress/Senate/House - which they're likely to maintain loooong after they'll lose the ability to make POTUS Republican because your election system is that fucking stupid.

This is how you actually sacrifice the "moral high ground" in a useful way - by thinking long-term and using your enemy's winning momentum against them.

Ah, I see. You're not just supporting it because it's moral, you're supporting it because it's a good long-term plan. I can get behind that.

[WealthyRadish]

He has said he wants to bring back waterboarding (I think we signed something at some point we wouldn't do it and not everybody agrees on it being torture), but most of the 'Trump supports torture' stuff is likely coming from what he said in one of the primary debates that he would bring back worse forms of torture 'because we gotta be TOUGH' while giving zero specifics.

It's mainly a case of being extremely vague and allowing people to interpret the heck out of it.

Seems pretty clear to me.

He's even explicitly saying that his claims are deliberately clear so as to not be vague on the issue. To dismiss him as being vague is diametrically opposite of the truth and exactly how this shitshow got rolling.

Christ, I'm sounding like mainiac.

[Reelya]

Don't forget that Trump's voter turnout was actually pretty low.

Going back to basics sounds like it's going to get more votes than trying to trail along behind Trumpism.

[Lord Shonus]

Some of those treaties (I think the anti-landmine one, and certainly the anti-nonFMJ bullets one) were never actually signed by the USA, we generally follow them because we're nice guys, but we are not treaty bound to follow them.

Not quite correct. The US is a signatory to the Hague conventions that restrict ammunition designed to inflict "undue suffering", which has generally been held to prohibit military use of hollow-point or other forms of fragmenting ammunition. The US is not a signatory to the landmine ban, partly due to treaty commitments with South Korea that require the US to keep the DMZ minefields up to strength and partly because Obama was trying to push through a ban an all kinds of mines instead of one that affects only antipersonnel devices. The US is also not a party to the prohibition against cluster bombs, although the US military is reconfiguring forces to comply with it anyway. As for flamethrowers, there are no treaties of any kind prohibiting them, with the sole limitation on incendiary weapons being that they can't be used against targets encysted within civilian areas or against otherwise allowed civilian infrastructure targets (these would be things like cell towers, radio stations, expressways, and other nominally civilian installations that are also important enough militarily to be legitimate targets of war).

Treaty restrictions are often thought to be much more stringent than they actually are. Even Marine Corps instructors will repeat the old fable that using .50 caliber or larger weaponry on personnel is a violation, even though the source of that myth was nothing more than a prohibition on a specific weapon for tactical reasons. Or, at least, I know Marines that claim to have been told that in training, although it is possible they're trying to pull my leg.

[Neonivek]

Ok... I thought the whole "Trump Support Torture" was a... well Trump Bashing

But nope apparently he endorses it and kind of wants to reinstitute it.

That was surprising. I definitely hope he doesn't get around to it.

Him wanting to abolish the Geneva Convention? That is kind of people looking to deep into it. He only suggested it is out of date, not that it is entirely wrong and the US should start using flamethrowers and landmines.

I haven't heard anything close to abolising or ripping up the Geneva Convention.

He has said he wants to bring back waterboarding (I think we signed something at some point we wouldn't do it and not everybody agrees on it being torture), but most of the 'Trump supports torture' stuff is likely coming from what he said in one of the primary debates that he would bring back worse forms of torture 'because we gotta be TOUGH' while giving zero specifics.

It's mainly a case of being extremely vague and allowing people to interpret the heck out of it.

He didn't say Waterboarding...

He said "Enhanced interrogation tactics" AKA Torture.

It includes a lot more then just Waterboarding (which is a form of torture)... Such as pretending to execute the prisoner (also against the Geneva Convention).

And given Waterboarding tricks your system into thinking you are drowning... The defense of it is along the lines of "It doesn't leave a mark".

[Reelya]

Well Trump put a leading climate skeptic in charge of environment. Ebell. The guy's history is as a big tobacco lobbyist. This is actually extremely common: many of the "tobacco doesn't cause cancer" people became the climate skeptics lobby after the big losses by the tobacco industry. So basically you have a soulless corporate shill right there who'd put radium in baby's milk formula if you paid him enough.