America - The Official Thread

[Scaff]

You are not supposed to choose which laws to follow and if you do and brake the law you must expect punishment. Your 'reasonable justification' doesn't matter. Majority of people in your country (and in my country too) agree that we don't want undocumented aliens roaming our streets, so legislation is made and people should follow. And I already stated how I see employment of illegals in the US, it's disgrace.

Broke the law by virtue of being Jewish

Was her death a just outcome of that particular law?

Not all laws are moral or should be obeyed, as the people who hid Ann Frank and her family were very much aware.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Finally show your true colors huh?

Excuse me? I’m not even voting for Trump in 2020. Get outta here with that instigating bs, since you do that quite often.

I have always supported defending private property. I have always supported people protesting peacefully. I have always supported holding those responsible for legitimate murder.

 

[Scaff]

Excuse me? I’m not even voting for Trump in 2020. Get outta here with that instigating bs, since you do that quite often.

I have always supported defending private property. I have always supported people protesting peacefully. I have always supported holding those responsible for legitimate murder.

Then why did you make a false claim in regard to that particular case?

 

[Danoff]

You are not supposed to choose which laws to follow

You absolutely are and should choose which laws to follow. You can't hide behind "it was the law" morally speaking. If the law says you must return a slave to its master, you break the law.

and if you do and brake the law you must expect punishment.

Well that's true, but it's not just.

Majority of people in your country (and in my country too) agree that we don't want undocumented aliens roaming our streets, so legislation is made and people should follow.

Check my signature.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Excuse me? I’m not even voting for Trump in 2020. Get outta here with that instigating bs, since you do that quite often.

I have always supported defending private property. I have always supported people protesting peacefully. I have always supported holding those responsible for legitimate murder.

Okay, but you're misguided on this one thing.

 

[Biggles]

You may be right. I hope you're not.

but:
Do you really want to destroy the carbon fuel industry?
Do you want your taxes raised?
Do you want open borders? And taxpayer funding for illegal's social programs and healthcare?
Do you want to defund the police, and replace police departments with community groups?

It would be funny if it were just a joke, but it is not, it is real. Democrats want this.

The Democrat party, the party that wants to take away guns, also wants to take away your police department, They want to defund the cops.

The leftist lunatics have taken over the Democratic party. Brain dead Biden is following their lead.

No. Biden will follow the lead of Obama, who, notwithstanding the bluster of Republicans & the screaming of the Tea Party, moved the country very cautiously in a slightly more progressive direction.

What happened with Trump, is the US primary process allowed the "rightist lunatics" to seize control of the GOP. They found a populist figure to rally behind, but one who was fundamentally corrupt, bigoted & stupid. Because he won the election against expectations, he was treated as some kind of political genius, rather than the idiot he is (& everyone who knew him well understood him to be). A continuing cyclical improvement in the economy boosted by low interest rates, big corporate tax cuts & deficit spending persuaded a lot of people that Trump was "good for the economy", but as soon as a crisis emerged it became evident that Trump was completely incapable of handling anything challenging.

Enough Americans were duped by Trump to allow him to narrowly win the 2016 election (against a very unpopular Democratic candidate). But now it's obvious to all but the most duped, that Trump is a terrible President & a terrible person. None of the basic structural problems in the US economy have been changed under Trump. In fact, they have grown worse - the rich are now richer, benefiting from an artificially propped up stock market, & the poor are struggling more than ever ... & the US national debt & deficit have exploded (remember when the Tea Party claimed to care about that?).

The US electorate will throw Trump out & punish the GOP. The Democrats will move cautiously in a more progressive direction that reflects where the majority of US citizens feel reasonably comfortable & the "leftist lunatics" will complain about it. So it goes.

 

[Danoff]

You may be right. I hope you're not.

but:
Do you really want to destroy the carbon fuel industry?
Do you want your taxes raised?
Do you want open borders? And taxpayer funding for illegal's social programs and healthcare?
Do you want to defund the police, and replace police departments with community groups?

