A bad time for a protest vote? Is there an election when important matters aren't decided on? Of all the disenfranchised or angry voters out there, how many didn't protest vote to make sure the right lizard gets in? How many elections did they do this? When is the right election? Sorry, that sounds like a very weak excuse for someone that doesn't have conviction to stand up for their principles.
Your contention would extend to Clinton as well. IMO, Trump > Clinton. If only for the fact that he is an unknown.
He got his nominations from conservative groups. Not "extremely far right wing conservatives". Unless you're a bleeding heart this was expected from any GOP candidate. Would you expect something different from Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, or any other GOP candidate if nominated? Cruz maybe because he is that "extremely far right wing".
lol, oh the cowards. What accusations? What is my nature? How am I inauthentic for having a different opinion?
This conversation started because I defended my position for supporting Ron Paul the libertarian and Sanders the socialist. Not because I am a libertarian or a socialist or a libertarian socialist (top kek) but because I was giving a vote for honesty and integrity and support for 3rd party positions because I don't like a duopoly of power. Yeah, I am such a terrible human being.
not everyone supports a mainstream candidate out of pure partisanship, some actually think they're the best option.
Sure. I disagree. I think when you are given two bad choices people will rationalize why their lizard is better but of course there is the exception. To be honest, I don't think all the doom and gloom we hear on either side will come to fruition if their lizard isn't elected. Like I have said before, we have had bad presidents before, one more will not be the end of the world. Go figure, I am an optimist.
So then you don't think Sanders is "hypocritical, dishonest, or paid-off".
To quote myself: "Definitely lost my support and respect. This endorsement makes Sanders come across as a hypocrite, liar, paid off, or all the above."
How is me not pretending to have a crystal ball a weasel word? What non-weasely word would you prefer?
Because all you need to do is add the word "not" and the meaning does not change. Clinton could have horrific consequences. Or Clinton could not have horrific consequences. It is the same meaningless diatribe whose meaning does not change.
Outside of very specific circumstances in a national US election voting 3rd party is effectively a half-vote for each party.
Care to back that up? Because last I checked one vote = 1 vote.
potential cost to exercising your principle in this way
And? There is potential for anything. There is a cost in blood for the rights we enjoy. How does it feel to argue against principles? I feel pity for you.
And if Trump wins because of your decision I believe that makes you accountable.
And? Trump > Clinton. Accountable in what way? Do I need to pay reparations to your feelings? Does that mean you are accountable for Clinton when she uses her known poor judgement?
Don't imagine I'm some hyper-partisan,
could have fooled me.
Sanders was unknown.
Too bad democrats rejected him. He was more appealing across the aisle as opposed to "doing what is necessary" for the good of The Party.
Trump is unknown only in the sense of how many of his terrible ideas and habits he'll bring to office.
And there is nothing wrong with the status-quo. Right? Actually, you don't know what ideas and habits he will bring if elected. That is the whole point. He is a complete unknown with no political history. All you can do is say "look at what he said on twitter, that's bad.". Clinton is different, you know exactly what you are getting and forgive me if I don't like poor judgment with "should have known better" excuses in a Machiavellian twist.
The only possible "good" outcome I can see is that the political system will unite against him and basically have a reformation of some kind. But that's a bit like drinking sewer water to give yourself an awesome immune system.
"a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
Is that because Clinton is honest or because she is better at telling half truths? I wouldn't give Clinton the credit of "being more trustworthy" than Trump simply because she is a good wordsmith.
really obvious he hasn't got a proper plan for being president
And? The whole point is that he is a wrench in the political worlds cogs. We know Clinton will be Obama 2.0 business as usual nothing changed except stronger ties for corporate and government relationships.
He seems to think he can just wing it with "common sense" or something, but most topics are more complex than that.
Yea, he is trying to walk that line of populist that uses regular peoples everyday language. He is unscripted and people make many gaffes while unscripted. It's the whole package of "not a politician reading from a teleprompter" he is trying to appeal to. Not saying he is good at it but that is what he seems to try to do.
but most topics are more complex than that.
Of course, and nuance is the death of simple conversation. He wants to keep it simple because that is what populists do.
lol, you sound like a right-wing partisan hack I have had similar conversations about in previous elections. Congrats, I guess.
I think Trump would be a lame duck for 4 years.
What damage could he possibly do?
The same damage as the one who "should have known better" and was "extremely careless". But I got an Idea, lets promote someone who makes poor judgement decisions, lies about that judgement, and brushes off criticism of that judgement as a right-wing conspiracy. You are comparing shit with shit. Not a compelling position to be on.
He's not hypocritical, Sanders has been very consistent that Hillary is vastly better than Trump and they share a lot of important policy objectives.
Similarly it's not dishonest.
I guess it depends on why someone would initially support Sanders in the first place doesn't it? If you disagree with a lot of Sanders positions then it doesn't matter what platform position Clinton adopts. I disagree with Sanders on many things including "vastly better than Trump". Shit is shit regardless of the nuttiness. Only one piece of shit has an unknown to it.
it's a claim that both candidates are more-or-less equally bad so you can't in good conscience pick either.
There are many different reasons for protest vote everyone can have a different one.
But whatever you think of Clinton (I actually think she's be great) Trump is VASTLY worse and could have horrific consequences if he got in.
It is pretty obvious you think she's great. I don't. I don't think Trump is "vastly worse". "could" is a weasel word. There can always be horrific consequences.
You don't get the excuse of ignorance that your protest vote doesn't matter
WTF? I am the one arguing that a protest vote is not a "half-vote" for Trump, like you. I am not trying to undermine someones vote of principle with scare mongering defeatism. I am literally arguing for more opinions in the body politic by advocating for a 3rd party vote to try and break the duopoly we see with R/D. And you want to say I don't get an excuse of ignorance? You can keep your partisanship bullshit and I will keep my principled vote.
That was your protest vote, not only did everyone hear but you actually changed both the party platform and Clinton's platform. That's a pretty damn effective protest.
Don't patronize me. The election isn't over and no ones vote has been counted. I don't care about pandering to get votes. I disagreed with a lot of Sanders platform so why would I care if Clinton adopt them?
Now it's time to do what's necessary and not play Russian roulette with a Trump presidency because Hillary offends your sensibilities.
What is necessary? For the good of The Party, right? I find it pretty funny you say "offends your sensibilities". Maybe all that moral signaling and faux outrage we see from the left has finally caught up to itself. Nothing more offended than the Left.
As far as the "Russian roulette", we have had bad presidents before and survived. We will have another bad president in the future and survive. Trump brings unknown. If that's what makes you afraid then fine but don't be patronizing or disingenuous just because you are a partisan apologist afraid of something different.
I could probably agree with that but at that point it seems like we are talking about shades of grey as opposed to black versus white. Both are dishonest to their own ends. And to be fair, Clinton has more experience with political speeches and such. She is probably better at avoiding outright false claims and uses specific words to avoid untrustworthy claims. This isn't a fault of Clinton per say because all politicians do it and I think even Trump is trying to do better at it.
At least Trump is hated by Congress so hopefully nothing would get done.
The same congress controlled by Republicans who so effectively united to prevent him from getting the nomination, and even once he did, never walked back their criticisms of him at all?
Congress that is made up of both Republicans and Democrats hate Trump. It won't be one party trying to stop people voting how they see fit. It will be the Legislative branch against the Executive branch. Literally nothing wrong with two branches of government in disagreement.
And you're the dumb-ass who wants to hand the Presidency to Trump! Do you realize how much power the president has? !
Maybe if Congress hates the president so much they would actually limit the power of the Executive. Imagine that. That won't happen with Clinton. Yes, I know how much power the president has and aside from a few things like foreign relations, federal bureaucracies, etc. he has to follow the law the legislative passes. Perhaps, it speaks more about the laws the executive enforces than it does who enforces them.
Where did I say I wanted a Trump president? The closest I have said in a different post was: "If I want to throw a wrench in the political system with my vote, name a better wrench than Trump." Name a better wrench than Trump.
So do you think that Bernie is corrupt for endorsing Hillary then?
Definitely lost my support and respect. This endorsement makes Sanders come across as a hypocrite, liar, paid off, or all the above.
Or it is possible that you've massively misjudged the "criminality" of Hillary's actions and the reasons that she got so many endorsements and votes?
Yes, because we all know how sweet and innocent Clinton is. Everything is a right wing conspiracy against her. Obviously, "should have known better" and "extremely careless" is something I want to promote, amirite? What is "is" anyway?
Whom you know won't possibly win, so you're basically giving a half-vote to Trump.
Have you ever heard of a protest vote? Voting for Johnson, Stein, or Mickey Mouse is not giving "half-vote" to Trump you disingenuous busy-body. Your partisan apologetics are why 3rd parties are a joke in the US.
But you're right, I should just shut up the fuck up and vote the way you say because you know better! You are the reason why we end up with the two shittiest candidates in US history because god forbid people actually vote on principle instead of listening to know-it-all-busy-bodies like you.
Despite the fact that Bernie said we should do everything we can to stop him?
Why would I care what Sanders thinks after his endorsement undermines one (or many) of the reasons I was voting for him? Well, at least a liar said she would adopt his positions that I may or may not agree on. There are many positions Sanders took that I disagreed with, why would I care that Clinton is adopting those positions? For example, free college.
So you're effectively voting for Trump then?
Never heard of a protest vote have you? One reason to vote for Trump during the primaries was to protest the GOP treatment of Ron Paul last election when they changed the rules to ignore his delegates. That rule change came back to haunt the GOP when Trump became the only person to be able win the nomination according to the rule change (win majority in X number of state).
