The Biden Administration and All Things Politics
- Thread starter Avery
- Start date
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Change the rules to strip half the country of its voice. Climb atop a steel building or sit outside a fence to assassinate their candidate. You make it sound not only justified but noble.
There aren’t two fundamental political realities. There are two works of mostly fiction. Both are like the movie Forrest Gump. There are portrayals of real events used as scaffolding for the story but it is a work of fiction. It is deeply concerning to see how many have seemingly lost the ability to tell the difference between what is real and what is being contrived.
- There is no authoritarian on the ballot
- American Fascism isn’t coming
- Christian Nationalism is not a force in 2024
- Trump did not try to overthrow the government or prevent a peaceful transfer of power
- The election isn’t that important
Bucknutz
Well-Known Member
Okay 2 things.
1. The question was asked to me "Why am I anti-Kamala?"
My response was 1. Speech Regulation and 2. Mandatory Gun buybacks
This is because both of these ideas are chipping away from our rights and are terrible ideas, I mean terrible ideas. Speech regulation is the worst idea anyone can propose. Even posters on this forum are trying to get behind it, almost exclusively people on the left. Its a short sighted view on the topic and MT Steve is doing a great job explaining why.
2. I called Kamala a far left extremist, not because of those 2 things but because of:
1. Open Border policies
2. Pack the Supreme Court because you don't like what they have decided. You blame Trump for this, but it is a Democrat who did not step down when age and health was a concern and gave Trump a 3rd pick
3. Remove the Filibuster
And more. I have videos and articles with her and her views on these topics, but I have realized that YOU and many other posters do not watch or read the provided media to support my views or show the point Im trying to make. It has bacame very obvious that most posters here really just want to argue, play gotcha or just not really want to look at something that is opposite of their view. I have also noticed many posters can't even process the argument the other person is making. No critical thinking, no effort, no real responses; just make fun of the other, call them a troll, or shame them.
Bucknutz
Well-Known Member
Show me a video with him in public, not 3rd party hearsay, that displays him stating he wants to regulate speech, throw democrats in a reeducation camp, jail people for misinformation or even jail someone who "simply criticizes him". The first thing I will do is I will say I am anti-Trump for his view on this topic. Again, still not voting for him either way.
You never addressed my post. Just changed it to Trump. If you're ok with what Kamala, Tim, Hillary, posters on this Forum and other people on the left to regulate speech, then you should be happy Trump would want to jail people who criticize him. Those are the same ideas coming from Kamala, Tim and Hillary.
I am the opposite of this. I think its a truly short sighted view on the 1st amendment. People not seeing or realizing what would come if that happens.
TheStormofWar
Well-Known Member
Nah mate, it does. A specific, targeted tariff can be useful for a variety of reason. Blanket tariffs, like what Trump wants, do not work. That **** has been tried and tried again and all it does it manufacture economic problems. What you take from that is up you to, but when you are using a video of a Trump surrogate trying to thinking we should tariff everything that comes into the US? Yeah, you tell me.
Sardines
Well-Known Member
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I've searched repeatedly and don't get anything on mandatory gun buy-backs. In the debate the moderator pointed out that that was not Harris' position and she said, we're not taking anyone's guns away, and wishes they would stop lying about it. Presumably Trump and his supporters, that is. Here is an article about it as well. There are many more. The only ones I can find with anything about mandatory are from Trump himself, his direct retinue, and the NRA. Am I missing something?
Why Kamala Harris is highlighting her gun ownership
The Democratic nominee for president has joked that anyone who breaks into her house is "getting shot".
www.bbc.com
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Yeah, not racist at all...oh and #notacult.
Red
Well-Known Member
I’m reasonably sure you would have supported King George III, at the time. You would have made a good Loyalist…..
“Climb atop a steel building or sit outside a fence to assassinate their candidate. You make it sound not only justified but noble” When did I approve of assassination attempts?? When did I make assassinations justified and noble? You are here lying.