It would be funny if it were just a joke, but it is not, it is real. Democrats want this.

The Democrat party, the party that wants to take away guns, also wants to take away your police department, They want to defund the cops.

The leftist lunatics have taken over the Democratic party. Brain dead Biden is following their lead.

Does Biden want to replace police departments with community groups? Does he want to provide social programs to illegal immigrants? Just curious.

How are the democrats on first amendment issues, because freedom of speech (something critical to protect) is being absolutely trampled by Trump.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Does Biden want to replace police departments with community groups? Does he want to provide social programs to illegal immigrants? Just curious.

How are the democrats on first amendment issues, because freedom of speech (something critical to protect) is being absolutely trampled by Trump.

Biden has even said himself that he opposes defunding the police.

 

[dlshearon]

So if guns were required to be put in secure and locked gun safes (as they are in the UK) then it would be much harder for them to be stolen and the numbers stolen would reduce?

What's wrong with that example of gun control?

I should have put those firearms were stolen from vehicles, in turn, that were mostly left unlock. As a gun owner that is a no go. 🤬 Leaving your vehicle unlocked in a city is pretty stupid IMO.
Gun control and responsible firearm ownership is two different thing.
Just my 02.

 

[Scaff]

I should have put those firearms were stolen from vehicles, in turn, that were mostly left unlock. As a gun owner that is a no go. 🤬 Leaving your vehicle unlocked in a city is pretty stupid IMO.
Gun control and responsible firearm ownership is two different thing.
Just my 02.

No reason why they can’t work together.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Then why did you make a false claim in regard to that particular case?

It wasn’t a false claim when multiple media outlets said that days ago.

If the rifle was voluntarily handed in, then they should’ve updated the original stories, and the titles, instead of leaving them there as clear clickbait.

 

[DesertPenguin]

It's also a false claim that the gate was broken down.

 

[novcze]

Not all laws are moral or should be obeyed, as the people who hid Ann Frank and her family were very much aware.

Are we comparing laws in fascist Germany with immigration laws in liberal democracy? Is there anything immoral about immigration laws?

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). -Ayn Rand

I agree. Nobody is saying that we should violate anybody's rights.

 

[Danoff]

Are we comparing laws in fascist Germany with immigration laws in liberal democracy? Is there anything immoral about immigration laws?

It's a law which imposes force on people who are not harming anyone, so yes. There are measures that you can morally take for immigration, but barring peaceful entry is not really one of them.

 

[Morgoth_666]

No. Biden will follow the lead of Obama, who, notwithstanding the bluster of Republicans & the screaming of the Tea Party, moved the country very cautiously in a slightly more progressive direction.

What happened with Trump, is the US primary process allowed the "rightist lunatics" to seize control of the GOP. They found a populist figure to rally behind, but one who was fundamentally corrupt, bigoted & stupid. Because he won the election against expectations, he was treated as some kind of political genius, rather than the idiot he is (& everyone who knew him well understood him to be). A continuing cyclical improvement in the economy boosted by low interest rates, big corporate tax cuts & deficit spending persuaded a lot of people that Trump was "good for the economy", but as soon as a crisis emerged it became evident that Trump was completely incapable of handling anything challenging.

Enough Americans were duped by Trump to allow him to narrowly win the 2016 election (against a very unpopular Democratic candidate). But now it's obvious to all but the most duped, that Trump is a terrible President & a terrible person. None of the basic structural problems in the US economy have been changed under Trump. In fact, they have grown worse - the rich are now richer, benefiting from an artificially propped up stock market, & the poor are struggling more than ever ... & the US national debt & deficit have exploded (remember when the Tea Party claimed to care about that?).

The US electorate will throw Trump out & punish the GOP. The Democrats will move cautiously in a more progressive direction that reflects where the majority of US citizens feel reasonably comfortable & the "leftist lunatics" will complain about it. So it goes.