If I want to throw a wrench in the political system with my vote, name a better wrench than Trump.
You don't understand the issues these people/parties support. They're the complete polar opposites of the political spectrum box.
Maybe... Just maybe there are other reasons to vote for someone other than political platforms... Like integrity and honesty. Say what you want about Ron Paul he was honest and consistent in the decades he was in congress as was Sanders. They both were independents for much of their political careers and joined the major party because our system favors 2 parties. They wanted to change things from the inside and because of that there was an aurora of optimism around their camps.
The only thing I trust Clinton to do is be a dishonest politics-as-usual hack that epitomizes Machiavellian government. At least Trump is hated by Congress so hopefully nothing would get done.
You are the dumb-ass that thinks a professional liar is good so long as you agree with the lie they speak. Why don't you drink more kool-aid? Your cup is empty.
The swastika is a basic shape also. If Trump had included that in a tweet, would you defend that as well?
Which swastika are you talking about? I guess context matters doesn't it? If he posted a swastika in the context of Buddhism, Hinduism, or Jainism I wouldn't think much of it and if someone called it racist I would defend it because it is not racist. Context is king.
Also, define "basic". I would argue a hexagram is more "basic" than a 20 sided polygon whose meaning changes on context. You also seem to ignore the facts that surround the Star of David. Specifically, from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "Unlike the menorah, the Lion of Judah, the shofar and the lulav, the Star of David was never a uniquely Jewish symbol." (found from Wikipedia). Further, if you use image editing software most will come with a default hexagram while none come with a swastika (check your MS Paint). You have to be much more deliberate to have a swastika rather than a shape that is nearly universal in basic constructs for image editing.
The fact is, certain shapes can and do have connotations, especially in the context of politics. Trump probably didn't realize the connotation carried by that shape (placed in front of a pile of money, no less!) when he forwarded the image, because he's so politically naive; but the symbolism wasn't lost on the public.
The fact is your "fact" changes on context, isn't unique to Jewish tradition, and comes as a default for image editing software (because it is a common shape). That is shitty grounds to stand on to claim anti-Semitism.
The image was created by @FishBoneHead1, who is quite clearly an anti-Semite [twitter.com]. You can play lawyer-ball and claim that it's possible that he just chose that shape at random, but it doesn't pass the smell test, and Trump should have known better than to repost it.
Oh, so now it is who created as opposed to where it came from like all the articles that like to say "came from an anti-Semitic website", those moving goals. If the goal was to be racist from @FishBOneHead1 I find it pretty weak. Just because you want to poison the well and have guilt by association does not mean that the intent from Trump was to be anti-Semitic. You are the one taking offense. Trump is not trying to be a subtle anti-Semite. That is retarded.
Trump should have known better than to repost it.
No, because he saw it as a hit against Clinton not a piece for Antisemitism. He didn't see Antisemitism because it is not anti-Semitic if you just take a moment to think about it. Just because you take offense does not mean that the subject matter is offensive.
No one is suggesting that. Also, that was a pretty weak straw man.
You are suggesting that when you say "when cops get caught red-handed committing violent felonies against defenceless civilians" in the context of Baton Rouge and Minnesota. It is a fact the guy in Baton Rouge was armed and resisting arrest, he was not defenseless.
So, guilty until proven innocent. Understood.
No, if you misunderstand actions to prevent a certain outcome as "guilty until proven innocent" is your problem. See suicide by cop.
u also assume that if the murderer has a badge, then the victim wasn't innocent. That's the problem.
You are quick to use the term murderer which is guilty until proven innocent. I do not assume anything. I acknowledge there are facts unknown but recognize the nature of police work being high stress. In high stress environments it is easy for poor judgement and I acknowledge the fact that the job of police is to enter into a situation with unknown risks. It seems that you believe police have to be like robots and perfect in their judgement and execution. Hate to break it to you but humans make mistakes.
Uh, no. What does that have to do with opposing police misconduct?
Because it is obvious you are speaking out of your ass and being a pedantic sophist.
Of course we don't care about those.
Obviously, because if we were to look at the raw data we would see that just because the media over covers these and other gun related incidents does not mean that these are common occurrences. Especially when many of those that are parroted by media sources turn out to be false accusations of brutality. Violent crime is down across the board. The media seems to only care if it is a white officer with a black civilian.
There have been fewer indictments and trials than you seem to believe, and it's pretty clear that the fix is in and always has been. If you're claiming an inability to see that, then I believe you.