You’re a LIAR.
If you don’t think Trump attempted to prevent a peaceful transfer of power, then you’re in that alternative reality, ready made for the Post Truth era and our history texts if Trump returns and has his way.
I see absolutely nothing to be gained in supporting a candidate and party that is divorced from the real world, adheres to a fake description of recent history, is eager to see Trump act as their “retribution”, and essentially move into the future on the basis of a narrative that has no basis in the real world. You can stay with the Loyalists and King George III.
If that phony, really bald face lying history, lying narrative, blaming others for his own actions and misdeeds, if that’s your position and what you want to see it unfold in our future, well, I might assume there’s something deeply, deeply wrong with you.
Sorry, but there is no reason whatsoever, to think you have anything at all to offer or add to this subject. Not when you’re right here arguing for the Lie.
One more thing: I get a kick out of your effort to label me as someone has predicted certain outcomes, which you enumerated. When I have repeatedly emphasized those very elements are a part of our present moment, and it is entirely appropriate to raise them as subjects of present interest, and not once posed as: “This is going to happen! I am predicting this. You heard it here first”. What you continue to fail to understand is that folks like myself, who thrive where ideas are thrown around, all day sometimes, find such subjects appropriate for discussion within the whole broad subject of what is happening in America in the present moment.
It is 100% appropriate to see context, esp. historical context, when trying to understand the present moment. It’s called social science, and I love using the tools of social science. Take your suggestion, implied, that I knock off doing that, and put it where the sun don’t shine. That’s where it belongs. You don’t have to like that suggested context, but if you think you can stand in my way with such an asinine post as the one I’m replying to, good luck! I don’t answer to you!
Things like Christian nationalism, while knowing full well that nationalism has been the principle cause of modern warfare since the late 19th century. Things like we may be experiencing an epidemic of Dunning-Kruger, largely a result of the internet and social media, I believe. This too is an element in our present moment, and has resulted in tons of misguided misinformation.
I could go on and on, but this is my main gripe: I don’t care in the least if you disagree with everything I have ever said. But, you are misrepresenting me when you claim I am insisting everything I believe we should be aware of, IN ORDER TO BETTER UNDERSTAND OUR PRESENT MOMENT, will result in the worst outcome we could imagine! I’m simply looking for the elements feeding into our present moment.
And that, sir, is a GOOD thing. It’s a HELPFUL thing.
Because, you basically are telling me that I should not raise issues that might better help us understand how we got to where we are. You are telling me that it is wrong for me to add context. To add historical context. To look for nuance. You’re telling me all that is wrong!
I’m only trying to help people understand better how we got here, and elements that are in play in our present moment. Again, you continue to broadcast the impression that you despise learning, by essentially saying: “stop adding your educated opinions. I don’t like it!”. Well, who cares what you like or dislike?
I will use my education to add anything I want to this subject, if I believe it offers some insight. But I cannot, and have not, used a crystal ball, or psychic abilities I lack, to know how the elements I’ve mentioned in these threads will play out in the future. And you really ought to stop claiming that that is exactly what I am doing.
You lied about what I said, and you’re lying in your response. Misrepresenting me entirely, because it suits you. That’s entirely on you, you cannot handle context and nuanced looks.
Last edited:
Bucknutz
Well-Known Member
I've searched repeatedly and don't get anything on mandatory gun buy-backs. In the debate the moderator pointed out that that was not Harris' position and she said, we're not taking anyone's guns away, and wishes they would stop lying about it. Presumably Trump and his supporters, that is. Here is an article about it as well. There are many more. The only ones I can find with anything about mandatory are from Trump himself, his direct retinue, and the NRA. Am I missing something?
Why Kamala Harris is highlighting her gun ownership
The Democratic nominee for president has joked that anyone who breaks into her house is "getting shot".
