2020 US Presidential Election

[Zugzug]

I am talking about citizens not comparing President's reactions.

So you think citizens that support Trump hold him accountable? I'm not a huge Biden fan, but at least there is some real criticism of him that liberals are discussing. I don't know how you can say the citizens have similar standards for their politicians. His supporters constantly move the goal posts.

 

[aot]

If you stand 100% behind either of these men you should check your premise...

I don't stand 100% behind Biden. Dude's clearly not cut for the job. But the thing is, we know that Trump is a shit candidate. He's had four years to prove us otherwise. He's crazy.

Biden is a chump, but there's still the chance that he could some good things. Or at the very least not make things worse. If anything, I'm voting more for whoever his VP ends up being as opposed to him. When he's inevitably deemed unfit for office, they'll take over and hopefully do a reasonable job.

 

[AtlasFainted]

I don't stand 100% behind Biden. Dude's clearly not cut for the job. But the thing is, we know that Trump is a shit candidate. He's had four years to prove us otherwise. He's crazy.

Biden is a chump, but there's still the chance that he could some good things. Or at the very least not make things worse. If anything, I'm voting more for whoever his VP ends up being as opposed to him. When he's inevitably deemed unfit for office, they'll take over and hopefully do a reasonable job.

Haha ok good to hear, that take makes way more sense.

Honestly, I think anyone who thinks they can take office and change things with some swooping program or a new set of laws is either insane or disingenuous. There are 350+ million Americans, how could one man in Washington (or even the few hundred in congress) possibly know what's best for all of them? There are far too many variables at play.

For this reason, I think it's more about power and less about actual change for 95%+ of politicians on either side of the aisle.

If anyone wanted to actually make the country better, they would simply give the people as much freedom as possible. Any individual knows what's best for their life, neighborhood, and community far more than anyone thousands of miles away ever will.

Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" comes to mind here. Sadly neither of the two main parties seems to be about freedom any longer, that is if they ever were. They only have slightly different ideas about how 'the peasantry' should be ruled.

 

[AtlasFainted]

So you think citizens that support Trump hold him accountable? I'm not a huge Biden fan, but at least there is some real criticism of him that liberals are discussing. I don't know how you can say the citizens have similar standards for their politicians. His supporters constantly move the goal posts.

Most liberals & conservatives I know both have the same narrative for their candidate of choice: "I don't like the guy, but he's not as bad as the other one."

Third-party candidates are considered a joke in America, and there is clearly an agenda to keep them that way.

However, if people took them more seriously, I strongly believe that massive amounts of people currently planning to vote Democrat or Republican would jump ship and vote third party. As it stands third-party candidates winning seems impossible, so there is this feeling of "if I don't vote for the lesser evil, my vote is being wasted".

Over time this just means shit gets more & more evil. Not a good system...

 

[Watasha]

But the thing is, we know that Trump is a shit candidate. He's had four years to prove us otherwise.

We know that he's done a lot of good things, you just don't seem to support those things, which is fine.

 

[Watasha]

Haha ok good to hear, that take makes way more sense.

Honestly, I think anyone who thinks they can take office and change things with some swooping program or a new set of laws is either insane or disingenuous. There are 350+ million Americans, how could one man in Washington (or even the few hundred in congress) possibly know what's best for all of them? There are far too many variables at play.

For this reason, I think it's more about power and less about actual change for 95%+ of politicians on either side of the aisle.

If anyone wanted to actually make the country better, they would simply give the people as much freedom as possible. Any individual knows what's best for their life, neighborhood, and community far more than anyone thousands of miles away ever will.

Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" comes to mind here. Sadly neither of the two main parties seems to be about freedom any longer, that is if they ever were. They only have slightly different ideas about how 'the peasantry' should be ruled.

I think one of the two parties has demonstrated the overall desire to give power to the people more than the other... though I do believe they are both concerned with power as the stakes have become so high. There really isn't a mainstream, federalism believing freedom party out there unfortunately.

 

[PeteJ]

Haha ok good to hear, that take makes way more sense.

Honestly, I think anyone who thinks they can take office and change things with some swooping program or a new set of laws is either insane or disingenuous. There are 350+ million Americans, how could one man in Washington (or even the few hundred in congress) possibly know what's best for all of them? There are far too many variables at play.

For this reason, I think it's more about power and less about actual change for 95%+ of politicians on either side of the aisle.