If you want to post specific incidents where no investigation into police behavior occurred I will wait. If you want to try and illustrate how the few claims you can google alludes to a larger trend, go for it. I am not saying they don't occur but I don't think they are as common as you make them sound.
committing violent felonies against defenseless civilians
Yes, because resisting arrest while armed is "defenseless". You are quick to judge a situation without all the facts or without due process of law. Sure, the officers could have been wrong in Louisiana and Minnesota but we wont' know that until a fair trial. At least there might be some validity to the officers actions as opposed to Dallas where they were murdered without provocation. My bet is that at the very least with Louisiana and Minnesota there was an opportunity for the victims to act in way that would not have escalated the situation into violence. I don't know and I am sure we will find out but we know for a fact the officers in Dallas didn't have even the slightest opportunity to avoid that situation. I have sympathy for innocent victims.
How many high profile cop on black shootings turned out to be justified in some way shape or form after the fact? Not all but many of them, yet we don't care about those because the media and people like you want to focus on "police murder defenseless black person". When in reality it isn't that simple. Get some fucking nuance in your life.
. Then, their partner will mistake your phone/wallet/skin for a gun, shoot you dead,
Have you ever carried a weapon concealed? I have and been pulled over by the police multiple times while armed concealed. When I was getting my concealed weapons permit I had to take a class that taught you the laws associated with carrying. One of the discussions that was brought up was how to behave with police if you are armed. There are actions you take to ensure that the investigation goes smoothly for you and the officer. For example, when pulled over and armed put both hands on the wheel to be plainly visible. When asked "license and registration" respond "I am armed with a concealed permit how would you like me to proceed.". At this point police get a little jumpy. I have seen this personally, they step back with one hand on their weapon. They will ask where the weapon is located. They may ask to confiscate the weapon during the investigation (a traffic stop is an investigation) depending on the state and their laws or if the officer feels the need. Give up your weapon and proceed with the orders from the officer. Speak plainly with yes and no answers and don't move unless directed so. It sounds like bending over to authority but they have a high stress job that is dangerous and the last thing I want to do is increase their stress level by acting like a damned fool with a lethal weapon.
hold the police as accountable for their actions as they hold us.
They are that is why we have so many trials and indictments of police brutality. Just because they are found innocent does not mean the fix is in.
I know its fashionable to hate on the police but if you don't think they serve or protect you are a moron and blind to reality. There are plenty of stories that show police caring about their communities just like there are plenty of stories about police brutality.
the courts ruled that cops have no obligation to PROTECT you.
The police risk their lives by nature of their job and in some circumstances that risk is incredibly high. If you were in a dangerous situation would you A) try to ensure you go home at the end of the day or B) do what the arm-chair-general thinks on the internet to uphold some vague concept of police duty?
Because police academies teach that there is a war on cops, when the opposite is true; police are the front-line warriors in the corporatocracy's (you can just read "oligarchy's" here, if that word offends you) war on The People, and most of them don't even know it.
If you want to argue the efficacy of the War on Drugs by all means I will probably agree with you. However, you said it best "front-line warriors". The police are the front-line of tyranny, emergency response, and everything in between. That means they occupy the extremes of "the boot on your face" to "the face who saved your life by risking their own life". That "war on us" mentality cuts both ways. There is a huge culture of distrust around the police with the "why you snitchin" attitude in poor communities. Don't shovel all of the blame on one side when there is shit on both sides.
And what I want is for them not to be responsible for situations
Right, up until "What have the police done to prevent the travesty?" we keep hearing from various segments of society. So, if a man brandishes a weapon outside of your business and you call the police, what you are saying is that you do not want them to gain control of the situation to assess what the problem may or may not be? You want them to arrive with teddy bears and blankets with warm milk so everyone can have a nap and get along?
A cop shouldn't get out of being judged by a jury; they shouldn't just have a right to a jury trial, they should have to have one. They are supposed to be beholden to their community, and if they aren't, then what good are they?
They are a citizen with rights just like you. They and you can waive rights. They choose a dispassionate judge over the hyper-emotionally charged mob. I am glad your opinion on the law doesn't matter because your ideas of how the law should be is scary. i.e. Rights apply to everyone except this group of people. They have different rights because reasons.
Protect themselves above all else. That's just not the mentality a poloce officer needs to have.
If you really think this, you're an idiot. You mean to tell me that in a potentially lethal situation I would choose my own safety first? Wow... so, why don't you share your wisdom on what they are supposed to do in a potentially lethal situation?
I would wager that most people would choose to see their family instead of incurring more unknown potentially lethal risk.
Slashdot Mirror
"There are no bad tactics only bad targets."
It depends on the paycheck that came with being "Picard's catamite".
Pretty sure that Wil is better off than most because he was told to "shut up" by Picard.
Woe is being a celebrity. They are rich but everyone knows them.
You do realize the only person in this election cycle to have an assassination attempt is Trump, right? https://www.theguardian.com/us...
You're an idiot.
A bad time for a protest vote? Is there an election when important matters aren't decided on? Of all the disenfranchised or angry voters out there, how many didn't protest vote to make sure the right lizard gets in? How many elections did they do this? When is the right election? Sorry, that sounds like a very weak excuse for someone that doesn't have conviction to stand up for their principles.