View: https://x.com/kelly4humanity/status/1833914431887343708?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ
Bucknutz
Well-Known Member
I will Venmo someone on the left $20, that will watch this clip and confirm to Stormofwar that this Trump surrogate didn’t not state that a blanket tariffs are a good thing and how to use them.
Just watch and report the details of this clip from the surrogate. What he actually said. I don’t want anyone from the right, so there is no bias. I will Venmo immediately after the report is posted.
View: https://x.com/squawkcnbc/status/1835712983713898609?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ
I need info about what car manufacturers, what countries, if it makes sense to tariff everything or use it a different way. Also a let me know if this surrogate is for a blanket 20% on everything or use it strategicly.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Before or after the debate? Everything I can find published about this talks about optional buy-backs, and she denied it in the debate. That is the standard Trump followers are using for things like Plan 2025, saying that he denied it and published a different plan so we should ignore that 2025 thing. Same thing would apply here, right?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I will do it, although I do not consider myself as being on the left, per se, and I don't have time right now, but give me a bit and I will go through it.
Sardines
Well-Known Member
She one time said she supported mandatory gun buy-backs. So now she can never change her mind on that. Granted she has probably "changed her mind" because analytics tell her it improves her chances of election.
It's a boogeyman. Even if mandatory gun buy-backs was the no. 1 most important thing to her administration it would never happen. Too many Democrat representatives would oppose it, along with pretty much all Republican representatives. It is a complete non-starter.
Bucknutz
Well-Known Member
This is her before the debate, her own words in an interview, which the host asks “how mandatory” and she responds “mandatory”.
I don’t know how more clear she can be on this topic. The right is not lying about this, this is her in her own words.
Again why are you changing the subject to Trump. This is a Kamala and her beliefs.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
First you need to tell me how she is going to regulate free speech. What is going to look like?
What if it looks like this: someone posts your address on Twitter and says you are a pedophile. A person shows up to your house and kills your family. The government makes Twitter pay you money for that happening to you.
A girl posts a picture of herself on Instagram showing her new braces. Another poster responds with you look so ugly and stupid and I think you should kill yourself. The government tells Instagram to post a link to the suicide prevention hotline.
The FBI determines that Putin is using an account to post things to intentionally hurt the United States of America. The government tells them social media company about this evidence and asks then to ban the account.
As for trump: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...interview-jail-political-opponents-glenn-beck
Beck said: “Do you regret not locking [Clinton] up? And if you’re president again, will you lock people up?”
Trump said: “The answer is you have no choice, because they’re doing it to us.”
Trump literally already tried to withhold money from Ukraine to force Ukraine to try to dig up dirt on Biden.
Over the past two weeks, former President Donald Trump has become increasingly explicit in describing plans to use the Department of Justice to prosecute scores of people he has declared corrupt, if he wins in November.
Legal experts said Trump will face obstacles. Judges, prosecutors and juries, for example, could decline to try or convict people if there is scant evidence they committed a crime.
But the experts also said the Supreme Court’s recent immunity decision gives a president the power to order the attorney general to indict any individuals they wish without facing legal consequences themselves.
“Trump has enormous power if he really wants to do it,” said Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School. “There would be almost no stopping him from obtaining an indictment.”
Last Tuesday, Trump released a book in which he threatened to jail Mark Zuckerberg. Without citing evidence, he accused the Facebook founder of trying to sway the 2020 election and warned he would do so again in 2024.
(That sounds kind of like censoring free speech/social media!!!)
At a Saturday rally, Trump vowed to crack down on corruption in health agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, again without citing evidence.
Last month, after the Democratic National Convention, Trump reposted artificial intelligence-generated images of his enemies — including Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates — in orange jumpsuits with the caption: “HOW TO ACTUALLY ‘FIX THE SYSTEM.’”
Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
TheStormofWar
Well-Known Member
Have a nice day. And, ah, for the record, Trump nuts all his surrogates in this way. It would not be good, no matter how anyone paints it.
Last edited: