***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

The Wall Street Journal posted the January jobs numbers....

But it’s somehow trolling to repost their article in a political discussion thread?

Delusional

Spare me your biscuit clutching once again

WSJ is not an NT poster, you posted on this site.

And you only post when job numbers are good. There has been two other pieces of negative economic info that came out recently and your troll *** didn't say a peep.

So we can all see the BS you are doing. So shut the hell up and sit all the way down you insincere trolling.

Clown **** from you as always

 

[heelsandeers]

We don't have a joblessness problem. We have a "good jobs" problem.

What's that wealth gap looking like?

and Obama was honest about this and would qualify it when speaking on the economy

vs

"GREATEST ECONOMY EVER." And the rubes eat it up

Inequality is real and still a winning issue if used properly and carefully by Dems

 

[-Red-]

We don't have a joblessness problem. We have a "good jobs" problem.

Folks quick to point out that we added thousands of Amazon warehouse and Uber Eats jobs.

Low pay, low skill, minimal benefits, dead jobs ain't the move. All they do is help folks like Bezos bottom line.

What's that wealth gap looking like?

This cannot be stressed enough.

 

[junglejim]

Why was the deficit a world ending deal under Obama but we don't here a god damn peep when Trump is running up numbers twice what Obama was running up in a non-stimulus year?

 

[dwalk31]

And you only post when job numbers are good.

So you, the economist, that I defer to in matters involving the economy, feel that these are good job numbers?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Why was the deficit a world ending deal under Obama but we don't here a god damn peep when Trump is running up numbers twice what Obama was running up in a non-stimulus year?

Because Republicans are unprincipled hypocrites.

 

[-Red-]

No, I’m not saying that at all.

Obviously, if I witness a crime then I don’t need any additional information.

The obvious (or at least I thought) caveat in my standard was for an alleged crime that I did not personally witness.

Absent a video, picture, etc. then no I would not generally take an accuser’s word for it. If you would, that’s fine.

That would be different if a family member/personal acquaintance made the accusation as I have a personal gauge of their credibility.

But no I wouldn’t blindly believe something happened merely because one, or multiple, people (that I don’t know) alleged it.

This is especially true when allegations are involving politicians and/or celebrities where it doesn’t take a genius to realize mixed-motives and agendas.

That doesn’t mean that the allegations aren’t true. But I think the innocent until proven guilty standard is a good one.

If you want to deem people guilty based on whatever your personal standard is, that’s fine. But that’s not what I choose to do.

The innocent until proven guilty standard allows me to avoid the bias of believing some accused based on my politics and disbelieving others for the same.

Ya kno. How others on here seem willing to do.

No one answered my question about Kobe, OJ, Michael Jackson or Justin Fairfax.

So you're openly admitting that your alleged standard of "until a person is convicted in a court of law, we must unequivocally presume their innocence and await due process to take its rightful legal course" has been a sham this entire time?

While that's not surprising in the slightest, what is surprising is that you're actually copping to it. Here it is, folks! I just knew there was a reason I decided to engage in this back-and-forth!

 

[wavycrocket]

While Joe Walsh is a racist and generally misinformed guy...he’s principled and even minded. He finally sees it for what it is. His slow transformation from hardcore trump supporter to this has been amazing to watch in real time. Dude called it balls & strikes...and sometime after Helinsky...it dawned on him fully.



I hope he will one day take the time to fully reflect on his role in getting Trump elected and how he himself played a major role in setting the foundation for what the Republican Party is. Also hope he does even more digging over the past 50 years to see how we got here...and how racism/greed/fear & white resentment, southern strategy, imperialism, white-washing historygerrymandering, voter suppression, corruption have been the motivating factors and tactics within his party for decades now.

But that takes REAL reflection. Stuart Stephens (longtime high level GOP strategist) is coming out with a book on this. “It was all a lie”.

Amazon product ASIN 0525658459

Won’t get a cent from me. But if somebody can throw me the oop...I’ll check it out when it drops.

 

[dwalk31]

So you're openly admitting that your alleged standard of "until a person is convicted in a court of law, we must unequivocally presume their innocence and await due process to take its rightful legal course" has been a sham this entire time?

While that's not surprising in the slightest, what is surprising is that you're actually copping to it. Here it is, folks! I just knew there was a reason I decided to engage in this back-and-forth!

If that’s what you gathered from that.

Despite you using quotations marks without a valid quote.

I outlined my position. And it remains no matter who is being accused.

The dismantling of due process, for convenience’s sake, to push a narrative is not for me. But do you.

Sidenote: you still didn’t answer the question.

Also, unsurprising.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Idk man. He's still an extremely privileged, ex-military white man Nothing about his background says he'd be anything other than what he's presenting right now.

I feel you. And Pete's run is definitely draped in white privilege.

But like I said, I just think a scammer trying to get on. He probably hired consultants that told him to switch up his rhetoric. So he comes off really fake.

His policy positions have not changed much. They are still relatively progressive. As much as it irks the **** outta me, I know a Pete will be as liberal most Dem candidates.

And while his privileged whiteness pisses me of, but all the front-runners are privileged white people. Anyway I wanted Beto and Booker in the mix instead of Amy, Pete and Bloomberg.

But don't me wrong, I hope he loses in spectacular fashion.

 

[-Red-]

If that’s what you gathered from that.

Despite you using quotations marks without a valid quote.

I outlined my position. And it remains no matter who is being accused.

The dismantling of due process, for convenience’s sake, to push a narrative is not for me. But do you.

Sidenote: you still didn’t answer the question.

Also, unsurprising.

None of the situations in which this has come up in here have involved a court of law—the only place where the kind of due process to which you incessantly refer applies. You can keep trying to skirt that basic fact, but no amount of deflection can change it. Wouldn't you agree?

And I don't remember the question to which you're referring, but if you restate it I can answer.

 

[Christian Pulisic]

Bro is MEDICATED.

 

[dwalk31]

None of the situations in which this has come up in here have involved a court of law—the only place where the kind of due process to which you incessantly refer applies. You can keep trying to skirt that basic fact, but no amount of deflection can change it. Wouldn't you agree?

And I don't remember the question to which you're referring, but if you restate it I can answer.

Accusations of rape and sexual assault are criminal accusations. So when I mention due process I am mentioning it in the legal context because rape and sexual assault are legal terms of art.

I’m not saying you need due process to determine if it is windy outside.

My question, is do you adopt the same “believe all accusers” rhetoric in regards to Kobe, MJ, Kevin Spacey, and Justin Fairfax? Or do you—as I do—say they are innocent unless they are proven guilty.

And if you say that you think they are innocent until proven guilty is it fair for aepps20 to call you a rapist supporter page after page.

That’s what this boils down to.

 

[plansb]

Ninja posting the WSJ article in his other thread since hes banned from this one but still lurks in here, what a pathetic life he lives. Him and the greedy pig DWALK

 

[Belgium]

 

[aepps20]

Accusations of rape and sexual assault are criminal accusations. So when I mention due process I am mentioning it in the legal context because rape and sexual assault are legal terms of art.

I’m not saying you need due process to determine if it is windy outside.

My question, is do you adopt the same “believe all accusers” rhetoric in regards to Kobe, MJ, Kevin Spacey, and Justin Fairfax? Or do you—as I do—say they are innocent unless they are proven guilty.

And if you say that you think they are innocent until proven guilty is it fair for aepps20 to call you a rapist supporter page after page.

That’s what this boils down to.

Is Roy Moore getting the invite to Sunday brunch at your house?

 

[mr s j king]

2 out of the last 4 republican presidents have been former TV personalities
So old white people sitting at home in a trance watching TV all day are deciding who runs the republican party

 

[dragicon]

Bro is MEDICATED.

look at that difference in his skin tone between his orange makeup and his hands what a psycho

 

[-Red-]

Accusations of rape and sexual assault are criminal accusations. So when I mention due process I am mentioning it in the legal context because rape and sexual assault are legal terms of art.

I’m not saying you need due process to determine if it is windy outside.

My question, is do you adopt the same “believe all accusers” rhetoric in regards to Kobe, MJ, Kevin Spacey, and Justin Fairfax? Or do you—as I do—say they are innocent unless they are proven guilty.

And if you say that you think they are innocent until proven guilty is it fair for aepps20 to call you a rapist supporter page after page.

That’s what this boils down to.

No, I don't necessarily believe all accusers from the jump. But I also don't think it's necessary for an accused to be convicted in a court of law for be to believe they're guilty. Based on your own statements, you don't believe so either.

