Backtracking, Student Loans, Mar-a-Lago, and the Republican party

[Deleted member 586536]

This is going to contain multiple sources, as it all runs with the themes of backtracking.


Dobbs decision making currently running candidates hide their pro life stance

As many already know, most Americans are pro choice. And as a result of the Republican party's unpopular rhetoric and policies. (wanting to make pro life federal. Wanting to ban contraceptives and gay marriage) They have been doing worse than they should be for a supposed "red wave"
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/?cid=rrpromo

At the start before roe v wade/dobs decision, democrats chances of winning the house was effectively zero. at 14 out of 100. While a near guaranteed chance for republicans to win. Now democrats odds are almost double of that. Which from all previous election data, shouldn't even be happening. It's a year where the sitting president is a democrat (what tends to happen is that on off years, the opposing party wins the house or senate) Republicans this year should have it in the bag. (due to biden's approval rating being awful)
However if we get more Alaska type senarios, places that NOBODY expected to go blue,And unexpected higher turnout.
https://www.politico.com/2022-election/results/alaska/august-16-special-election/
Republicans could be in a nasty surprise (though I'm still betting on Republicans winning this year. It's just by how much they would win would be substantially reduced, however if it gets even close to a 46% chance. That could really easily lead to an unexpected upset)

However it's recently become obvious that even they realized saying that they are "pro life" is an extreme turn off to voters. (I usually don't link this source, however, in this case the evidence is easily verifiable as it's talking about is online websites)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-scrub-abortion-website_n_630fc1f2e4b088f7423a0646
Basically, currently running GOP candidates are scrubbing their websites of anything that talks about being pro life. And changing the subject to "late abortions" And it's multiple pro life candidates in several races. Not just a singular one.

Which the fact that they changed their tune so suddenly and abruptly, means possibly (either one or the other, or both) two things.
1. they realized their position is unpopular
2. They are now hiding the fact that it's their position, given the abrupt suddenness and change of subject. To try to hide their previously untenable stance. As if you were to ask doctors, they would tell you that late stage abortions don't happen commonly, and is the exception (as such a process comes with substantial risk. Meaning that a particular problem/risk needs to be more problematic and life threatening than a late stage abortion for doctors to willingly do it)



Speaking of untenable stances.

Gop taxing student loan debt forgiveness, and looking to block it via a lawsuit
GOP also wants to block student loan debt forgiveness. I wonder what happened to being against big business (paid collages count. It is a business after all)
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/07/republicans-may-try-to-block-student-loan-forgiveness.html
tl;dr some of them were thinking of trying to stop it with a lawsuit, and hoping that it would pause it, or delay Biden's actions. Others however, have decided a more nasty approach
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...tax-student-loan-debt-forgiven-by-bidens-plan
They choose to tax student loan forgiveness. I wonder what happened to not being big government, and taxes are theft? Because to me that's actually just straight up theft. Just some funny hypocrisy right there. a government, is still a government. Even if it's a government within another government.

(god this is ancient)
One last thing.

Mar-a-Lago back tracking


I figured I should also mention this. We've moved from the evidence being planted, we moved from Trump supposedly had declassifying them. Partially moved away from attorney client privilege (It's not Trumps property, it's the federal government, and he is not in office)

And now he's trying to say that it was okay because he had someone make it secure/prevented entry.

Which well
A. Doesn't change the fact he wasn't supposed to have them/doesn't fix the problem of still holding onto said documents
B. That he didn't comply with the Subpoenaed to return them
C. In a public resort, that is, already substantially less secure just by being available to the public to any compacity.
D. Still violated security protocols.
Edit:
Additionally using just some basic logic, his defenses all fall apart. Aka if it was truly planted. Trump wouldn't be trying to keep them secure saying that he had security personnel, as why would you have secuity for documents you say you don't have? And that's just one example.

Anyways I'm just enjoying the popcorn, since it's just one bad take right after the other.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

if a moderator sees this thread, please fix the title to add spaces between the commas, I just now realized that was not done. And I cannot unsee that, and it's going to drive me nuts looking at it.

 

[FAST6191]

When did the republicans, much less as a cohesive agenda, want to ban contraceptives, at least within the last 50 years/since the Catholic set died off?
They occasionally have some silly ideas about teaching it in schools (not that any sex education I have seen in the US is worth a damn, even if marginally better than allowing parents to teach it and similarly allowing internet to teach it), and some questionable things vis a vis giving it to underage girls (but over the age of criminal responsibility, medical ethics is ever the fun one though) but never seen them come for the pills*, condoms or surgical options (surgical options being blocked in some places facing a population downturn, think some states are over 21 for tubal ligation and without checking I know where my money is placed for those even if there could possibly be a point).

*some of the earlier stage chemical abortion stuff aside, though it is seen as a bit of a workaround in some places (best examples from various parts of eastern Europe but similar was floated for the states that might do better than trying to get the poor and too stupid to use a rubber/pills to get time off to cross state lines/move to somewhere more amenable) but that would fit more generally with the abortion bit.

Interesting to see stats though on abortion issues. Possibly an interesting hill on which to die (would have hoped politics got better played) but hey it is a long standing thing for them. Might have even been wrong in my assessment that it was a throwaway political football to rile people up (though still works as that it seems).

Student loan forgiveness does not sit well with me, blocking it via laws and considering it income of a flavour seems like normal law making and fine. Higher education in the US is all kinds of screwed up and blind and foolish practices there vis a vis pushing everybody through it regardless of whether it does any good, and the federal government backing it via various means only means the prices go up as risks go down. What to do about those already burned is tricky, rewarding bad behaviour not being something you ideally want to do but equally there are many between a rock and a hard place. Most trapped (even without the does it say STEM, medicine or law from somewhere with a top level bar passing rate aspect) are basically useless at this point from an economic perspective or population growth perspective so it is something of a political points scoring exercise. I would be curious to see what stats changes are vis a vis blocking the gimme gimme gimmes though (whether in the moderate/which has the better argument on the day or turnout for various that would or would not). That said help now or drain on social security and healthcare later... might have to run those numbers, though that would be far too forward thinking for any politico of any major stripe as the payoff would not even be in the next 3 cycles.

 

[leejaclane]

When did the republicans, much less as a cohesive agenda, want to ban contraceptives, at least within the last 50 years/since the Catholic set died off?

It's a bit disingenuous to ask rhetorically "when in the past 50 years have Republicans wanted to ban contraceptives?" when you could literally just google the two words together (Republican and contraceptive) to find that Republicans overwhelmingly voted against protecting access to birth control.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/birth-control-contraception-bill-pass-house-vote/

You can, again disingenuously, argue that "voting not to protect it isn't the same as voting to ban it," which is technically true, but what motive is there to vote against protecting it? What reason is there to vote against it that does not involve a desire to restrict it? And regardless of their actual motives, what are the optics of that going to look like to everyone watching, what is every rational person going to conclude must be the ideological reason behind voting against protecting basic human rights?

Besides which -- a Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, literally expressed explicit interest in re-litigating the Supreme Court decision which determined contraception was a right in his concurring opinion overturning abortion access as a right.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suprem...contraception-lgbtq-marriage-clarence-thomas/

There's no reason whatsoever to re-litigate these cases Thomas mentioned except to restrict freedoms granted in previous rulings. The only reason to say "no, I think states should decide if contraception can be banned" at this point in time is if it is your belief that states should have the power to ban contraception, and the only reason they should have that power is if you think they should use that power. It's a straight line, not some wacky baseless conspiracy theory.

The fact is that contraception and abortion are inseparable issues. The anti-abortion movement (and now much of the larger Republican party and the major candidates they're running) is driven almost entirely by religious fundamentalists, and many of those same religious fundamentalists tend not to be fans of contraception. It's not a stretch to imagine them continuing on with contraceptives after abortion, and indeed several major figures of the Republican party have signaled their intent to do just that -- going back as early as Trump in 2017. Arguably, everyone voting against protecting contraception has now signaled that intention.

I'm trying very hard not to be overly rude here (mostly in deference to you being staff and me being a pretty new member of the forum), but have you just not been paying attention to US politics at all? I'd understand if that's the case and you just don't pay attention to US politics, but if you haven't paid attention, why are you commenting on that point like you're an expert on the past 50 years of the Republican party when you're not even familiar with major events in the past 5 months of it?

I'm sorry that my tone is combative, for some reason I get that way about people's basic human rights being trampled over and people seemingly being indifferent to it.

 

[FAST6191]

Missed that one but I suppose it did not pop outside the US or much within it. I honestly had not seen anything and usually saw most of the anti abortion stuff and nonsense like the those wackadoodles pondering legitimate rape I believe the term was. Enough went in for the no sex before marriage thing.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text?r=1&s=1 is the bill in question I hope. Was too bone idle to find statements of support and opposition.

Usual reasons to block things are if the wording is dubious or over broad (could be there), if the general setup is overreaching (is it a state issue, lot of medical decisions are or in the case of the smaller states kicked to groups thereof, or something within the remit of the federal system, indeed is it a medical issue/medical provider specific issue instead?). A reading of that appears fairly basic and banal*, and as close as it comes to a point rather than being a law for the law's sake is some flowery evocative language to pull at a few heart strings (look at all the pathetically weak creatures we can help, enjoy the feels). I might question the options for disabled people in that as well (sec6 b2) as it could block things (granted my general low opinion of politicos means I would not even expect the lawyers in the crowd to spot and make such a point, much less a point of true contention) and makes no great mention of proxy, guardian or advocate things here (lot of good cases around the world these days for that one). There is some room for some subjective stuff there as well in sec 4 c vis a vis the defences provided and avenues for them, not to mention it largely kicks the can into the federal world to define what is good contraception (talk about rod for your own back). Who pays or is mandated to make available (granted bit of contraception now, even weakly used, is worth a whole lot more later) is also an unsettled matter in that.
Far from the worst worded law I have seen though.

*it goes mostly for health care providers which does not tackle schools and abysmal education there, and not sure what goes for those people offering various "family planning" services that were stealth anti abortion (dodging questions, pressuring other paths, getting people to wait out time periods for elective...) but I am sure they will just rebrand as non medical information services if they were not already, likewise not sure if there are the religious healthcare providers that could be troubled in this (whether this is good results for bad action then being up for debate).

There will doubtless be some that care to rush headlong into things and those that screech regardless, optics is the fun one to consider as well but follow the leader and allowing your ideological opponents to be those setting the dance card gets you nowhere really.

All that said this seems like a solution in search of a problem, feel good law making/virtue signalling rather than useful impact. Head it off at the pass as it were could be an argument made but evidence on the ground seems a bit thin.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Yeah the GOP is unamerican as fuck, and how anyone could defend them when they're so openly detrimental to the individual liberties and freedoms of the citizens of the USA is baffling.

 

[FAST6191]

Yeah the GOP is unamerican as fuck, and how anyone could defend them when they're so openly detrimental to the individual liberties and freedoms of the citizens of the USA is baffling.

The same applies to all politicos if they got their way. Go with balance or on the rare occasion those that might generally safeguard such things if they end up with a disproportional amount of them, though basic machinations of politics means such rough edges will be sanded smooth in a year or three and you can continue back to ignoring things.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

The same applies to all politicos if they got their way.

I heavily disagree. Authoritarian politicos? Yes. Anarcho leaning ones, no.

Right now however the GOP is not just "unamerican" as fuck. What it really is, is authoritarian as fuck. Stripping half the country of their rights, and trying to hide their position so they don't look as bad. Take Michigan for example, the reason they want to prevent Michigan's rights to abortion over I kid you not,
A fucking typo. That's their reasoning.over typos.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion...onstitutions-f1265f148547a88f1e69fb2ff154a190
When the typo's themselves are just missing spaces, is it annoying? Umm yeah. But it's not something worth trying to fucking block people from voting on. And nor is it complete "gibberish"

 

[LainaGabranth]

I heavily disagree. Authoritarian politicos? Yes. Anarcho leaning ones, no.

Right now however the GOP is not just "unamerican" as fuck. What it really is, is authoritarian as fuck. Stripping half the country of their rights, and trying to hide their position so they don't look as bad. Take Michigan for example, the reason they want to prevent Michigan's rights to abortion over I kid you not,
A fucking typo. That's their reasoning.over typos.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion...onstitutions-f1265f148547a88f1e69fb2ff154a190
When the typo's themselves are just missing spaces, is it annoying? Umm yeah. But it's not something worth trying to fucking block people from voting on. And nor is it complete "gibberish"

I appreciate that there are people on this site who are not afraid to call out fascism for what it is. American Centrism is a mental disorder at this point.

 

[Taleweaver]

As a foreigner, i honestly cannot fathom anyone ever voting for the current republican party. Back in, say, W Bush says, yes. I'd disagree with them, but i could somewhat see their perspective.
But now? Stacking the justice system in their favors, one law proposal after another that's an embarrassment for mankind and of course flat out defending world's dumbest dictator (though I've got a suspicion that's a smokescreen: as long as Trump creates worse scandals, the undermining of democracy seems timid in comparison).

@LainaGabranth : if it's any comfort: my local(flemish) newspaper calls them fascist in their headlines whenever they report on us politics(and not for fun: with the same kind of arguments as @Nothereed). But because we're not read by us citizens, it's not like it matters in any way.

 

[leejaclane]

Some of this is a bit disorganized from paragraph to paragraph, but it should all scan fine, in spite of the occasional seeming non sequitur. Also, to be clear, this is a response to FAST6191. Also... sorry about the length, genuinely, but I felt like it was important to go into detail so that I would not be misunderstood or have to clarify things later. This will more than likely be the last response I have for FAST6191, as it seems to me that this conversation won't be productive. I doubt anyone reads all this.

You can speculate on why Republicans voted against those bills (not just contraception, but gay marriage and abortion too) but the reality is none of the reasons you listed came up, the Republican argument for not supporting gay marriage boiled down essentially to "no one is taking these rights away, therefore there's no need to protect them," which was what they said for decades about abortion. And look how that turned out, despite many people constantly writing off concerns as simply fearmongering to win votes for decades -- it happened, they did it. If you objected to some but not all of the parts of the bill, just details, you can hammer those out in debate -- that's the typical course of action. Republican lawmakers didn't seek to do that, apart from taking a hard stance against Plan B and deceptively tying that into abortion, but the fact is that was just an excuse, there was no attempt made by Republicans to compromise on the bills.

These rights, like any rights, are not safe just by virtue of not being touched recently -- abortion and contraceptives were legal for centuries, but the reason that contraceptives had to be decided as a right by the US supreme court in the first place was because a state had banned them. There's no reason it couldn't happen again when those rights aren't being protected. Many Republicans running have repeatedly publicly expressed disapproval of no-fault divorce and a desire to get rid of it. Many regularly demonize gay people -- and the biggest cable "news" network with the highest ratings does it every single day, along with pushing countless conspiracy theories their audiences gobble up uncritically. The Republican extremists of today are objectively more extreme than they were when they originally banned contraception. This is not baseless fearmongering.

And how the decision was made to overturn Roe v. Wade was to say that the right to privacy doesn't exist. The other decisions Thomas listed as wanting to revisit? The right to privacy was the basis for those decisions. There is essentially no protection from future supreme court rulings determining that contraceptives can be banned. They could easily have phrased the ruling on abortion differently to protect those other rights -- just say that the right to privacy doesn't extend to abortion for some reason. They had to have considered the other cases and their relevancy, Thomas mentions them all in his opinion and so did the dissenters in theirs. That the decision instead offered no protection to contraceptives or gay marriage is telling. They can claim those rights aren't in any danger, but they deliberately and knowingly erased the legal justification for them. This wasn't an "oops, it slipped our minds," type of thing, it was absolutely discussed before the decision.

Medical decisions aren't a state issue, they're an individual personal issue, no government has any business telling anyone what they can or can't do with their own body. No one has that right over another person's body. Not for contraception, not for abortion, not for organ donation or blood donation, not for hormone replacement therapy, not for any gender-affirming surgeries. It's not the government's business, at all. If we don't have bodily autonomy, we don't have any real rights at all.

You can't genuinely believe religious fundamentalists who constantly bang on about how every LGBT person and every LGBT ally is a groomer wouldn't ban gay marriage given the opportunity, or that politicians openly identifying themselves with Christian nationalism and saying we need more (white) babies wouldn't ban contraceptives. You can't possibly be that naive, or that profoundly stupid. So why are you making that argument? Is it because it's preferable to believe they wouldn't go that far, or that you think "progress" is always a straight line? Or is there another reason?

I find it interesting that you would consider pushing actual bills intended to protect basic human rights "virtue signaling." Especially as a pejorative. It's not hollow lip service without action behind it in this case, so are you just... upset that politicians would make their positions known to voters who will vote based on issues that are important to them after seeing politicians trying to do something about those issues? Is that not what politicians are supposed to do? Should they just keep all their policy positions secret from voters instead, not take a stance on anything lest it be called virtue signaling? Keep voters guessing about who it is they're voting for? Not try to protect things in danger before it's too late? Democrats had decades to make a constitutional amendment explicitly protecting abortion, multiple opportunities where they could've passed it without Republican support, and if they had then the supreme court couldn't have taken that protection away. They didn't think it was necessary, and once it was, it was too late to prevent the harm from being done. That harm is still happening right now, not in an abstract way but to real people, to real children. "The evidence is a bit thin" my ass. As I said before, prominent members of the party have indicated their intent, just because you refuse to recognize it doesn't mean it isn't there and plain to see.

And why is it only ever opposition to oppression by people even slightly left of Republicans that gets called virtue signaling? Republicans are nothing but virtue signals, constantly, and almost always without any substance to them -- constantly engaging in culture war bullshit to manufacture outrage about things that either don't exist or else don't matter, portraying themselves as the party of the working class while being rabidly anti-union and screwing over poor people constantly, talking about college students saddled with insurmountable predatory loans as being elites while they've all been to prestigious universities and many of them have never worked a real job a day in their lives while having gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt canceled that they absolutely could've afforded to pay back, portraying themselves as good Christians while ignoring numerous bible verses denouncing many of their political positions... Not that Democrats don't also do those types of hypocritical posturings, mind you, on the whole they take just as many bribes from lobbyists as Republicans do (sometimes more, given that Democrats are slightly likelier to enact policies corporations wouldn't like, or at least threaten to enact those policies), but I never hear people call it virtue signaling when Republicans tell you they're for family values or Christian values. Why is that? Why is creating a female superhero virtue signaling, but whining about female superheroes isn't virtue signaling?

The thing about the whole "enlightened centrist" shtick, apart from exposing yourself as an ignorant pseudointellectual over and over again in more threads than just this one, is that you wind up aligning yourself with and playing defense for fascists quite a bit, going so far as downplaying the very real threat of fascism despite it objectively being on the rise and not nearly as fringe as you think it is in the US (or in the UK, for that matter). It kind of makes the whole "centrist" thing fall apart. Not to mention that "putting on airs of complete emotional detachment when it comes to issues like basic human rights" thing that you like to do.

You're against student debt forgiveness, but there's no actual rational argument for that, the only argument against it is an emotional argument based on it not being "fair" to forgive debt (but only for those filthy irresponsible poors who shouldn't be attending college anyway; it's fine when it's rich people getting handouts though -- also, funny how when the shoe's on the other foot the response is a dispassionate "life isn't fair, get over it"). We know through empirical research and statistics that things like student loan forgiveness most benefit those who are in poverty, and we know assisting those in poverty stimulates the economy enormously (the checks people got during the pandemic demonstrated this as well). It's better for literally everyone, all of society benefits, just like we know housing the homeless is cheaper than not, just like we know the death penalty isn't any kind of deterrent for crime and is more expensive and more damaging to society than even a life sentence would be. In other situations I'd be inclined to provide links, but I get the impression you wouldn't care no matter how many studies are cited, because you oppose student debt forgiveness based on a feeling, and the reality is very few people who base their politics on feelings will respond to facts at all -- even those who make part of their identity how "logical" they are.

And apologies for pulling from a different thread for the next several paragraphs, but arguing that climate change is "overblown" while acknowledging it will be devastating for people near the equator (newsflash: it already is devastating, and not just near the equator) betrays a profound failure to understand climate change, or its broader geopolitical implications. It's not something that's happening in just one region, in a vacuum, with no direct or indirect effects anywhere else. You can't possibly be that stupid, so why act like it? Is there any purpose to keeping up a centrist shtick when that "centrism" only benefits one side? It's not neutrality or impartiality. Bringing in one scientist to represent the consensus of the vast majority of scientific research, and one spokesman paid to represent the interests of the fossil fuel industry (whose own scientists knew it was a serious issue decades ago), that isn't "balanced" coverage, there isn't a debate to be had when one side is not engaging in good faith arguments and none of their arguments stand up to scrutiny, it's just giving legitimacy to lies. The truth isn't "somewhere in the middle of two extremes," arguing "there's some climate change but it doesn't really matter" isn't some wise enlightened position or a good compromise. It'd be like compromising between one side saying "we shouldn't kill any Jewish people" and the other side saying "we should kill every Jew," a compromise where you kill half of all Jewish people is still a monstrous atrocity, and portraying both sides here as extremists is an absurdity. Obviously I'm not saying that you would argue for killing half of all Jewish people (god I hope not at least), but that's the attitude, that's the logic.

Some things should not be debated, should not be compromised on. Fundamental human rights, for example, and actual objective reality. The fact of the matter is, there can be no tolerance for intolerance, or for "opinions" which are completely counterfactual. It's the paradox of tolerance, best explained by Karl Popper. Certain ideas and policies -- fascism and genocide, as well as the lies used to justify them -- are so fundamentally harmful and so destabilizing to society that there really is no room for debate with them because their only goal is to do harm. It's obviously always preferable to avoid violence and to have reasonable discussions, but if fascism could be defeated with debate, it never would've happened, and if anti-vaxxers could be reasoned with at all there wouldn't be any anti-vaxxers to begin with. People platforming fascists thinking that there's any productive discussion to have in an exchange of ideas with people who want to commit genocide, people who want to strip away fundamental human rights, are not helping anyone but fascists, and generally only someone who isn't particularly threatened by fascism would think it was worthy of debate at all. And it is especially harmful to society when those centrists refuse to actually condemn fascists without caveats, or go so far as to downplay the threat they pose.

Debate works when two sides have equal positions, or are at least open to conversation, and if their views are rational -- that is to say, facts and evidence and analysis lead to the conclusion, instead of someone starting with the conclusion and working backwards to rationalize their existing views. If someone's views are rational, they can be changed when presented with real evidence or a logical argument that convinces them to re-examine their views. If someone is a reactionary whose arguments are simply justifications for positions they hold, what happens instead is either disregarding all evidence to the contrary and moving the goalposts without end, or pivoting to a completely different argument (often mutually exclusive and contradicting their previous argument's premise) that just happens to lead to what is effectively the same conclusion they had before. You see this a lot with guys like Ben Shapiro, who despite being the "facts don't care about your feelings" guy has admitted his views come from his religious beliefs and his convictions that those are all correct, so he came up with justifications for his religious beliefs while working under the premise they were already beyond questioning.