Your contention would extend to Clinton as well. IMO, Trump > Clinton. If only for the fact that he is an unknown.
He got his nominations from conservative groups. Not "extremely far right wing conservatives". Unless you're a bleeding heart this was expected from any GOP candidate. Would you expect something different from Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, or any other GOP candidate if nominated? Cruz maybe because he is that "extremely far right wing".
lol, oh the cowards. What accusations? What is my nature? How am I inauthentic for having a different opinion?
This conversation started because I defended my position for supporting Ron Paul the libertarian and Sanders the socialist. Not because I am a libertarian or a socialist or a libertarian socialist (top kek) but because I was giving a vote for honesty and integrity and support for 3rd party positions because I don't like a duopoly of power. Yeah, I am such a terrible human being.
not everyone supports a mainstream candidate out of pure partisanship, some actually think they're the best option.
Sure. I disagree. I think when you are given two bad choices people will rationalize why their lizard is better but of course there is the exception. To be honest, I don't think all the doom and gloom we hear on either side will come to fruition if their lizard isn't elected. Like I have said before, we have had bad presidents before, one more will not be the end of the world. Go figure, I am an optimist.
Only superficially. Their worries about Obama were based in fantasy, my Trump fears are well justified by his comments and behaviour.
lol, right, Your reason for partisanship is TOTALLY different than the other partisans.
Clinton messed up with her emails, big friggin deal.
Well glad we have two sets of laws for us common plebs. Her Majesty Clinton can do no wrong.
, but she's not even in the same ballpark as concerns about Trump
What laws did Trump break?
So then you don't think Sanders is "hypocritical, dishonest, or paid-off".
To quote myself: "Definitely lost my support and respect. This endorsement makes Sanders come across as a hypocrite, liar, paid off, or all the above."
How is me not pretending to have a crystal ball a weasel word? What non-weasely word would you prefer?
Because all you need to do is add the word "not" and the meaning does not change. Clinton could have horrific consequences. Or Clinton could not have horrific consequences. It is the same meaningless diatribe whose meaning does not change.
Outside of very specific circumstances in a national US election voting 3rd party is effectively a half-vote for each party.
Care to back that up? Because last I checked one vote = 1 vote.
potential cost to exercising your principle in this way
And? There is potential for anything. There is a cost in blood for the rights we enjoy. How does it feel to argue against principles? I feel pity for you.
And if Trump wins because of your decision I believe that makes you accountable.
And? Trump > Clinton. Accountable in what way? Do I need to pay reparations to your feelings? Does that mean you are accountable for Clinton when she uses her known poor judgement?
Don't imagine I'm some hyper-partisan,
could have fooled me.
Sanders was unknown.
Too bad democrats rejected him. He was more appealing across the aisle as opposed to "doing what is necessary" for the good of The Party.
Trump is unknown only in the sense of how many of his terrible ideas and habits he'll bring to office.
And there is nothing wrong with the status-quo. Right? Actually, you don't know what ideas and habits he will bring if elected. That is the whole point. He is a complete unknown with no political history. All you can do is say "look at what he said on twitter, that's bad.". Clinton is different, you know exactly what you are getting and forgive me if I don't like poor judgment with "should have known better" excuses in a Machiavellian twist.
The only possible "good" outcome I can see is that the political system will unite against him and basically have a reformation of some kind. But that's a bit like drinking sewer water to give yourself an awesome immune system.
"a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
Clinton rarely tells outright porkies.
Is that because Clinton is honest or because she is better at telling half truths? I wouldn't give Clinton the credit of "being more trustworthy" than Trump simply because she is a good wordsmith.
really obvious he hasn't got a proper plan for being president
And? The whole point is that he is a wrench in the political worlds cogs. We know Clinton will be Obama 2.0 business as usual nothing changed except stronger ties for corporate and government relationships.
He seems to think he can just wing it with "common sense" or something, but most topics are more complex than that.
Yea, he is trying to walk that line of populist that uses regular peoples everyday language. He is unscripted and people make many gaffes while unscripted. It's the whole package of "not a politician reading from a teleprompter" he is trying to appeal to. Not saying he is good at it but that is what he seems to try to do.
but most topics are more complex than that.
Of course, and nuance is the death of simple conversation. He wants to keep it simple because that is what populists do.
lol, you sound like a right-wing partisan hack I have had similar conversations about in previous elections. Congrats, I guess.
I think Trump would be a lame duck for 4 years.
What damage could he possibly do?
The same damage as the one who "should have known better" and was "extremely careless". But I got an Idea, lets promote someone who makes poor judgement decisions, lies about that judgement, and brushes off criticism of that judgement as a right-wing conspiracy. You are comparing shit with shit. Not a compelling position to be on.
