US 2024 Presidential Election

[Silvanus]

And the other multiple times? You really are allergic to being honest, aren't you?

Sure, you did say it was bad a couple of times in the subsequent conversation, when challenged.

But i'm not claiming you never did. I'm saying that when you argue the killer could have been on the defensive, or that the liar could have been truthful, you're minimising it, i suspect intentionally. It was not defensive. She lied. You've spent far more time minimising the killing and lying than you have on anything else, all resting on the most pointless semantic quibbling. It shows where your priority is: not accuracy, and certainly not justice or respect for life; just playing defence for the administration that slandered the victim.

 

[tstorm823]

I'm saying that when you argue the killer could have been on the defensive, or that the liar could have been truthful, you're minimising it, i suspect intentionally.

I said he wasn't justified if he thought he was being defensive, and I never remotely argued she was being truthful. Maybe if I did the thing you're saying, your criticism would be valid.

 

[Satinavian]

The argument is that he drew the weapon before he even walked in front of the car.

 

[Agema]

Lol.

Yes indeed, like many professions, civil servants have standards. These include an ethical requirement and contractual obligation to be impartial. Some will fail, many will be imperfect. As said, it's interesting you hypocritically stick up for ICE, but casually condemn civil servants. If you want to sling around accusations, the burden of evidence lies with you.

To summarize, ideology is a meaningless term and neutral is whatever Democrats want. Is that really what you're going with?

Imagine an empire has an ideology of domination. One advisor proposes reducing dissent in a conquered provice by good treatment, and another advisor by brutally oppression to force obedience. These tactics are not just different but contradictory. Yet they are intended to serve the same aim under the same ideology.

So you should be able to understand how ideologies can exist with differing subsidiary ideals, and differing tactics and strategies. But as you evidently don't have an answer, you've gone into the pissy cheap fraud bullshit phase again.

 

[Silvanus]

I said he wasn't justified if he thought he was being defensive,

Uh-huh. While saying he could have thought he was acting defensively.

Which fits what i described as your pattern of minimisation: you're unwilling to acknowledge the intent behind shooting an unarmed prone man in the back 10 times.

Meanwhile, you're happy to assume criminality of other people for whom there is no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever.

and I never remotely argued she was being truthful.

You say here it is "technically true information", and argue the dishonesty is in ambiguity, not untruthfulness.

 

[tstorm823]

Yes indeed, like many professions, civil servants have standards. These include an ethical requirement and contractual obligation to be impartial. Some will fail, many will be imperfect. As said, it's interesting you hypocritically stick up for ICE, but casually condemn civil servants. If you want to sling around accusations, the burden of evidence lies with you.

Do you recall Trump's first term at all? The time the guy tasked with investigating Trump's connections to Russia, based on manufactured evidence, was fired because it leaked that he had texted his illicit lover (on their work phones) that they'd stop him from being president.

You don't care for anecdote, let's look at data:

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=W03

If you go down far enough, there is a chart of total spending by party, and this is data for civil servants and public officials nationally, not only in DC. The most noticeable thing going on is the rapid rise in donations, cause the times are certainly changing. In total, since the first Obama campaign, with a single off year exception, has been at least 2:1 Democrats, with the last 3 general elections in the 75-80% territory.

But that is taking a bunch of data and putting it together. If your hypothetical studies suggesting "modest lean" for Democrats have any basis, it's guaranteed to be in taking a wide variety of careers and squishing them down to one thing. If you scroll up to the top, there's smaller divisions than just al civil servants. There's a line for the Postal Service, donations are in the 60:40 D to R range. However, that's not going to be a DC thing, postal workers, even higher ranking, are distributed across the country. The Department of Justice and Veterans Affairs are also in that range of "modest lean" Democrats, but those are A) things you would associate with conservatives, and B) also distributed broadly nationally by their nature. NASA is another one in the 75:25 range, but is also another one where a ton of the workforce is in red states. It's not in the list of biggest contributors, but I suspect Department of Defense would look similar to these.