If anyone wanted to actually make the country better, they would simply give the people as much freedom as possible. Any individual knows what's best for their life, neighborhood, and community far more than anyone thousands of miles away ever will.

Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" comes to mind here. Sadly neither of the two main parties seems to be about freedom any longer, that is if they ever were. They only have slightly different ideas about how 'the peasantry' should be ruled.

Every one of those liberals have an 'Anybody but Trump' attitude. Their 'critique' is sugarcoating everything a Democrat does "because Trump is so much worse. " They're so predictable.

At least sensible people who can fault both candidates and want nothing to do with either and maybe neither party are being subjective.

 

[Watasha]

Most liberals & conservatives I know both have the same narrative for their candidate of choice: "I don't like the guy, but he's not as bad as the other one."

Third-party candidates are considered a joke in America, and there is clearly an agenda to keep them that way.

However, if people took them more seriously, I strongly believe that massive amounts of people currently planning to vote Democrat or Republican would jump ship and vote third party. As it stands third-party candidates winning seems impossible, so there is this feeling of "if I don't vote for the lesser evil, my vote is being wasted".

Over time this just means shit gets more & more evil. Not a good system...

Trump would have been a viable third party candidate. He rocked the establishment in 2016 when he didn't pledge to support the nominee and I don't blame him one bit. Those on the right were tired of weakling, pandering politicians that constantly caved under pressure.

 

[FGG]

So, you're just going to ignore my points then, eh? I appreciate your reply but calling you out just the same.

I will reiterate since you ignored me the first time. Media, governments, so-called health experts and useful idiots on Twitter chastised and vilified anyone not following restrictions, if not social distancing, less than 50 people, wear masks, stay in lockdown for as long as you can....FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. Some people protested that it was too harsh and were vilified for it. They were accused of harming others and if they were white, they were called extremists and even white supremacists. NOW, these same groups who are telling us what we should do is saying IT'S OKAY AS LONG AS IT'S protesting for BLM. It's insane.

You couldn't visit parents and grandparents in homes or if they die, you couldn't have a funeral. Yet, there was a Floyd funeral, televised, with tons of people and guests present.

Health experts and politicians said you can be in crowds (no social distancing) in which you're packed together like sardines IF you're protesting for BLM. Then the risk is allowed. Are you telling me you don't see a problem here?!?

All we have received are LIES, BS and conflicting info that makes no logical sense. Politicians and health experts have back tracked, made ridiculous exceptions and changed their mind when it suits the politics.

There's various info out there that is published that suggests the coronavirus paranoia is overblown and that people are overreacting. I guess when it comes to liberal and leftist agendas, they concur...when it suits them. I could go on???

I actually did answer your point. I just didn't agree with your framing of the issue.

I said it's possible to acknowledge *both* the seriousness of COVID-19 and wish people were given the chance to protest peacefully with mask while maintaining social distancing. This would have been entirely unnecessary if people would have woken up about this issue the first time we saw a guy literally suffocated on camera by the police.

When the NFL protests were happening, people got more upset about the flag than a man getting murdered by those supposed to "serve and protect."

I hate the idea that the protests will spread more COVID-19, but how can people not have a natural human reaction to watching a guy almost get away with a brutal, indisputable (recorded) murder? This is no longer, let's keep our heads together and try to keep the virus away, it's how long are black people going to be targets of police brutality before someone does something?

I guarantee you if the initial reaction would have been swift condemnation of Chauvin by police unions and politicians, the protest would not have happened.

 

[AtlasFainted]

I think one of the two parties has demonstrated the overall desire to give power to the people more than the other... though I do believe they are both concerned with power as the stakes have become so high. There really isn't a mainstream, federalism believing freedom party out there unfortunately.

You don't have to believe in top-down governance as an absolute to get elected as president. The Libertarian party for example often advocates for state's rights.

But both of the main two parties pretty much adapt a certain ideology and want to force everyone else to live by it. Republicans do this with drug restrictions, a police state, and more. Democrats do this with higher taxes, gun control, and more. They actually both support all of these things, despite their messaging, as you can tell by their actions.

At this stage, no one really debates that the government (FDA) should decide for us what foods and medications we should be allowed to consume. Neither party is against mass government spying on citizens. Neither party is against carpet-bombing civilians for years on end.

In fact, you don't even hear about these things on the news anymore. In my opinion, the two main parties are far more similar than they are different.

 

[AtlasFainted]

I guarantee you if the initial reaction would have been swift condemnation of Chauvin by police unions and politicians, the protest would not have happened.