He's not hypocritical, Sanders has been very consistent that Hillary is vastly better than Trump and they share a lot of important policy objectives.
Similarly it's not dishonest.
I guess it depends on why someone would initially support Sanders in the first place doesn't it? If you disagree with a lot of Sanders positions then it doesn't matter what platform position Clinton adopts. I disagree with Sanders on many things including "vastly better than Trump". Shit is shit regardless of the nuttiness. Only one piece of shit has an unknown to it.
it's a claim that both candidates are more-or-less equally bad so you can't in good conscience pick either.
There are many different reasons for protest vote everyone can have a different one.
But whatever you think of Clinton (I actually think she's be great) Trump is VASTLY worse and could have horrific consequences if he got in.
It is pretty obvious you think she's great. I don't. I don't think Trump is "vastly worse". "could" is a weasel word. There can always be horrific consequences.
You don't get the excuse of ignorance that your protest vote doesn't matter
WTF? I am the one arguing that a protest vote is not a "half-vote" for Trump, like you. I am not trying to undermine someones vote of principle with scare mongering defeatism. I am literally arguing for more opinions in the body politic by advocating for a 3rd party vote to try and break the duopoly we see with R/D. And you want to say I don't get an excuse of ignorance? You can keep your partisanship bullshit and I will keep my principled vote.
That was your protest vote, not only did everyone hear but you actually changed both the party platform and Clinton's platform. That's a pretty damn effective protest.
Don't patronize me. The election isn't over and no ones vote has been counted. I don't care about pandering to get votes. I disagreed with a lot of Sanders platform so why would I care if Clinton adopt them?
Now it's time to do what's necessary and not play Russian roulette with a Trump presidency because Hillary offends your sensibilities.
What is necessary? For the good of The Party, right? I find it pretty funny you say "offends your sensibilities". Maybe all that moral signaling and faux outrage we see from the left has finally caught up to itself. Nothing more offended than the Left.
As far as the "Russian roulette", we have had bad presidents before and survived. We will have another bad president in the future and survive. Trump brings unknown. If that's what makes you afraid then fine but don't be patronizing or disingenuous just because you are a partisan apologist afraid of something different.
I could probably agree with that but at that point it seems like we are talking about shades of grey as opposed to black versus white. Both are dishonest to their own ends. And to be fair, Clinton has more experience with political speeches and such. She is probably better at avoiding outright false claims and uses specific words to avoid untrustworthy claims. This isn't a fault of Clinton per say because all politicians do it and I think even Trump is trying to do better at it.
At least Trump is hated by Congress so hopefully nothing would get done.
The same congress controlled by Republicans who so effectively united to prevent him from getting the nomination, and even once he did, never walked back their criticisms of him at all?
Congress that is made up of both Republicans and Democrats hate Trump. It won't be one party trying to stop people voting how they see fit. It will be the Legislative branch against the Executive branch. Literally nothing wrong with two branches of government in disagreement.
And you're the dumb-ass who wants to hand the Presidency to Trump! Do you realize how much power the president has? !
Maybe if Congress hates the president so much they would actually limit the power of the Executive. Imagine that. That won't happen with Clinton. Yes, I know how much power the president has and aside from a few things like foreign relations, federal bureaucracies, etc. he has to follow the law the legislative passes. Perhaps, it speaks more about the laws the executive enforces than it does who enforces them.
Where did I say I wanted a Trump president? The closest I have said in a different post was: "If I want to throw a wrench in the political system with my vote, name a better wrench than Trump." Name a better wrench than Trump.
So do you think that Bernie is corrupt for endorsing Hillary then?
Definitely lost my support and respect. This endorsement makes Sanders come across as a hypocrite, liar, paid off, or all the above.
Or it is possible that you've massively misjudged the "criminality" of Hillary's actions and the reasons that she got so many endorsements and votes?
Yes, because we all know how sweet and innocent Clinton is. Everything is a right wing conspiracy against her. Obviously, "should have known better" and "extremely careless" is something I want to promote, amirite? What is "is" anyway?
Whom you know won't possibly win, so you're basically giving a half-vote to Trump.
Have you ever heard of a protest vote? Voting for Johnson, Stein, or Mickey Mouse is not giving "half-vote" to Trump you disingenuous busy-body. Your partisan apologetics are why 3rd parties are a joke in the US.
But you're right, I should just shut up the fuck up and vote the way you say because you know better! You are the reason why we end up with the two shittiest candidates in US history because god forbid people actually vote on principle instead of listening to know-it-all-busy-bodies like you.
Don't feel the Burn, feel your Johnson!
"Convincing people like me to vote for R reliably every time" when I gave a defense of voting for Sanders who is D? You are a special kind of stupid.
Despite the fact that Bernie said we should do everything we can to stop him?