If you look instead at departments that are concentrated in DC:
Department of State: 85:15
Department of Health and Human Services: 90:10
Department of Energy: 90:10
Housing and Urban Development: 95:5
Agriculture: 85:15
Commerce: 90:10
Environmental Protection: 98:2
Treasury: 90:10

So yeah, the federal workforce in DC leans Democrat 90:10. It's not about throwing people under the bus, it's not about accusing people at large of ethical violations, it's about the risk of posed by having all the federal regulatory agencies populated by a bubble that isn't representative of the country they're meant to serve. Even if Trump's appointments are shameless partisan hacks, the gain of bursting that bubble is more important than any damage an individual can do. Republicans wanting to break that monopoly is not some excuse to insert Trump loyalists and make a dictatorship, it's a serious and longstanding point.

So you should be able to understand how ideologies can exist with differing subsidiary ideals, and differing tactics and strategies. But as you evidently don't have an answer, you've gone into the pissy cheap fraud bullshit phase again.

Ok, then what does "deeply ideological" mean to you? You can't have it both ways, you cannot in one breath condemn a work as being deeply ideological, and then in another breath say that ideology can contain a number of different ideals and tactics. Either "deeply ideological" is a serious problematic concept, or it's just a description of something written by people who happen to agree on some things, it can't be both.

 

[Agema]

If you go down far enough, there is a chart of total spending by party, and this is data for civil servants and public officials nationally, not only in DC. The most noticeable thing going on is the rapid rise in donations, cause the times are certainly changing. In total, since the first Obama campaign, with a single off year exception, has been at least 2:1 Democrats, with the last 3 general elections in the 75-80% territory.

Sure, 2:1.

What you think might stand out about the last three elections that may make them relatively unrepresentative?

Do you think maybe one of the presidential candidates since 2016 may have had characteristics that motivated civil servants? Something like a reputation for fraud, corruption, venality, inexperience/incompetence and more latterly an overt hostility to and intent to fire huge numbers of civil servants?

Of course, that also goes more generally. Maybe the US right has put its own off joining the civil service. "The civil service is a bloated, malign, corrupt swamp that crushes the freedoms of ordinary Americans" isn't a good selling pitch to encourage their supporters into a public sector career.

Even if Trump's appointments are shameless partisan hacks, the gain of bursting that bubble is more important than any damage an individual can do.

Sure, treated with care and attention, investigation and if necessary correction of a potential left-leaning "bubble" might be a valid goal.

Except that's not Project 2025, is it? Maybe you need to go read it yourself. The intent is not to burst a bubble (that it hasn't even proven exists), it's to build a new, long-enduring, conservative bubble.

And it's not just taking a long, hard look at the civil service, is it? It's rigging the judiciary, and methodically assaulting the left everywhere - education, media, tech, etc. We've seen this before in every authoritarian government. Your authoritarian president and his authoritarian cronies don't merit any trust, and we should view their attempts to evade scrutiny and strong-arm, oppress and destroy opposition for the threat that it is.

 

[BrawlMan]

Lots of news to cover on the Trump cult.
​

 

[Hades]

Generally speaking if civil servants, judges or any institutions really were partisan to the Democrats than Trump would have been jailed or at least kicked off the ballot years ago. The extreme hesitation, the courtesies granted him due to his aristocratic status, and placing the court date for his insurrection only after the election all imply a great deal of hesitation and self censorship to desperately appear neutral, and in turn leads into compliance with the forces they allegedly oppose.

We can see this in general with most agencies. They de facto favor the right out of a desperation not to seem left wing. Which seems a failing strategy considering the right is still insisting institutions of all stripes are conspiring against them, and their ideological allies are getting a bit bitter.

 

[tstorm823]

Sure, 2:1.

Overall, until you consider who is actually specifically in DC, and then the number goes way up.

Open Secrets has data by department back to 2012 broken down, you can't blame Trump for Housing and Urban Development going 10:1 for Obama, or Health and Human Services going 5:1 for Obama. It might have a bit more to do with Lyndon Johnson creating multiple departments and then growing the federal workforce by almost 20 percent to fill them all at once, creating a monolithic culture centered on Great Society programs that Republicans have been trying to fix for the last half century....

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Depends on the law agencies I suppose. In general law enforcement people do not act like that. In France, Germany, the UK, Japan, Switzerland or Swahili law enforcement probably aren't looking to deliberately kill people.

In America specifically its a bit more murky. I can understand the idea that everyone a cop could talk with potentially being able to have a gun that can kill them is intensely frightening. Which seems an argument not to have the public have them but whatever. If officers are trapped in perpetual lethal environments then one flying off the handle can indeed be an unfortunate result without anyone having any ill will about the situation. However there have been cases where police brutality in the US goes beyond this explanation and where bad faith seems to exist. Like sitting on a handcuffed man's neck for minutes long till he dies from it. Or firing if someone's hands are up.

But ICE in particular? I'm not even giving them that benefit of the doubt. With how their ranks got filled with any far right loon the agency got it hands on, and how they are gleefully in near war with the public its dubious to even compare them with actual law enforcement. Whether they deliberately set out to murder people depends on the officer I suppose, but in general they seem motivated by resentment, the idea that brown people are animals, and that the public should ''find out if they fuck around!''

Yes, people in all positions of power get drunk on power whether police, politicians, or your manager at work. Essentially no human beings (outside like serial killers) in the world actually want to kill anyone. Police that abuse their power create situations that are more likely to become violent for sure but them actually wanting violence to happen is really not a thing. Law enforcement is a very unique job where you are essentially on edge the whole shift as anything routine can turn deadly at the flip of a coin, you can't train for that and that takes a mental toll on anyone. The military is even very different as most of your time spent is not on edge, military overall is more dangerous but not in the daily moment-to-moment.

The ICE agent in the Renee Good shooting has been with ICE for 10 years iirc.

I do indeed think that the chance to brutalize some brown people, and maybe leftists to boot, as well as supporting far right ideology was a bigger motivator then any particular love for the law. And the fact that traitors from Jan 6 can be found in their ranks does little to prove otherwise.

I do not think they care about ''keeping America safe'' beyond the absurd idea that brown people are animals who need to be contained and who are always violent and in the US to rape and murder, rather than to just do thankless work for well below minimum wage. And while they might not (usually) strive to murder they likely are deliberately escalating the situation, and are gleeful to use force when they can do so. Its worth pointing out that none of the ICE killers seemed to feel remotely guilty about what had happened.

This is simply not anywhere close to true, literally no one in America thinks that. People may think that there's a significant amount (which does not mean majority) of immigrants that commit crimes. You think anyone is actually fearful of going to a Mexican restaurant in the US? You're crazy if you think that. The statement you made just shows how skewed your perception of reality is. In predominantly white neighborhoods even, there's a Mexican restaurant on like every corner; if people were as racist as you think they are, these restaurants wouldn't be able to stay in business. I really don't understand how Taco Bell exists because why go there when there's likely a real Mexican restaurant in walking distance. From my place, there is a Taco Bell less than a mile away, but there's a Fat Burrito even closer than that. Why would I ever go to Taco Bell for worse food that's less convenient?

If you don't partake in illegal activities, you have a rather low chance of engaging with any criminal (outside of like unknowingly walking by them in a store), whether immigrant or citizen. Sure the right overestimates the amount of immigrants that are criminals but the left underestimates that as well.

That's doubtful since the US already had every tool in the toolbox to prevent that country from getting access. Not that such a thing should even be up to America. They don't own the area, and are given extensive privelages because they are allied with the country that does, which they apparently were supremely ungrateful for.

If it really was about keeping the Russians out the US would merely have asked ''hey dudes can we expand our base in Greenland as you already agreed with?'' And then Denmark would say ''ja, det var aftalen'' and we'd all get on with out frigin day. But somehow that wasn't allowed to be the case and instead the filth started to talk about stealing the region.

Not to mention that the Russian navy can't even win a naval war against an enemy without a navy. So what is the US so frantic about?

Do you know what else was doubtful and never gonna happen? The US invading Greenland...

I don't accept your appeal to authority. You made a claim, either back it up with facts, statistics, specific examples, or fuck off. An interview where a man doesn't give any specific evidence is not evidence.

He's not saying XYZ happened because he's the authority, he's says it because he documented it. You can say same about this very article here, a journalist document said things and you can choose not to believe it as well.

U.S. Citizens Illegally Detained by Los Angeles Authorities Due to Secure Communities Program Errors - ACLU of Socal

A coalition of civil rights groups today offered evidence that United States citizens have been illegally detained, sometimes for many days, due to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “holds” placed on them after these men and women were erroneously flagged as deportable. The U.S. citizens...

www.aclusocal.org

 

[BrawlMan]

I don't believe West and he can still fuck off. Enjoying being the Klansman and Trump's whipping boy, ya biatch. I will never forgive you.

​

 

[Hades]

This is simply not anywhere close to true, literally no one in America thinks that. People may think that there's a significant amount (which does not mean majority) of immigrants that commit crimes. You think anyone is actually fearful of going to a Mexican restaurant in the US? You're crazy if you think that. The statement you made just shows how skewed your perception of reality is. In predominantly white neighborhoods even, there's a Mexican restaurant on like every corner; if people were as racist as you think they are, these restaurants wouldn't be able to stay in business. I really don't understand how Taco Bell exists because why go there when there's likely a real Mexican restaurant in walking distance. From my place, there is a Taco Bell less than a mile away, but there's a Fat Burrito even closer than that. Why would I ever go to Taco Bell for worse food that's less convenient?

If you don't partake in illegal activities, you have a rather low chance of engaging with any criminal (outside of like unknowingly walking by them in a store), whether immigrant or citizen. Sure the right overestimates the amount of immigrants that are criminals but the left underestimates that as well.

I think you might want to examine your party's rhetoric. How did El presidente start his presidential career again? They bring crime, they bring drug, they're rapist and some he merely assumes are good people. The bad intentions and inherent depravity of illegal migrants being front line and center, and the idea that some might be decent people merely a theoretic possibility.

And what does ICE always say? That they're keeping America safe? But safe from what? From crime, from drugs, from rape? So why don't they hyper focus on those illegal migrants rather than go on a violent wild arrest spree of those that might they assume be theoretically good people?

Illegal migration is largely an economic issue, but ICE frames it as a safety issue and that says exactly how they view illegal migrants. Not as people keeping their head down and working for absolute peanuts, but as thieves, murderers and rapists.

Yes, people in all positions of power get drunk on power whether police, politicians, or your manager at work. Essentially no human beings (outside like serial killers) in the world actually want to kill anyone. Police that abuse their power create situations that are more likely to become violent for sure but them actually wanting violence to happen is really not a thing. Law enforcement is a very unique job where you are essentially on edge the whole shift as anything routine can turn deadly at the flip of a coin, you can't train for that and that takes a mental toll on anyone. The military is even very different as most of your time spent is not on edge, military overall is more dangerous but not in the daily moment-to-moment.

And perhaps this process being rampant throughout ICE causes ICE itself no small amount of trouble. Police people don't inherently have a seething hatred for the people they are supposed to police either. It happens, but its not supposed to be the case. With ICE that's different. With how thoroughly intertwined they are with Trump you can't say they hold leftists and migrants in anything other than the lowest regard, and as you can see that causes a lot of problems and resentment that could have been skipped over had actual law enforcement been there instead of ICE.

Do you know what else was doubtful and never gonna happen? The US invading Greenland...

Then perhaps the treasonous rats shouldn't have fetishished themselves doing just that while putting tarrifs on people saying Greenland shouldn't be stolen by a bunch of ingrates.

 

[Chimpzy]

WATCH: 'You can't have guns. You can't walk in with guns,' Trump says of Alex Pretti killing

The president's remarks reiterates a talking point from the administration that Pretti should not have brought a legally carried handgun to the scene — a position that has infuriated gun rights advocates.

www.pbs.org

 

[Hades]

So to why people would even bother protesting ICE rather than letting them do their job. Probably because when ICE seizes children they end up here

ICE Accused of Sexually Torturing Migrants at Former WWII Camp Fort Bliss, Among 80+ Reported Violations

Reports allege that ICE has committed over 80 human rights violations at Fort Bliss, Texas, including physical and sexual abuse, denial of basic needs, and restricted legal access, prompting calls from activists to close the facility.

www.ibtimes.co.uk

Immigrant Children Lead Uprising at Texas Detention Center

The immigrant jail, where many children are detained, has "horrible" conditions, including "putrid" drinking water.

truthout.org

 

[Schadrach]

The argument is that he drew the weapon before he even walked in front of the car.