There's a lot of wishful thinking there unfortunately. Despite what it might look like from the outside, a great many of the people who supported Trump absolutely still do and just as strongly so as before. They may or may not think he has managed all of the crises he has faced well but still support the ideals that they have been convinced he shares with them. A great many more think he has been pretty bad but still by default far better than whatever imaginary stuff would have happened if the horrible communist-steal-everyone's-money--ban-everyone's-guns--give-everything-to-illegal-minority-immigrants-for-free--ban-heterosexuals--disband-all-police--ban-christianity--force-abortion--surrender-to-all-our-rivals Democrats had been in power.

The political divisions run very high and are not necessarily entirely logic-based -- and there rarely seems to be much consensus as to which facts are facts either. There's a lot of people who can't be persuaded to vote for the other side for any reason. A good number of people who weren't sure which candidate to support last time that went with Trump will go back to the Democrats for sure. He may even have won some more people over somehow. Joe isn't exactly a fountain of popularity himself, whatever positions he may support. A lot of people will still be voting for him simply because he isn't Trump. It was a close victory for Trump last time when everyone expected a landslide loss, and if he does lose this time it may well be much closer than you'd expect. I can assure you he'll win in my county and it won't be close, but he may not take the whole state this time.

Then of course we have the complications of voting during a pandemic that may skew things in who knows what ways.

 

[Danoff]

There's a lot of wishful thinking there unfortunately. Despite what it might look like from the outside, a great many of the people who supported Trump absolutely still do and just as strongly so as before. They may or may not think he has managed all of the crises he has faced well but still support the ideals that they have been convinced he shares with them. A great many more think he has been pretty bad but still by default far better than whatever imaginary stuff would have happened if the horrible communist-steal-everyone's-money--ban-everyone's-guns--give-everything-to-illegal-minority-immigrants-for-free--ban-heterosexuals--disband-all-police--ban-christianity--force-abortion--surrender-to-all-our-rivals Democrats had been in power.

The political divisions run very high and are not necessarily entirely logic-based -- and there rarely seems to be much consensus as to which facts are facts either. There's a lot of people who can't be persuaded to vote for the other side for any reason. A good number of people who weren't sure which candidate to support last time that went with Trump will go back to the Democrats for sure. He may even have won some more people over somehow. Joe isn't exactly a fountain of popularity himself, whatever positions he may support. A lot of people will still be voting for him simply because he isn't Trump. It was a close victory for Trump last time when everyone expected a landslide loss, and if he does lose this time it may well be much closer than you'd expect. I can assure you he'll win in my county and it won't be close, but he may not take the whole state this time.

Then of course we have the complications of voting during a pandemic that may skew things in who knows what ways.

Some people who turned out to vote against Hillary will stay home. A fair amount of voting shift in the US is people deciding whether or not they're motivated enough to actually vote.

 

[Scaff]

Are we comparing laws in fascist Germany with immigration laws in liberal democracy?

Holland, and you’re shifting the goalposts, you made no distinction at all.

Is there anything immoral about immigration laws?.

That depends on the law, how it’s enforced and hope appropriate the sentence of it is.

Current US immigration law is, in my view immoral and it’s enforcement has unquestionably been immoral.

Answer this, what is the problem with undocumented immigrants in the US?

 

[Biggles]

There's a lot of wishful thinking there unfortunately. Despite what it might look like from the outside, a great many of the people who supported Trump absolutely still do and just as strongly so as before. They may or may not think he has managed all of the crises he has faced well but still support the ideals that they have been convinced he shares with them. A great many more think he has been pretty bad but still by default far better than whatever imaginary stuff would have happened if the horrible communist-steal-everyone's-money--ban-everyone's-guns--give-everything-to-illegal-minority-immigrants-for-free--ban-heterosexuals--disband-all-police--ban-christianity--force-abortion--surrender-to-all-our-rivals Democrats had been in power.