Why would I care what Sanders thinks after his endorsement undermines one (or many) of the reasons I was voting for him? Well, at least a liar said she would adopt his positions that I may or may not agree on. There are many positions Sanders took that I disagreed with, why would I care that Clinton is adopting those positions? For example, free college.
So you're effectively voting for Trump then?
Never heard of a protest vote have you? One reason to vote for Trump during the primaries was to protest the GOP treatment of Ron Paul last election when they changed the rules to ignore his delegates. That rule change came back to haunt the GOP when Trump became the only person to be able win the nomination according to the rule change (win majority in X number of state).
If I want to throw a wrench in the political system with my vote, name a better wrench than Trump.
You don't understand the issues these people/parties support. They're the complete polar opposites of the political spectrum box.
Maybe... Just maybe there are other reasons to vote for someone other than political platforms... Like integrity and honesty. Say what you want about Ron Paul he was honest and consistent in the decades he was in congress as was Sanders. They both were independents for much of their political careers and joined the major party because our system favors 2 parties. They wanted to change things from the inside and because of that there was an aurora of optimism around their camps.
The only thing I trust Clinton to do is be a dishonest politics-as-usual hack that epitomizes Machiavellian government. At least Trump is hated by Congress so hopefully nothing would get done.
You are the dumb-ass that thinks a professional liar is good so long as you agree with the lie they speak. Why don't you drink more kool-aid? Your cup is empty.
The swastika is a basic shape also. If Trump had included that in a tweet, would you defend that as well?
Which swastika are you talking about? I guess context matters doesn't it? If he posted a swastika in the context of Buddhism, Hinduism, or Jainism I wouldn't think much of it and if someone called it racist I would defend it because it is not racist. Context is king.
Also, define "basic". I would argue a hexagram is more "basic" than a 20 sided polygon whose meaning changes on context. You also seem to ignore the facts that surround the Star of David. Specifically, from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "Unlike the menorah, the Lion of Judah, the shofar and the lulav, the Star of David was never a uniquely Jewish symbol." (found from Wikipedia). Further, if you use image editing software most will come with a default hexagram while none come with a swastika (check your MS Paint). You have to be much more deliberate to have a swastika rather than a shape that is nearly universal in basic constructs for image editing.
The fact is, certain shapes can and do have connotations, especially in the context of politics. Trump probably didn't realize the connotation carried by that shape (placed in front of a pile of money, no less!) when he forwarded the image, because he's so politically naive; but the symbolism wasn't lost on the public.
The fact is your "fact" changes on context, isn't unique to Jewish tradition, and comes as a default for image editing software (because it is a common shape). That is shitty grounds to stand on to claim anti-Semitism.
The image was created by @FishBoneHead1, who is quite clearly an anti-Semite [twitter.com]. You can play lawyer-ball and claim that it's possible that he just chose that shape at random, but it doesn't pass the smell test, and Trump should have known better than to repost it.
Oh, so now it is who created as opposed to where it came from like all the articles that like to say "came from an anti-Semitic website", those moving goals. If the goal was to be racist from @FishBOneHead1 I find it pretty weak. Just because you want to poison the well and have guilt by association does not mean that the intent from Trump was to be anti-Semitic. You are the one taking offense. Trump is not trying to be a subtle anti-Semite. That is retarded.
Trump should have known better than to repost it.
No, because he saw it as a hit against Clinton not a piece for Antisemitism. He didn't see Antisemitism because it is not anti-Semitic if you just take a moment to think about it. Just because you take offense does not mean that the subject matter is offensive.
Whatever works. Are you going to volunteer to be in the pilot program?
No one is suggesting that. Also, that was a pretty weak straw man.
You are suggesting that when you say "when cops get caught red-handed committing violent felonies against defenceless civilians" in the context of Baton Rouge and Minnesota. It is a fact the guy in Baton Rouge was armed and resisting arrest, he was not defenseless.
So, guilty until proven innocent. Understood.
No, if you misunderstand actions to prevent a certain outcome as "guilty until proven innocent" is your problem. See suicide by cop.
u also assume that if the murderer has a badge, then the victim wasn't innocent. That's the problem.
You are quick to use the term murderer which is guilty until proven innocent. I do not assume anything. I acknowledge there are facts unknown but recognize the nature of police work being high stress. In high stress environments it is easy for poor judgement and I acknowledge the fact that the job of police is to enter into a situation with unknown risks. It seems that you believe police have to be like robots and perfect in their judgement and execution. Hate to break it to you but humans make mistakes.
Uh, no. What does that have to do with opposing police misconduct?
Because it is obvious you are speaking out of your ass and being a pedantic sophist.
Of course we don't care about those.
Obviously, because if we were to look at the raw data we would see that just because the media over covers these and other gun related incidents does not mean that these are common occurrences. Especially when many of those that are parroted by media sources turn out to be false accusations of brutality. Violent crime is down across the board. The media seems to only care if it is a white officer with a black civilian.