Police unions condemning an officer's actions... I think it is far more likely the sun will explode tomorrow.

 

[Zugzug]

However, if people took them more seriously, I strongly believe that massive amounts of people currently planning to vote Democrat or Republican would jump ship and vote third party. As it stands third-party candidates winning seems impossible, so there is this feeling of "if I don't vote for the lesser evil, my vote is being wasted".

Over time this just means shit gets more & more evil. Not a good system...

Respectfully, I completely disagree. What is true is most people hold positions that are a mix of both parties. This does not mean the current third parties make sense. I cannot believe I'm saying this, as I hate Donald Trump, but even the current republican party makes more sense than Jill Stein. People go into hypercritical mode with Democrats and Republicans and look for the grass to be greener for third parties. I am yet to see a third party candidate make any sense.

Assuming the actual problem is polarization, another myth is that more parties fixes this problem. I disagree with this. The polarization is caused by the internet and echo chambers. If there were more parties, there would be more echo chambers. The goal of every election would be to round up 20% of people from the base, and be highly combative with everyone else, throwing your own base red meat. If anything, I think there only being two parties helps polarization, as most people find it hard to not find anything on the other side that they agree with.

There would be even more disagreement and gridlock. Trump got elected because of a split Republican field.

How you really fix the problems: Higher voter turn out, eliminate/reduce gerrymandering, reduce voter suppression, have all votes count equally, abolish the electoral college so that people have motivation to listen to other viewpoints.

The two parties are fine, they just need to be held accountable.

 

[Zugzug]

If you stand 100% behind either of these men you should check your premise...

People engage in lesser of two bads all of the time. Working is better than being homeless. Paying bills is better than going to jail. I don't understand why all of this "lesser of two evils" thing is so big of a deal around election time. Every reasonable grown up engages in game theory on a regular basis.

It annoys me when people who sit out then finger point at the "morons who voted for candidate X." Some people just don't run from these problems.

To be clear, since I may have been harsh, not voting is a legit choice. Or third party voting. What I'm talking about is the people who do this to then later use it as a weapon. Of course you are engaging in lesser of evils as well. It's not some sign of brilliance.

 

[Watasha]

You don't have to believe in top-down governance as an absolute to get elected as president. The Libertarian party for example often advocates for state's rights.

But both of the main two parties pretty much adapt a certain ideology and want to force everyone else to live by it. Republicans do this with drug restrictions, a police state, and more. Democrats do this with higher taxes, gun control, and more. They actually both support all of these things, despite their messaging, as you can tell by their actions.

At this stage, no one really debates that the government (FDA) should decide for us what foods and medications we should be allowed to consume. Neither party is against mass government spying on citizens. Neither party is against carpet-bombing civilians for years on end.

In fact, you don't even hear about these things on the news anymore. In my opinion, the two main parties are far more similar than they are different.

So the republicans are for low taxes and back it up, they are for 2nd amendment protections (minus bump stocks) and back it up, they are for free market healthcare reform, and back it up. Trump has attempted to pull our troops out from overseas and was absolutely raked over the coals for it, lost a general, again backed it up. With that, I can't accept that premise. Yes, fundamentally, over time, there has been a gradual erosion of our rights that both parties have participated in and power has consolidated at the top, but I don't think both parties are equal by any means.

 

[JohnDoe8776059]

Not voting is a vote for Trump.

But it's a fact that not voting means you don't vote for Trump

 

[FGG]

You don't have to believe in top-down governance as an absolute to get elected as president. The Libertarian party for example often advocates for state's rights.

But both of the main two parties pretty much adapt a certain ideology and want to force everyone else to live by it. Republicans do this with drug restrictions, a police state, and more. Democrats do this with higher taxes, gun control, and more. They actually both support all of these things, despite their messaging, as you can tell by their actions.

At this stage, no one really debates that the government (FDA) should decide for us what foods and medications we should be allowed to consume. Neither party is against mass government spying on citizens. Neither party is against carpet-bombing civilians for years on end.

In fact, you don't even hear about these things on the news anymore. In my opinion, the two main parties are far more similar than they are different.

I think if you live in anything remotely resembling a swing state, it makes sense to vote for a major party but if more people from let's say... Oklahoma or Vermont voted third party, those parties would get more funding and maybe then there could be a viable candidate, eventually.