The political divisions run very high and are not necessarily entirely logic-based -- and there rarely seems to be much consensus as to which facts are facts either. There's a lot of people who can't be persuaded to vote for the other side for any reason. A good number of people who weren't sure which candidate to support last time that went with Trump will go back to the Democrats for sure. He may even have won some more people over somehow. Joe isn't exactly a fountain of popularity himself, whatever positions he may support. A lot of people will still be voting for him simply because he isn't Trump. It was a close victory for Trump last time when everyone expected a landslide loss, and if he does lose this time it may well be much closer than you'd expect. I can assure you he'll win in my county and it won't be close, but he may not take the whole state this time.

Then of course we have the complications of voting during a pandemic that may skew things in who knows what ways.

You are, of course, right: "a great many of the people who supported Trump absolutely still do and just as strongly so as before." There's no question about that. Trump has a lot of very committed supporters. They will not be shifting their support to the Democrats.

What will be different this time (IMO) is that a lot of moderate, suburban voters - independents, moderate Republicans & moderate Democrats - some of whom voted for Trump last time, will not this time. In addition, Joe Biden, while he obviously has his shortcomings as a candidate, is not disliked in the way HC was, so some Democrats who stayed at home last time are less likely to do so this time.

Trump will win the deep Red states, but I think it is unlikely that he will win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania & Michigan. This will be enough to push the Democrats over the edge. It's also quite possible that the Democrats could pick up Arizona, North Carolina & Florida, which would give them a convincing victory. Current polling also suggests that Ohio & Nevada may go for Biden & even Texas, Iowa & Georgia are getting close. A lot can happen in the next 4 months, but as things stand now things do not look good for Trump.

 

[WFO Krypto]

You are, of course, right: "a great many of the people who supported Trump absolutely still do and just as strongly so as before." There's no question about that. Trump has a lot of very committed supporters. They will not be shifting their support to the Democrats.

What will be different this time (IMO) is that a lot of moderate, suburban voters - independents, moderate Republicans & moderate Democrats - some of whom voted for Trump last time, will not this time. In addition, Joe Biden, while he obviously has his shortcomings as a candidate, is not disliked in the way HC was, so some Democrats who stayed at home last time are less likely to do so this time.

Trump will win the deep Red states, but I think it is unlikely that he will win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania & Michigan. This will be enough to push the Democrats over the edge. It's also quite possible that the Democrats could pick up Arizona, North Carolina & Florida, which would give them a convincing victory. Current polling also suggests that Ohio & Nevada may go for Biden & even Texas, Iowa & Georgia are getting close. A lot can happen in the next 4 months, but as things stand now things do not look good for Trump.

You might want to re-think the Pennsylvania thing. Once it is out in the open what Sleepy Joe's plans are with his new Green Crap, the blue collar people in Pennsylvania will vote Trump. The Dems are trying to keep it quiet about this, but it will come out soon enough.

 

[TexRex]

You may be right. I hope you're not.

but:
Do you really want to destroy the carbon fuel industry?
Do you want your taxes raised?
Do you want open borders? And taxpayer funding for illegal's social programs and healthcare?
Do you want to defund the police, and replace police departments with community groups?

It would be funny if it were just a joke, but it is not, it is real. Democrats want this.

The Democrat party, the party that wants to take away guns, also wants to take away your police department, They want to defund the cops.

The leftist lunatics have taken over the Democratic party. Brain dead Biden is following their lead.

Heh, this actually made me chuckle. Funny Trumpkin is funny.

Tell that to the St. Louis couple who had their rifle confiscated, even after thugs trespassed on their property.

I never said the Democratic Party did that. I pointed out that the argument of “never about taking away guns” was bs.

Confiscating or accepting voluntarily relinquished firearms pending investigation is not gun control, whomever takes such action notwithstanding.

Gun control is defined as "the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians."

And? It's obvious that we can't know everything about a person. So we use 'not sarcasm' to convey our opinions while being aware that it might not be accurate.

Right. If you don't agree with someone, label them as something that you don't know them to be.

It seems to me that you've expressed contempt over this sort of thing. Yeah, here it is:

...especially nowadays when far-left is calling fascist anybody who disagrees with them...

I suppose you hold those you oppose to standards to which you don't hold yourself.

You are not supposed to choose which laws to follow and if you do and brake the law you must expect punishment.