There have been fewer indictments and trials than you seem to believe, and it's pretty clear that the fix is in and always has been. If you're claiming an inability to see that, then I believe you.
If you want to post specific incidents where no investigation into police behavior occurred I will wait. If you want to try and illustrate how the few claims you can google alludes to a larger trend, go for it. I am not saying they don't occur but I don't think they are as common as you make them sound.
committing violent felonies against defenseless civilians
Yes, because resisting arrest while armed is "defenseless". You are quick to judge a situation without all the facts or without due process of law. Sure, the officers could have been wrong in Louisiana and Minnesota but we wont' know that until a fair trial. At least there might be some validity to the officers actions as opposed to Dallas where they were murdered without provocation. My bet is that at the very least with Louisiana and Minnesota there was an opportunity for the victims to act in way that would not have escalated the situation into violence. I don't know and I am sure we will find out but we know for a fact the officers in Dallas didn't have even the slightest opportunity to avoid that situation. I have sympathy for innocent victims.
How many high profile cop on black shootings turned out to be justified in some way shape or form after the fact? Not all but many of them, yet we don't care about those because the media and people like you want to focus on "police murder defenseless black person". When in reality it isn't that simple. Get some fucking nuance in your life.
. Then, their partner will mistake your phone/wallet/skin for a gun, shoot you dead,
Have you ever carried a weapon concealed? I have and been pulled over by the police multiple times while armed concealed. When I was getting my concealed weapons permit I had to take a class that taught you the laws associated with carrying. One of the discussions that was brought up was how to behave with police if you are armed. There are actions you take to ensure that the investigation goes smoothly for you and the officer. For example, when pulled over and armed put both hands on the wheel to be plainly visible. When asked "license and registration" respond "I am armed with a concealed permit how would you like me to proceed.". At this point police get a little jumpy. I have seen this personally, they step back with one hand on their weapon. They will ask where the weapon is located. They may ask to confiscate the weapon during the investigation (a traffic stop is an investigation) depending on the state and their laws or if the officer feels the need. Give up your weapon and proceed with the orders from the officer. Speak plainly with yes and no answers and don't move unless directed so. It sounds like bending over to authority but they have a high stress job that is dangerous and the last thing I want to do is increase their stress level by acting like a damned fool with a lethal weapon.
hold the police as accountable for their actions as they hold us.
They are that is why we have so many trials and indictments of police brutality. Just because they are found innocent does not mean the fix is in.
I know its fashionable to hate on the police but if you don't think they serve or protect you are a moron and blind to reality. There are plenty of stories that show police caring about their communities just like there are plenty of stories about police brutality.
the courts ruled that cops have no obligation to PROTECT you.
The police risk their lives by nature of their job and in some circumstances that risk is incredibly high. If you were in a dangerous situation would you A) try to ensure you go home at the end of the day or B) do what the arm-chair-general thinks on the internet to uphold some vague concept of police duty?
Have some fucking nuance in your life.
. First cops have the us versus them mentality
I wonder why.
Because police academies teach that there is a war on cops, when the opposite is true; police are the front-line warriors in the corporatocracy's (you can just read "oligarchy's" here, if that word offends you) war on The People, and most of them don't even know it.
If you want to argue the efficacy of the War on Drugs by all means I will probably agree with you. However, you said it best "front-line warriors". The police are the front-line of tyranny, emergency response, and everything in between. That means they occupy the extremes of "the boot on your face" to "the face who saved your life by risking their own life". That "war on us" mentality cuts both ways. There is a huge culture of distrust around the police with the "why you snitchin" attitude in poor communities. Don't shovel all of the blame on one side when there is shit on both sides.
And what I want is for them not to be responsible for situations
Right, up until "What have the police done to prevent the travesty?" we keep hearing from various segments of society. So, if a man brandishes a weapon outside of your business and you call the police, what you are saying is that you do not want them to gain control of the situation to assess what the problem may or may not be? You want them to arrive with teddy bears and blankets with warm milk so everyone can have a nap and get along?
A cop shouldn't get out of being judged by a jury; they shouldn't just have a right to a jury trial, they should have to have one. They are supposed to be beholden to their community, and if they aren't, then what good are they?
They are a citizen with rights just like you. They and you can waive rights. They choose a dispassionate judge over the hyper-emotionally charged mob. I am glad your opinion on the law doesn't matter because your ideas of how the law should be is scary. i.e. Rights apply to everyone except this group of people. They have different rights because reasons.
Protect themselves above all else. That's just not the mentality a poloce officer needs to have.
If you really think this, you're an idiot. You mean to tell me that in a potentially lethal situation I would choose my own safety first? Wow... so, why don't you share your wisdom on what they are supposed to do in a potentially lethal situation?
I would wager that most people would choose to see their family instead of incurring more unknown potentially lethal risk.