These types of people are frankly not worth debating, as debate only functions when it is in good faith. More often than not, when reactionaries and fascists are given platforms to debate, it only serves to legitimize their views to uninformed audiences who can only see the theater of it and fail to properly understand the hollowness of the arguments being made. Trump, for example, is not a great debater for actually having any debate skill or speaking ability, but simply by being loud and angry and doing a lot of name-calling and refusing to engage with actual arguments (or throwing out so much nonsense that addressing all of it would take too long to do), which goes over well with his supporters who just want to see a strong man. However, it doesn't work particularly well outside of campaign situations -- he's made so many different and mutually exclusive defenses of why and how documents he has no claim to ownership over were at his hotel slash residence that it's clear even to Steve Doocy of Fox & Friends that Trump has no legitimate defense.

I'm trying to cut this short, rather than continue it much further, so I'll leave you with links to several articles from a few years ago which have relevance to the whole "debating fascism" subject. I do not necessarily agree with everything in these articles (particularly the part about "only very smart people make this very stupid mistake"), but they are nevertheless worth reading. Before I do that though, I want to say I myself have personal experience of spending years of my life trying to deradicalize a family member through conversation, someone I lived with and talked to every day for years, a sibling of mine. Absolutely nothing I tried worked. The average person is not equipped to deradicalize someone, particularly since fascism isn't reached through reasoning or logic. It's part of someone's core values and their personality, and it isn't easy trying to change those values, particularly when you are someone that they openly express the desire for you and all others like you to be exterminated. That's not a person you can reason with or debate, and it's not a person worth debating. No one whose desire is to stomp out all debate, whose desire is to stomp out all free discussion, whose desire is to eradicate all tolerance for people of other ethnicities or other religions, deserves any amount of debate. If someone's goal is the eradication of people's fundamental rights, or the eradication of people based on their race or sexuality or gender identity or disability or so on, there is absolutely no point discussing anything with them, and their intolerant views should not be tolerated under any circumstances, because we know exactly where that leads. Anyway. The links I mentioned, below.

https://lithub.com/fascism-is-not-an-idea-to-be-debated-its-a-set-of-actions-to-fight/
https://longreads.com/2018/09/18/no-i-will-not-debate-you/

And don't worry, I almost certainly won't be writing any further posts in reply (at least, not anything longer than a sentence or two). I don't feel like it would be productive anyway. I've wasted enough time on this already.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Speaking of untenable stances.

Gop taxing student loan debt forgiveness, and looking to block it via a lawsuit
GOP also wants to block student loan debt forgiveness. I wonder what happened to being against big business (paid collages count. It is a business after all)
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/07/republicans-may-try-to-block-student-loan-forgiveness.html
tl;dr some of them were thinking of trying to stop it with a lawsuit, and hoping that it would pause it, or delay Biden's actions. Others however, have decided a more nasty approach
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...tax-student-loan-debt-forgiven-by-bidens-plan
They choose to tax student loan forgiveness. I wonder what happened to not being big government, and taxes are theft? Because to me that's actually just straight up theft. Just some funny hypocrisy right there. a government, is still a government. Even if it's a government within another government.

(god this is ancient)
One last thing.

Imagine not wanting to saddle blue collar workers with paying the student loans for people with advanced degrees. Why does the left want to make the poor poorer and the rich richer? It's not anybody's fault that people go to college to get gender studies degrees and end up working in Starbucks. Own your poor life choices like the rest of us.

OTOH, colleges and universities should be the ones who back these loans, not the taxpayer. And people should be able to include their student loans in bankruptcies. Remember it was the Dems and Obama who decided that government backed student loans was a good idea and you all cheered for it at the time and now you are unhappy.

