Hillary and Pelosi are completely irrelevant and well past their expiration dates. Really shows how outdated the Dems are right now. None of those three should be doing anything but living in retirement well away from giving opinions to the media (or running for president). It's horrible we are straddled with Biden as candidate instead of those power addicted ghouls letting the next generation, like Newsom and Whitmer, take over the party.
2024 U.S. Elections
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Hillary and Pelosi are completely irrelevant and well past their expiration dates. Really shows how outdated the Dems are right now. None of those three should be doing anything but living in retirement well away from giving opinions to the media (or running for president). It's horrible we are straddled with Biden as candidate instead of those power addicted ghouls letting the next generation, like Newsom and Whitmer, take over the party.
“We do not need allies more devoted to order than to justice,” Martin Luther King, Jr.
Some people would do well studying some history, as they are clearly positioning themselves on the wrong side of it.
Some people would do well studying some history, as they are clearly positioning themselves on the wrong side of it.
Good read, but also quite depressing how we always refuse to learn from history - except for the Irish, of course.
It is possible to hold in one's head two (or more!) thoughts at once. For example:
1. I believe the Gaza offensive is morally-wrong, poorly executed and wish it would end yesterday.
2. I believe that if those protesting the Gaza situation cross lines that are clear and explained to them, than it is perfectly fine for there to be repercussions.
As a bonus:
3. I believe that the rise in anti-semitism is blatant, dangerous and worth worrying about, at the same time as worrying about the fate of the Gazans.
If someone believed segregation was wrong but people shouldn't break the rules, we'd still have segregation today.
But people did break the rules, and they suffered the consequences for doing so. That's the point, right? To show the unjustness of a rule often time take repeatedly breaking it.
And when they broke those rules and were arrested, some people looked at them as brave, noble people doing the right thing. They showed solidarity and support.
Other reacted like this, mocking and making little jokes about these stupid people expecting no consequences and the rules are the rules:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/us-politics.426868/page-579#post-31941945
It's obvious in my eyes beachryan is exactly the type of person MLK was referring to. The conversation shift to the law and rules is just a distraction that hurts the prospects of actual justice.
I don't understand your rationale. You don't want the protesters to break the law. But you would protests breaking the law for that hypothetical? Seems that is not a matter to break the law for you but you don't like what they are protesting against
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. I was mocking a tweet which tried to suggest the students having to do "reflection papers" was somehow an awful, draconian punishment. That's it. I find that being worried about that ridiculous, in the context of what is actually happening.
I don't even know how to respond to the accusation that I would have been on the other side of the civil rights movement. That feels like a pretty grave insult, but if it makes you somehow feel better, than I'm happy for you.
You clearly read my post on the other thread because you replied to it, but I'll try one more time to make my point, and then you can continue to try and slander me to for reasons I don't grasp:
Let me reduce it to the point I was trying to make: protestors shouldn't have carte blanche. Rules should be made known to them, and if they choose to break them, repercussions should follow. That's it. That's my point.
I don't care what they're protesting. Because my personal views on whatever the issue is in no way whatsoever should impact those protestors' decision to break rules. Similar for a politican's views, the President's views, and so forth.
Protest anything you want. Protest all you want. But your protest is not special, or exempt, or gives you the moral right over other people.
Because if you honestly believe that, the logical next question is simple and terrifying: who gets to say whose rights are okay to infringe upon?
I think you are more focused on the breaking of rules than the injustice behind it, so you fit the type of person MLK was referring to in the quote I posted. If that's a grave insult, then so be it, I can't pretend to read your posts and think otherwise.
And I'm still going at it because this is a strategy by some to refocus the narrative, in this case away from gaza and to the students' protests. I'm not saying it's your strategy, but you seem to have fallen for it.
I suppose we fundamentally disagree on the morality of it, because I think those brave enough to protest against oppression, unjust wars, genocide, etc. have moral superiority over someone who complains those protests are stopping them from attending a class or get to work on time.
I don't want protestors to break the law. If protestors do break the law, knowingly and willfully, I believe that there are repercussions. I believe if the US passed a law banning protests, that I personally would be willing to bear those repercussions and would protest against that.
I believe if you are so passionate about Gaza or any other issue that you feel legal, peaceful protests are insufficient, and you also know that breaking laws will have defined repercussions, you are perfectly reasonable to break the law, and bear those repercussions.
What I don't believe is that if you believe strongly enough, you should not have to bear any repercussions.
In a sense this works well on a football forum. Your argument is that City should have cheated on FFP because it was the only way to break the immoral glass ceiling. But the point is not if it should have had to break the rules, it knowingly DID break the rules, and therefore repercussions should follow. The debate about the rules being right or wrong is entirely different.
Exactly. That's what you believe. Everything you've said on this forums strongly indicates that you believe in your moral superiority. That's fine.
But that should have nothing to do whatsoever with how policies and laws are written.
Because I assure you there are people out there who believe more strongly than you do in their moral position on absolutely insane things, often incidentally due to the pretend words of sky faeries. And I do not want their views of their moral suprieority telling you or me what we can and can't do.
I mean, on the issue of genocide it's not really that hard to feel one side is morally superior. I don't know why you keep pretending to be an emotionless and passionless robot. Do you not think you're morally superior to nazis or mass murders? Of course you do.
Have I argued people who break rules shouldn't face consequences? No, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up.
Your position only serves to distract from the actual injustice going on. The focus on the side-effect has negative consequences. That's what's annoying me in this whole thing.
