Jump to content

The US Politics/Elections Thread


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, downzy said:

I assume you mean Trump?

Biden.  It can never be Biden's fault using that logic.

You can't say "This is what will happen with Biden" when it's actually happening now with Trump.  And then use the excuse that "That's the local government's fault, not Trump's, since the president doesn't control local cities".

The president either...

A. Can control it (Meaning it is Trump's fault)  (Since it's happening now and Biden is not president) or

B. Can't control it (Meaning it can't be Biden's fault either)  (If it even happens under Biden)

 

Either way, it can never be Biden's fault.  But using that logic, there's a 50% chance it's Trump's fault.  

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 29.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • downzy

    4592

  • Dazey

    1886

  • soon

    1691

  • Georgy Zhukov

    1566

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Donald Trump just grabbed America by the pussy

Posted Images

Interesting info.

Puts things into perspective with respect to who Trump is speaking to. The RNC did a decent job of trying to sanitize Trump and appealing to educated white and black Americans. But Trump can’t be anything but himself and has done everything he can to remind voters who is really speaking to. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Either.  

You can't say "This is what will happen with Biden" when it's actually happening now with Trump.  And then use the excuse that "That's the local government's fault, not Trump's, since the president doesn't control local cities".

The president either...

A. Can control it (Meaning it is Trump's fault)  or

B. Can't control it (Meaning it can't be Biden's fault either)  (If it even happens under Biden)

 

 

 

 

Ah, I see what you mean now.

I get why Trump is trying to change the conversation away from covid-19 to one in which he feels he has an advantage (law and order), but he’s using carnage that’s happening under his watch to do. It kind of undercuts his 2016 campaign message that he alone can fix it and his 2017 inauguration speech that proclaimed American carnage was over. It just seems like contradictory message that appeals to only those who can’t think it through (hence the polling information I posted above). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We saw similar elitist thinking with the remainers of Britain. Sadly, and I expect it is the same in America, our universities are left-wing indoctrination centres, stuffed full of people acquiring useless degrees about gender, diversity and national self-loathing. Some of the most intelligent people I know didn't go to university. I went to university but wouldn't know the first thing about building a table or repairing something like certain people I know who didn't go to university.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

We saw similar elitist thinking with the remainers of Britain. Sadly, and I expect it is the same in America, our universities are left-wing indoctrination centres, stuffed full of people acquiring useless degrees about gender, diversity and national self-loathing. Some of the most intelligent people I know didn't go to university. I went to university but wouldn't know the first thing about building a table or repairing something like certain people I know who didn't go to university.

Liberals bullying conservatives about intelligence is one of the most delicious ironies going! :lol:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still stand by my contention that amalgamated polls of all swings states are dumb and useless, but CNN’s amalgamated poll of all swing states shows Biden with a five point lead, a six point swing from last month...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure... Why not?

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/sep/02/us-sanctions-international-criminal-court-fatou-bensouda

It’s all kind of fucked. ICC prosecutors are now held in the same regard as terrorists and narco traffickers because they chose to examine both sides of the US-led Afghan war for possible war crimes.

I guess Trump has stopped angling for that Nobel Peace prize. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

We saw similar elitist thinking with the remainers of Britain. Sadly, and I expect it is the same in America, our universities are left-wing indoctrination centres, stuffed full of people acquiring useless degrees about gender, diversity and national self-loathing. Some of the most intelligent people I know didn't go to university. I went to university but wouldn't know the first thing about building a table or repairing something like certain people I know who didn't go to university.

I've learned a thousand times more at my blue collar job than I did in college.  Four years of my life down the toilet.  Not only did I learn on the job skills but made friends with other blue collar guys that can help out off the job as well.  My friends from college are useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Swampfox said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/portland-mayor-says-hell-move-soon-after-protests-at-his-condo-building

What a coward.  How about grow a set of balls and take control of your city.  

I don’t think you read the article. 

He’s moving out of respect to other people who live in the building, not as a means to hide from protestors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

We saw similar elitist thinking with the remainers of Britain. Sadly, and I expect it is the same in America, our universities are left-wing indoctrination centres, stuffed full of people acquiring useless degrees about gender, diversity and national self-loathing. Some of the most intelligent people I know didn't go to university. I went to university but wouldn't know the first thing about building a table or repairing something like certain people I know who didn't go to university.

Yeah but that's because you studied one of those very useless degrees that you're getting so upset about. :P 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Swampfox said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/portland-mayor-says-hell-move-soon-after-protests-at-his-condo-building

What a coward.  How about grow a set of balls and take control of your city.  

Imagine moving out of a city because of protests outside your apartment building eh?

How's Bonespurs settling in to life in Florida by the way? :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, downzy said:

I don’t think you read the article. 

He’s moving out of respect to other people who live in the building, not as a means to hide from protestors. 

I read the article.  Nice how he can just move but the business owners in his city are stuck there.  And I don't believe he's so selfless that he'd just relocate for his neighbors' sake.  These politicians who back the protesters don't care until they're banging on THEIR doors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Swampfox said:

I read the article.  Nice how he can just move but the business owners in his city are stuck there.

You say you read the article but then make an absurd comment that is not supported by said article. No where does it state that the mayor of Portland is moving out of Portland. 

2 hours ago, Swampfox said:

And I don't believe he's so selfless that he'd just relocate for his neighbors' sake.

Why not?  If your presence was causing those around you to be in a state of anxiety, frustration, and sorrow, wouldn’t you do the right thing and move? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read today that California recently passed a law that if a 20yo has sex with an 11yo that they don't have to register as a set offender. Wtf if true... there is a lot of legal jargon in the link below so it could be fake news.

"This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register."

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145

The person who posted it on FB (whom I don't know) was ranting that wearing masks support pedophilia. So yeah, grain of salt...

Edited by Coma16
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Coma16 said:

I read today that California recently passed a law that if a 20yo has sex with an 11yo that they don't have to register as a set offender. Wtf if true... there is a lot of legal jargon in the link below so it could be fake news.

"This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register."

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the bill.  But the facts are as follows....

 

Prominent public figures from state Senate Republican Leader Shannon Grove to former San Francisco Giants baseball player Aubrey Huff to some Democratic state lawmakers have spoken out against the bill, though their statements do not go so far as to describe the bill as legalizing sex with minors.

With so many claims swirling, we decided to check the facts. 

The Facts About SB 145

Current state allows a judge to decide whether to place a young man convicted of statutory rape, in which vaginal intercourse takes place with a minor, on the sex offender registry based on the facts of the case. 

There is no such discretion when the offense includes anal or oral sex. 

SB 145 would eliminate automatic sex-offeder registration for young adults who are convicted of having voluntary anal or oral sex with a minor. Instead, a judge would make the decision, as with cases involving vaginal intercourse. The law would not apply in cases where a one party does not believe the sexual contact was voluntary.

LGBTQ advocates, including the bill’s author state Sen. Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco), say it would do away with a discriminatory law, one that’s a relic of a penal code that criminalized those acts until 1975, even between consenting adults. 

"This distinction in the law is irrational and discriminatory towards LGBTQ youth," Wiener said in a fact sheet on the law produced by his office, Equality California and the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, all of which support the bill. "SB 145 ends this irrational distinction by treating all sex the same way that the law currently treats penile-vaginal intercourse."

Decades ago, police used the fact that certain sex acts were illegal to raid gay clubs and charge people with crimes, said Asm. Sydney Kamlager, D-Los Angeles, a supporter of the bill, during a press conference last month

 

 

Kamlager said the disparity in the law was "put in place during a more conservative time in California and historically these [police raids] were done systematically to target folks to remove people who identified as being LGBT from our society."

Sex With A Minor Remains Illegal, In All Cases, Under SB 145

Some of the claims on social media say the bill protects rapists or lessens penalties for statutory rape. That’s not the case. 

Nothing in the legislation would change penalties for statutory rape, which prosecutors in California can charge as either a misdemeanor or felony. It is illegal under current law for any adult to have any type of sex with a minor and that remains illegal under SB 145. 

Also, the bill does not apply to any sex offenders convicted of forcible rape. 

The legislation is supported by the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault and by law enforcement groups such as the California Police Chiefs Association and the California District Attorney’s Association.

Claim About A 21-Year-Old Having Sex With An 11-Year-Old

The second part of the Facebook post that we fact-checked claims, "Now a 21 year old can have sex with an 11 year old, and not be listed on the sex registry as a sex offender." That’s also wrong. 

SB 145 only applies to young people ages 14, 15, 16 or 17 and any offender within a 10 year age range. "The vast, vast majority of cases where a judge may decide NOT to put someone on the registry will be cases where the age range is close," the bill’s fact sheet estimates. "At the end of the day, a judge will have full discretion to place someone on the registry, and a prosecutor can seek it."

 

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/02/facebook-posts/claim-viewed-millions-social-media-says-california/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So a 23yo could have have sex with a 14yo and the placing on a set offender registry would be up to a judge? Crazy imo... I wish saving the children (and overall human trafficking/slavery) got more main stream media attention. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Coma16 said:

So a 23yo could have have sex with a 14yo and the placing on a set offender registry would be up to a judge? Crazy imo... I wish saving the children (and overall human trafficking/slavery) got more main stream media attention. 

No exactly something I'd want to leave in the hands of a very liberal judge.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Coma16 said:

So a 23yo could have have sex with a 14yo and the placing on a set offender registry would be up to a judge? Crazy imo... I wish saving the children (and overall human trafficking/slavery) got more main stream media attention. 

 

10 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

No exactly something I'd want to leave in the hands of a very liberal judge.

 

I think the issue has to do with the fact that it's already that way for "heterosexual" situations.  The new law basically makes it the same for "other forms" of sex.    And if the victim feels like he/she was "violated" in any way, then none of it applies.  

 

Like I said earlier, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with any of it.  Just pointing out it's not what the "viral memes" on FB and social media are making it out to be.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I think the issue has to do with the fact that it's already that way for "heterosexual" situations.  The new law basically makes it the same for "other forms" of sex.    And if the victim feels like he/she was "violated" in any way, then none of it applies.  

Like I said earlier, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with any of it.  Just pointing out it's not what the "viral memes" on FB and social media are making it out to be.

 

I just love their logic here. They have a bad law for heterosexual situations, so their solution is not to amend the heterosexual law, but to expand the bad law into homosexual situations. :facepalm:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I just love their logic here. They have a bad law for heterosexual situations, so their solution is not to amend the heterosexual law, but to expand the bad law into homosexual situations. :facepalm:

Yeah that’s why I said I don’t necessarily agree with any of it.  I would think laws like that would be based off of the legal age of “consent” that states have.  But apparently they’re not always based off of that.  
 

For example if the legal age of “consent” is 16 or 17 (with parental approval) wouldn’t laws like that reflect that?   
 
Another thing to note is that many of the “legal age of consent” laws were written in times where it wasn’t “that out of the norm” for someone to date a 17 year old if they were in their 20’s.

 The difference between now and then is that people used to actually get married at much younger ages and the likelihood of a (younger) couple staying together and getting married was much greater back then.  (In most cases, as far as I am aware) it wasn’t a “one night stand” type of situation.  Those were typically “outliers”, etc.  
 

Now that (casual encounters) seem to be more of the “norm” I would think laws would be amended to reflect that.  :shrugs:

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • downzy changed the title to The US Politics/Elections Thread

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...