Sure you are, and the existence of penalty for violation of a statute doesn't mean the statute is reasonably justified.

Your 'reasonable justification' doesn't matter.

Thoroughly uncompelling argument.

You don't agree with the assertion that a statute isn't reasonably justified but you fail to tender a compelling argument against, and so you fling generalizations that hit wide of the mark.

Any statute that violates the rights of one individual or group of individuals without protecting the rights of another individual or group of individuals is not reasonably justified.

Statutes founded solely upon religiosity, to any degree, are not reasonably justified, and are actually unconstitutional in the United States as they demonstrate preference to specific religious belief and values. Blue laws--those that prohibit the sale of alcohol, and even things that aren't similarly controlled, on Sunday--are founded solely upon religiosity, and as a result are not reasonably justified and are unconstitutional. Statutes that prohibit non-procreative sexual activity between consenting adults are founded solely upon religiosity, and as a result are not reasonably justified and are unconstitutional. Of course, statutes founded upon the concept of malum in se (wrong in itself), for example those involvong physical violence against another that can't reasonably be said to have been provoked or consented to, are not explicitly founded upon religiosity, because morality exists in the absence of religiosity (and I'd argue is actually more likely to exist in the absence of religiosity than in its presence).

Statutes that prohibit the wearing of certain articles of clothing, such as cropped t-shirts that leave the wearer's belly exposed, or even hijabs, niqabs and burqas, are not also reasonably justified. Laws which prohibit the latter are also unconstitutional in the United States as such articles of clothing are chosen to be worn in service to one's faith, which one has the freedom to practice provided doing so doesn't violate the rights of others.

Majority of people in your country...agree that we don't want undocumented aliens roaming our streets...

Citation needed.

Furthermore, "undocumented" isn't meaningful and appropriate documentation doesn't ensure safety, as far more crime against people is perpetrated by those who possess appropriate documentation.

People who lack appropriate documentation lack it as a result of implementation of legislation that isn't reasonably justified. These people are illegal because someone has decided they are illegal, even if they have perpetrated no criminal act unrelated to how they came to be in the country.

It's funny that you don't see a tiny bit of anarchism in your opinions.

My acceptance of and even advocacy for laws for which there exists reasonable justification means that I cannot possibly be an anarchist. Not even a tiny bit.

Not by me, I always encourage lawful change of legislation for improvement of life for citizens.

Except I advocated for a change to immigration laws that I deem to not be reasonably justified--by virtue of their being in violation of basic human rights without a meaningful impact on those purported to be served by them--and you literally said that I must be in favor of open borders, despite it not actually being the case. I quoted you as having done so.

I cited other examples of laws for which there is no reasonable justification--statutes that exist only because legislation was passed--and you literally labeled me an anarchist, despite it not actually being the case. Not only am I not an anarchist, but I wasn't actually advocating for people to ignore laws as you alleged. I quoted you as having done so.

You literally did both in the same post. Stop lying.

..."maybe communists"...

Your original remark, which I quoted, bore no such qualification. You called someone a communist, plain and simple, because they purchased a statue depicting a notable communist.

Here it is again, in case you've "forgotten" in the same way that you "forgot" what you said of me without meaningful substantiation:

When communists in the US can buy offensive statues of Lenin, Russians can buy "offensive" statues from the US too.

Like I said, there's no "maybe" there. Stop lying.

Broke the law by virtue of being Jewish

Was her death a just outcome of that particular law?

Not all laws are moral or should be obeyed, as the people who hid Ann Frank and her family were very much aware.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Heh, this actually made me chuckle. Funny Trumpkin is funny.

Rules for Radicals:
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Say, you're getting pretty good with the rules.

It's a dying industry, a plan to replace it with one that can bring jobs to Americans is not a bad thing at all, quite the opposite. Its also at least a plan, unlike the one for coal, which turned out rather badly for the coal industry that supported Trump.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckj...bs-since-trump-became-president/#7f4979dc2e29

I'm not sure what you guys are doing in the UK, maybe your cars can run on sunshine, but mine still takes gasoline.

