Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

No one should defend a side that does horrible things just because people they love are part of that side or believe in it.

A person can still love their family, their friends, their neighbors, their state, etc. and not condone the shitty things that they do. I've learned that people I respect are not always as great of a person as I thought they were, that they're not as smart as I thought they were ... but you know what, not all of them are a lost cause and you learn to love them despite not agreeing with them while not excusing the side they believe in because "there are good people I know who believe in it".

This need to excuse objectively bad things because some people we care about may be part of it, and the need to drag down the "other side" to that level when the other side has never been on that level before is just intellectual dishonesty and stems from people who can't accept that the things and people they like aren't objectively good. It's akin to the stupid ass arguments I see about Hoshido vs. Nohr, or Edelgard vs. Dimitri on the forums because people want "their side" to be pure white, ignoring the bad things that canonically happen on "their side" or doing mental gymnastics to justify it. Except this is real life, not a video game, and mental gymnastics like that cause REAL harm and REAL ignorance. That is why a TRUE friend would not excuse the people they love spouting out bullshit and try to make the other side "bad" just to justify them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.”
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

“Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.”

Sorta unrelated but who said this? I like them now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EoHs2iJWMAATDCM.thumb.jpg.29f85b4f5fcdf9b792ff113d2fbffff6.jpg

Conservatives: lets whine about consequences forever

EDIT: also don't bring your relatives into arguments if you're gonna get upset at people criticizing them

BONUS:

 

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

“Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.”

While that sounds good, I don't think that's really how discourse tends to go? In the context of the Denazification, there literally was a category "Mitläufer" (which is hard to translate, literal translation would be something along the lines of "follower", but it has a very clear political connotation following 1945) for low-ranked members of the NSDAP or soldiers of the Wehrmacht.

I agree with the sentiment of your post, that those Mitläufer still carry significant responsibility; just wanted to clarify that ze Germans don't necessarily look back at 1933-45 with as much scrutiny as they should.

Edited by ping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Crysta said:

Are you blaming me for the false equivalency existing because I choose to ridicule it? Because that may hurt the people who genuinely believe it? 

The media created and exacerbated it. Behavior like what happened contributes to it in a way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For fuck's sake, Rep. Hawley is a fucking crybaby. I hope I don't have to explain how idiotic and hypocritical his statement is.

Can Senators and Representatives be impeached or otherwise removed from office without them resigning? Just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rip Donald Trump's twitter account

27 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The media created and exacerbated it. Behavior like what happened contributes to it in a way.

Sure. My behavior here doesn't contribute to any of it, though, so I'm not seeing the point you're trying to make.

EDIT: More background:

 

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sunwoo said:

Can Senators and Representatives be impeached or otherwise removed from office without them resigning? Just wondering.

There's been talk of expulsion but, like with invoking the 25th amendment and impeachment, it's not likely to work.

But we should do it anyway. Everything is symbolic from here on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the Vest Virginia rep who decided it'd be a hoot to take part in Wednesday?

The FBI took him in.

This footage, it's telling that even despite why this is happening I kinda get her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Crysta said:

There's been talk of expulsion but, like with invoking the 25th amendment and impeachment, it's not likely to work.

But we should do it anyway. Everything is symbolic from here on.

It's not just symbolic. Destitution isn't the only thing that can result from an impeachment.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html

Basically, someone like Trump can also be disqualified from running for any federal office ever again (so no re-running in 2024 or anything). And unlike destitution, a simple majority of the vote is only required, rather than two-thirds.

Edited by Acacia Sgt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Crysta said:

There's been talk of expulsion but, like with invoking the 25th amendment and impeachment, it's not likely to work.

But we should do it anyway. Everything is symbolic from here on.

Does expulsion require a majority or 2/3 vote too?

Also, I probably should ask just because I am genuinely curious ... can sitting senators and representatives be charged with crimes and arrested? Because I swear I've heard about some senators/reps who had committed some crime or were under investigation but were STILL allowed to run and won their races.

Edited by Sunwoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Huh. Why didn't we do that earlier? Was adding that considered just too harsh?

Sadly, it requires removal approved to go through voting for disqualification. The idea is that, technically, the Impeachment trial doesn't have to happen before the end of term. So they hope to get him after he's out of office.

https://www.justsecurity.org/74107/the-constitutions-option-for-impeachment-after-a-president-leaves-office/

Edited by Acacia Sgt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it sounds like it's gonna be a pretty symbolic measure tbh. We'll see, I guess.

I think expulsion requires the votes of 2/3 of the body. The process is detailed here.

 

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many people needs to be punished... So many people in power needs to be punished... Trump needs to be put in house arrest. He is seriously a national risk. He cannot be allowed to leave America or be given the chance to leave.

Also, how the frick does government punish news outlet like Fox News? This trump media needs to be wrecked and destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, Clear World said:

Also, how the frick does government punish news outlet like Fox News? This trump media needs to be wrecked and destroyed.

Fox News won a court case with the argument that the First Amendment protects their lying lol.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall reading something about that.

I believe they won largely because they were able to argue that any 'sane' person could clearly tell that their shows weren't actually news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Clear World said:

I believe they won largely because they were able to argue that any 'sane' person could clearly tell that their shows weren't actually news.

And no one bothered to very very easily point out that wasn’t the case? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you all want to laugh.

Last thing at dragoncat before I take it to DM: I don't defend my friend's character unless they understand the fucked up shit they did, why it's fucked up, how they plan to make amends and then make attempts to figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...