Mar-a-Lago back tracking


I figured I should also mention this. We've moved from the evidence being planted, we moved from Trump supposedly had declassifying them. Partially moved away from attorney client privilege (It's not Trumps property, it's the federal government, and he is not in office)

And now he's trying to say that it was okay because he had someone make it secure/prevented entry.

Which well
A. Doesn't change the fact he wasn't supposed to have them/doesn't fix the problem of still holding onto said documents
B. That he didn't comply with the Subpoenaed to return them
C. In a public resort, that is, already substantially less secure just by being available to the public to any compacity.
D. Still violated security protocols.
Edit:
Additionally using just some basic logic, his defenses all fall apart. Aka if it was truly planted. Trump wouldn't be trying to keep them secure saying that he had security personnel, as why would you have secuity for documents you say you don't have? And that's just one example.

Anyways I'm just enjoying the popcorn, since it's just one bad take right after the other.

You should read the Presidential Records Act. A president can declassify anything they wish. They don't have to get approval from an underling to declassify. Every president has had classified material, that is why they all have SCIF's to store them in. Remember when the media was screaming that Trump had nuclear secrets, then the nuclear codes and now it's just documents. It's also not proven that he even had classified documents. Just because they may have still had classified markings does not make them classified. It is not a president's job to remove markings. Hopefully, the Special Master can sort all of this out, as long as the DOJ can stop disobeying a judge's order and stop leaking these classified documents to the media.

I too am enjoying the popcorn while Judge Cannon slaps the DOJ around, not to mention all of the other epic failures the left is currently experiencing.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

A president can declassify anything they wish.

With due process. Not at breakfast during coffee. Or in Trump's case, with his morning dose of coke.

 

[Deleted member 114266]

With due process. Not at breakfast during coffee. Or in Trump's case, with his morning dose of diet coke.

FTFY, we aren't talking about Hunter.

 

[Deleted member 578956]

Im getting tired of there alt-left threads. Its always the same ass 3 topic redone with a different name. Can we get some more diversity please and thank you?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

FTFY, we aren't talking about Hunter.

Nah, it's coke all right. Speaking of Hunter, I suppose y'all will stop harping about him since apparently presidents merely have to wish documents declassified for it to happen, with no regard of due process?

 

[Deleted member 114266]

Nah, it's coke all right. Speaking of Hunter, I suppose y'all will stop harping about him since apparently presidents merely have to wish documents declassified for it to happen, with no regard of due process?

No, we just harp on Hunter because if it's real, and all the business deals make no sense unless it is. Then Joe Biden used his Vice President influence to put his son into a lucrative deal with multiple foreign powers by placing him on the board of companies where he has no experience in those market and makes millions of dollars.

This is black mail material which means the seated President is compromised by foreign powers. Remember how it was claimed Trump was compromised by Russian with the pee tape that very materialized? And with Trump and how far everyone dug into him, if anything existed it would have been leaked. Billy Bush's career was ended in an attempt to get Trump with that leaked off the record recording.

But I guess with Biden there's no worry because it's (D)ifferent.

 

[Xzi]

But I guess with Biden there's no worry because it's (D)ifferent.

Is Hunter Biden president? Does he hold any public office at all? There's your difference. Trump is currently under investigation for potentially selling information on other nations' nuclear capabilities to the highest bidder. That's a lot more damning than some yuppie's supposed crack addiction. Especially given that everybody in the highest income brackets has done cocaine at some point.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Is Hunter Biden president?

hunter didn't even hold any office position to my knowledge. Unlike Trump's kids.

 

[Hanafuda]

With due process.

WTF does due process have to do with classification of government documents? Are you referring to procedural or substantive due process?

The President's authority per Article II wrt: classification is pretty much absolute. See https://www.politifact.com/factchec...resident-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

Also this thread shouldve been about one topic.