 

[Northstar]

but mine still takes gasoline.

For how long though?

We can either take initiative right now so that when fossil fuels do inevitably get phased out there is already a well established replacement industry in the U.S. or we can let other countries do that and complain that "x" country is taking all the jobs.

 

[TexRex]

Say, you're getting pretty good with the rules.

Where's the ridicule, Trumpkin? You support him. You give off the impression that you feel a kinship with him; a perceived attack on him is a perceived attack on you.

Trumpism, man.

If you're looking for ridicule, consider your propensity to refer to those who don't support Trump as "leftists" (offered as the opposite of "normal"), even if it doesn't actually describe their political leanings.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Trumpkin

Heh.

 

[NotThePrez]

Say, you're getting pretty good with the rules.

I'm sorry, but aren't you the person that said that people who are critical of the president/the GOP aren't normal people? You really don't have much of a leg to stand on, bruv.

I'm not sure what you guys are doing in the UK, maybe your cars can run on sunshine, but mine still takes gasoline.

And we'll eventually get to a point where oil becomes so expensive to both dig up and turn into gasoline that it won't be worth the hassle, at which point people will lose jobs en masse (oh, and the planet will continue to be environmentally damaged, but who cares about such things?).

Investing in alternate fuels now is nothing but a net positive. It creates more jobs now, it (hopefully) creates jobs in the US in an effort to lower our brain drain, it has the potential to setup a new, solid infrastructure for the future when fossil fuel becomes obsolete, and depending on how its taxxed and regulated, it has the potential to make the country a whole lot of money.

As far as I can tell, the only individuals opposed to such things are, surprise surprise, the fossil fuel companies themselves, and people with close ties to those companies, some of whom hold power in our government. At the very least, I've yet to hear an actually relevant and reasonable argument against investing in alt fuels.

 

[TexRex]

Heh.

Color me flattered. Geddit? Color?

 

[Scaff]

I'm not sure what you guys are doing in the UK, maybe your cars can run on sunshine, but mine still takes gasoline.

And that's the only form of carbon based fuel is it?

Coal is declining, oil is declining, people are moving to other means of energy production and consumption, and a growing number are turning to EVs that can quite literally run on sunshine and wind.

The US was actually doing very well in building an industry around renewable energy. I say was, because Trump screwed that up and handed the keys to that (massively) growth industry to China!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamese...us-lost-20000-solar-energy-jobs/#1ca20d1876ba
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/china-leader-solar-power-180822102606141.html

You see I said dying, not dead.

Even with the damage Trump is doing renewables is still a major employer, with solar (at over 200k) a bigger employer than coal (32k).

 

[polysmut]

You might want to re-think the Pennsylvania thing. Once it is out in the open what Sleepy Joe's plans are with his new Green Crap, the blue collar people in Pennsylvania will vote Trump. The Dems are trying to keep it quiet about this, but it will come out soon enough.

I must be reading this wrong. It looks to me like:

Joe Biden has a secret environmental policy.
The party who selected him to run for president are in favour of it being kept secret.
Soon the policy won't be secret anymore.

I don't get it?

 

[WFO Krypto]

I must be reading this wrong. It looks to me like:

Joe Biden has a secret environmental policy.
The party who selected him to run for president are in favour of it being kept secret.
Soon the policy won't be secret anymore.

I don't get it?

https://reason.com/2020/07/16/bidens-new-green-new-deal-is-the-same-as-the-old-green-new-deal/

Biden's "New Green Deal" is not going to go over very well with the blue collars in Pennsylvania. Right, wrong, or indifferent, I am just saying that Coal Miners and Steel Workers in Pennsylvania are a pretty large group.

 

[Danoff]

Even with the damage Trump is doing renewables is still a major employer, with solar (at over 200k) a bigger employer than coal (32k).

I'd guess that the average pay is higher too. But Trump cares about jobs, which is why he puts on a hardhat and pretends to dig coal. Jobs!