 

[AtlasFainted]

So the republicans are for low taxes and back it up, they are for 2nd amendment protections (minus bump stocks) and back it up, they are for free market healthcare reform, and back it up. Trump has attempted to pull our troops out from overseas and was absolutely raked over the coals for it, lost a general, again backed it up. With that, I can't accept that premise. Yes, fundamentally, over time, there has been a gradual erosion of our rights that both parties have participated in and power has consolidated at the top, but I don't think both parties are equal by any means.

I feel like we agree more than we disagree.

That being said, republicans overwhelmingly voted for the Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986, which is the reason civilians are limited to automatic weapons created prior to 1986, effectively labeling them "rich people only".

The bill was also sponsored by a republican, and signed into law by a republican president (Reagan).

We also didn't see any gun control rolled back more recently, when we had republican president (Trump) & also a republican majority. We actually saw more gun conrol (bumpstocks), as you pointed out.

We also saw the national debt continue to explode during that time. Not to mention there were so many more things they could have done during that time, such as increasing state's rights, reducing mass spying/carpet bombing, or repealing FDA & NFA regulations. But they didn't.

As I said before, the messaging of the "conservative party" and what they actually do are two different things.

As long as they appear to be against *more* tyranny 90% of the time, no one cares if they leave the tyranny already written into law alone. Then the remaining 10% is where bipartisanship happens and our rights are further eroded.

Not to mention the millions of people who are still locked in cages like animals due to a small amount of personal narcotics. This costs the country billions & we have largely republicans to thank.

Both parties suck.

 

[Zugzug]

But it's a fact that not voting means you don't vote for Trump

I think the phrase "not voting is a vote for Trump," if taken non-literally, has the following message. In a game theory matrix, the maximum way to stop Trump is to vote for a Democrat. By not voting or voting third party, you are applying equal utility to Trump as the Democrat. So the only way to not apply utility to Trump is to vote for the Democrat.

I see people who don't vote and very few of them will actually "both sides" Donald Trump. They almost always clearly see him as a disaster more so than the Democrat. Therefore, by not voting, you are making the decision that both are equally bad.

Next time Trump does something disgraceful, which will probably be today, I want to see all of the non-voters argue that Biden would do the same thing. This is rarely what they do. Instead, I find non-voters have the most to say, but the least amount of effort to do anything but judge.

"So why don't Democrats say the same thing about Republicans who vote third party? No one's telling Romney that a vote for third party is a vote for Trump. They only seem to do this to Sanders supporters."

I think the above is because Sanders supporters always want the most virtue points for "calling out Trump." They often say the Democrats equivocate too much and don't hold him accountable. This rubs moderates very much the wrong way, since the number one way to hold him accountable is to vote for a Democrat. You can't vote for Jill Stein and then complain that moderates equivocate.

If Sanders supporters had more of a "both sides are the same, that's why I'm voting third party" vibe, they would also fall flatter in the primaries. They want it both ways; they want to be the most virtuous on stopping Trump, but also respected by Democrats. It's annoying.

On the contrary, if Romney divides the Republicans, that's good, as I view them as a group that needs some division, whereas the Democrats need unity.

 

[AtlasFainted]

People engage in lesser of two bads all of the time. Working is better than being homeless. Paying bills is better than going to jail. I don't understand why all of this "lesser of two evils" thing is so big of a deal around election time. Every reasonable grown up engages in game theory on a regular basis.

It annoys me when people who sit out then finger point at the "morons who voted for candidate X." Some people just don't run from these problems.

To be clear, since I may have been harsh, not voting is a legit choice. Or third party voting. What I'm talking about is the people who do this to then later use it as a weapon. Of course you are engaging in lesser of evils as well. It's not some sign of brilliance.

Pretty terrible analogies though. You compare productive things vs being homeless or imprisoned and call it a comparison of two evils?

Republicans vs Democrats is more like being homeless or being homeless with a tent, depending on your demographic.

You also go to jail with either party. Maybe for having the barrel on your rifle to short, or maybe for having some marijuana in your pocket.

I also never called anyone a moron for voting for one of the two main parties. Only that I think the system is far too easy to manipulate and conspire within. Not only do both parties crucify individual's identities depending on what their way of life is (while also taking their tax dollars) but they hold all the leverage.

Would you want only two brands of beef to choose from? Or only two companies in the world that construct buildings, or only two businesses that make cars?

No? Then why do you want only two parties? There is a reason the for fathers warned against parties from the get-go.