You mentioned you would protest certain things, would you go out and protest if the government was breaking US laws?
This whole page is weird because as someone not involved in the direct back and forth it seems like y'all are arguing slightly different version of the same thing....right? Do you not all agree with these points?
1. Gaza is horrific
2. Nonviolent, legal protests against what is occurring should be protected, celebrated and supported.
3. For some there is a desire to go beyond what is legal and perform acts of civil disobedience.
4. Those that engage in #3 should be held account if they break laws/rules, even though their cause is just (if you believe #1)
5. There is no room for violent actions, on either side (protesters and authorities).
1. Gaza is horrific
2. Nonviolent, legal protests against what is occurring should be protected, celebrated and supported.
3. For some there is a desire to go beyond what is legal and perform acts of civil disobedience.
4. Those that engage in #3 should be held account if they break laws/rules, even though their cause is just (if you believe #1)
5. There is no room for violent actions, on either side (protesters and authorities).
I don't think equating protesting against the killing of civilians vs the rights of a club to break a glass ceiling works very well unless your moral compass is broken. he analogy is pretty baffling IMO
I understand what you say on: "if you break the law you have to be prepared of the consequences". And I don't think that these protestors are not prepared or they would not be prepared. But I should say that the law is subjected to interpretation and sending the police to act harsh on them when in other occasions they don't, seems like unfair and creates chaos. Also, when you have the government that seems that they have proof that they have evidence that they are breaking international law in the precise issue that you are protesting against, it takes the legitimacy away of the once that wants to punish you for breaking the law as they are not being punished themselves
That's about it in a nutshell.
No I think government means "those who govern" tbf.
You do realise that there i.s no hush money trial and there never was or will be and there is actually a trial in progress
Paying hush money is not illegal, whether he shagged her or not or whether he talked to her not isn't relevant
Payments to Cohen were made and are not disputed, what the purpose of those payments were for are the crux of the case, if these payments are for purposes other than what the records state then Trump is guilty of what he's been charged with, falsifying business records
Trump will have a huge amount of momentum coming into this when he wriggles out of the NY prosecution, be it with an acquittal or a mistrial. Either works for him to spin a victory,
I can see Biden getting his clock cleaned. Trump will talk the usual BS, which cant be fact checked in real time.
Whatever Biden was on at the State of the Union, he needs to double his dose!
Jesus is their savior, Trump is their candidate. Ex-president’s backers say he shares faith, values
https://apnews.com/article/trump-ch...024-election-43f25118c133170c77786daf316821c3
If you watched the 2020 debates, it was actually Biden who came out of them looking good while Trump seemed unhinged (knowingly having COVID but not revealing it to anyone, including Biden probably didn't help his demeanor).
The debate in June doesn't have an audience there which will work out well for Biden since Trump won't be able to have his people clap for him each time he lies about something. If you go back further to Biden's debates with Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan, he also outperformed in those as well. The only scenario under which Biden would be in trouble is if he as an 80 year old, would have to debate someone like a Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis, where the TV audience could clearly see the benefit of youth over old age.
I doubt it, as Trump is actually a terrible debater.
Its a myth that he is dominating debates, just because of some memes and the low energy-Jeb stuff
In 2020, he was terrible, all he did was interrupt and name call, and chickened out of the other debate.
Being an obnoxious prick does not make you alpha.
For some reason, everyone has forgotten how annoying he was, and now thinks he will crush Biden, I don't get it.
Guess people needs a reminder of what Trump really is.
This, 100%. Trump is useless at debating and comes across as unhinged to anyone else but his base - who naturally votes for him anyway so it doesn't really matter. All Biden has to do in those debates is to perform on par with 2020.
It's so cultish from this lot when you consider the likes of Biden attending mass when possible. He's clearly the more religious person between the two. Cults see what they want to see.
Biden is a Catholic, that's the wrong religion for most of the right
The Pope has called for a ceasefire in Gaza. The United States has potentially funded the wipe out of the Christian population in Gaza.
Biden religious beliefs are completely meaningless and are just like any other American politician.
Biden religious beliefs are completely meaningless and are just like any other American politician.
Nonetheless, Trump could take a shit on the bible and the religious right would collectively think it was a sign from their god.
His tweet also doesn't qualify that Obama and Trump surfed their way to good numbers because of the great recession recovery which lasted a decade, and Biden took over while the economy was still being jilted by the post pandemic shock. When you factor in the great recession and COVID, it tends to paint a different picture.
Voters are judging by their perceived economic situation, and all this does is show a reality underpinning the widespread perception of a slow economy. The broader circumstances and contexts etc are all interesting for analysis but less relevant than the actual situation.
Same way that Bernie bros like me could cry about the DNC and other contexts, but votes had to be won regardless
Hmmmm
What does a "belief in our military" even mean? Jesus would not approve.
The G.I. Jesus many bible belt morons seem to have conjured up might I supposed.
another one
He meant the Spanish flu pandemic.
I know you both abhor the man, but he was almost certainly referring to the H1N1 outbreak
I look at every poll where Trump is ahead as a protest to cost of living prices. There's nothing that pisses people off more than being put under financial pressure because housing and grocery prices keep going up at a time when their salaries are stagnant. The likes of Gallego obviously don't have to worry about being blamed for it like whoever the current President happens to be.
Yes, he can refer to whichever you want to a thing that was in his demented head. But you can't have a guy than over an over seems that he should be in a nursing home as a POTUS
No other options now, so no point in keep harping on about it until after the election at least.