So the point is that you're not defending due process in here, because no one is actually advocating for the abrogation of the legal due process someone is entitled to with respect to adjudicating formal criminal charges, where a criminal conviction and possible prison time are on the line. So it is disingenuous and irrelevant for you to say "Roy Moore is entitled to due process before a determination of guilt can be made" when we're not talking about a criminal conviction, but rather whether we ourselves in our capacities as regular civilians believe that he's guilty based on the information we have.

You keep trying to conflate these two very different circumstances and have done so with some success in here because of all the mud you've kicked up in the waters of the discourse. But this is the basic fact.

 

[dwalk31]

No, I don't necessarily believe all accusers from the jump. But I also don't think it's necessary for an accused to be convicted in a court of law for be to believe they're guilty. Based on your own statements, you don't believe so either.

So the point is that you're not defending due process in here, because no one is actually advocating for the abrogation of the legal due process someone is entitled to with respect to adjudicating formal criminal charges, where a criminal conviction and possible prison time are on the line. So it is disingenuous and irrelevant for you to say "Roy Moore is entitled to due process before a determination of guilt can be made" when we're not talking about a criminal conviction, but rather whether we ourselves in our capacities as regular civilians believe that he's guilty based on the information we have.

You keep trying to conflate these two very different circumstances and have done so with some success in here because of all the mud you've kicked up in the waters of the discourse. But this is the basic fact.

Someone calling me a rapist supporter presumes that someone is guilty of rape. And that I support them.

Me saying I don’t think we can label someone a rapist unless they are proven guilty of rape does not make me a rapist supporter. Do you think it does?

Because that’s what occurred in here. Roy Moore was accused of raping young women. I said that I think there’s a presumption of innocence until he’s proven guilty.

The response was that I support Roy Moore and little girls being raped.

That is nonsensical to the point of absurdity and comical.

For you to pretend that somehow I’m making a lapse in logic, ostensibly because you disagree with my politics, is intellectually dishonest. And you know it.

Please actually respond to the bolded question.

 

[AEA18]

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

We don't have a joblessness problem. We have a "good jobs" problem.

Folks quick to point out that we added thousands of Amazon warehouse and Uber Eats jobs.

Low pay, low skill, minimal benefits, dead end jobs ain't the move. All they do is help folks like Bezos bottom line.

What's that wealth gap looking like?

I had this WEIRD exchange with my brother about jobs a few days ago, and how his POV changed ever since Trump got elected.

He sees these jobs (like Amazon warehouse, etc.) as good signs for everyone in terms of making quick money. But when I asked him if he’s okay with JUST making almost the minimum to get by, he paused for a sec then added that it’s BETTER THIS WAY. He spoke about how he’s ready every year for new jobs cuz he prefers not to stay with one company.

Never been more sad for him cuz he’s in debt with two kids, and has 3 jobs as a traveling nurse.

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

Receipts are gonna be WILD when this administration gets audited.

 

[spiceman80]

By whom?

 

[-Red-]

Someone calling me a rapist supporter presumes that someone is guilty of rape. And that I support them.

Me saying I don’t think we can label someone a rapist unless they are proven guilty of rape does not make me a rapist supporter. Do you think it does?

Because that’s what occurred in here. Roy Moore was accused of raping young women. I said that I think there’s a presumption of innocence until he’s proven guilty.

The response was that I support Roy Moore and little girls being raped.

That is nonsensical to the point of absurdity and comical.

For you to pretend that somehow I’m making a lapse in logic, ostensibly because you disagree with my politics, is intellectually dishonest. And you know it.

Please actually respond to the bolded question.

"I don't think we can label someone a rapist until they are proven guilty of rape" is exactly the type of conflation of legal and pedestrian terms and circumstances that I've been highlighting. Someone should not be convicted of rape until they are proven guilty. Someone should not be sentenced to prison for rape until they are proven guilty. But, again, those things are not what we are talking about here. You know, this, I know this, and everyone else in here knows this now if it wasn't already apparent before.

So, again, your question rests on a faulty premise. Do you acknowledge this? Particularly since you've already stated that you don't actually believe that a criminal conviction is needed to ascertain an impression of guilt in your capacity as a civilian. In other words, you and everyone else can make their own personal (non-legal) judgments about Roy Moore's guilt or innocence even in the absence of a criminal court adjudication. At the end of the day, you agree with this, correct?

I don't mind answering your questions, I just want to establish that we're on the same page in terms of some basic understandings before I do so.