Part of me suspects that as ICE malevolence ratchets up with less and less care for what might be hypothetically justifiable, we're eventually going to reach the point where the final form of unitary executive theory gets invoked - all executive power is invested in POTUS, therefore all executive employees have power because it is derived from and delegated by POTUS, and thus any action by any executive branch employee that is approved of by POTUS shares the immunities SCOTUS invented to keep Trump out of prison. I half expect this to be an actual legal argument made in an actual court before we have a non-MAGA president again (I don't promise the one thing that eventually comes to all of us won't reach Trump first).

Lots of news to cover on the Trump cult.
​

Damn it, I hate having to occasionally agree with MTG on something, even if it's just part of a tweet. At least she's gradually understanding what's happening, even if she's painfully slow. Don't think anyone elected her for being quick on the uptake, and if they did they've been sorely disappointed.
​

 

[BrawlMan]

Damn it, I hate having to occasionally agree with MTG on something, even if it's just part of a tweet. At least she's gradually understanding what's happening, even if she's painfully slow. Don't think anyone elected her for being quick on the uptake, and if they did they've been sorely disappointed.

She can still go to hell and fuck off. Along the people who put her in charge and put her in power.

 

[Agema]

It might have a bit more to do with Lyndon Johnson creating multiple departments and then growing the federal workforce by almost 20 percent to fill them all at once, creating a monolithic culture centered on Great Society programs that Republicans have been trying to fix for the last half century...

The problem with obsessions, like you have over LBJ, is they mostly just end up making you look stupid.

I really do think that it's far more likely that more Democrats work for government because they tend to believe in the government more. Like education and healthcare tend to lean left, and the military and law enforcement lean right.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The dishonesty is quite certainly implied and ambiguous.

Y'know what? Let's pick this apart.

What we saw, on video, from multiple viewpoints, was Pretti being tackled to the ground while holding a phone in one hand and nothing in the other. We saw an ICE agent take his holstered gun, and then- AFTER THAT- he was shot multiple times.

Trump's administration declared that Pretti "aggressively" approached the ICE agents and would not surrender his gun, and that he was shot "defensively".

That could not be more diametrically opposed to the truth. Not at all. It is an utter, blatant lie, telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes. But you want to call it "implied and ambiguous" just to score points.

And no, I did not delight in this, you piece of filth.

 

[Hades]

So am I correct in the assumption that despite all the chaos, bloodshed and misery that Trump's second term is so far a large failure. Perhaps not for them personally since they seem to be doing fine enriching themselves, but all the crown jewels of their policy seem to be failing.

-You had DOGE and letting that freak Elon gut the government. It was highly controversial, resulted in the US losing tons and tons of experienced personal and did't seem to have saved money at all.
-In regards to Greenland Trump had to backtrack due to mutiny in his own ranks, and economic pressure from Europe. Meanwhile his allies seem near permanently alienated because of this bizarre foreign policy stance.
-In Minnesota his migration policy was controversial, lethal and resulted in him having to make a tactical retreat. More importantly he's losing trust with voters on this issue, which is concerning since its very much his main issue.
-Still no peace in Ukraine, and every attempt runs in the trouble of it highly favoring the Russians and thus not being tenable. Meanwhile so openly promoted the Russian side alienates America's allies.
-Tarrifs are bad for the economy as everyone already predicted they would be.

The peace in Gaza and the kidnapping of Maduro seem the lone successes, and even in Gaza it seems more the illusion of a success.

Not that it entirely matters. The whole point of Trump's presidency is to curtail democracy and enrich himself, and he might very well succeed in both of those. But what practical use is perpetual Republican rule if its also perpetually inept?