It is very easy as a lobbyist to account for only two parties being in power, in order to give their corporation an unfair advantage.

It is very easy for media companies to strike deals with the republicans & the democrats, instead of a multitude of different idealogies that may come to power.

When virtually all mainstream media is owned by only 6 companies, you start to see why this can be dangerous. They can literally steer the narrative to keep their (and their sponsors) government deals safe.

Here's an article about the CPD (commision on presidential debates), who suddenly required that canidates poll at 15% or higher shortly after a 3rd party canidate became govenor in Minnesota, effectively keeping Jill Stein & Gary Johnson from debating on television during the last election cycle: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...residential-debates-undemocratic-gary-johnson

That being said, I think the sytem its self is the problem. It encourages this type of behavior.

I think the internet will shake things up in coming decades, and people will realize they can have more power in this information age.

We aren't sending representiatives to the capital on horseback anymore - I can personally send information halfway around the world in milliseconds, and so can you. Just something to think about...

 

[Watasha]

I feel like we agree more than we disagree.

That being said, republicans overwhelmingly voted for the Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986, which is the reason civilians are limited to automatic weapons created prior to 1986, effectively labeling them "rich people only".

The bill was also sponsored by a republican, and signed into law by a republican president (Reagan).

We also didn't see any gun control rolled back more recently, when we had republican president (Trump) & also a republican majority. We actually saw more gun conrol (bumpstocks), as you pointed out.

We also saw the national debt continue to explode during that time. Not to mention there were so many more things they could have done during that time, such as increasing state's rights, reducing mass spying/carpet bombing, or repealing FDA & NFA regulations. But they didn't.

As I said before, the messaging of the "conservative party" and what they actually do are two different things.

As long as they appear to be against *more* tyranny 90% of the time, no one cares if they leave the tyranny already written into law alone. Then the remaining 10% is where bipartisanship happens and our rights are further eroded.

Not to mention the millions of people who are still locked in cages like animals due to a small amount of personal narcotics. This costs the country billions & we have largely republicans to thank.

Both parties suck.

It seems we do agree on more than disagree.

Trump is Trump, he is not a Republican. He's no founding father, but he hasn't been all bad, in fact, I think he's been more good than bad (there's a lot of negativity bias and I'm not surprised given the media coverage documented). Here's a tracker of his deregulation moves.

https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/tracking-deregulation-in-the-trump-era/

He's tried to end wars and had Bolton and his generals turn on him.

He did sign federal criminal justice reform, a lot of the drug laws are also at the state levels where they need to be reformed.

One item that gets mentioned here on Tinnitus Talk all of the time is "Right to Try" for compassionate use. That was him.

He's been okay. Sadly, I think the nature of a democratic republic that is allowed to vote itself money and has no constitutional cap on debt is doomed to fail in the end anyways. Look up Newt Gingrich and the contract with America. He tried to put a statutory limit on government, and came up one veto override vote short in the senate for a balanced budget amendment. These are not moves that you see from democrats, and sadly the republicans cave and want the establishment media to like them so they can go on Meet the Press and be told how bipartisan they are for their pandering.

COVID blew a big fat hole in the budget. I personally believe his goal was to get a roaring economy, and then make the budgetary moves in the second term. Now, we better restrain spending quick or we are in deep.

 

[Zugzug]

Pretty terrible analogies though. You compare productive things vs being homeless or imprisoned and call it a comparison of two evils?

Republicans vs Democrats is more like being homeless or being homeless with a tent, depending on your demographic.

You also go to jail with either party. Maybe for having the barrel on your rifle to short, or maybe for having some marijuana in your pocket.

I also never called anyone a moron for voting for one of the two main parties. Only that I think the system is far too easy to manipulate and conspire within. Not only do both parties crucify individual's identities depending on what their way of life is (while also taking their tax dollars) but they hold all the leverage.

Would you want only two brands of beef to choose from? Or only two companies in the world that construct buildings, or only two businesses that make cars?

No? Then why do you want only two parties? There is a reason the for fathers warned against parties from the get-go.

It is very easy as a lobbyist to account for only two parties being in power, in order to give their corporation an unfair advantage.

It is very easy for media companies to strike deals with the republicans & the democrats, instead of a multitude of different idealogies that may come to power.

When virtually all mainstream media is owned by only 6 companies, you start to see why this can be dangerous. They can literally steer the narrative to keep their (and their sponsors) government deals safe.

Here's an article about the CPD (commision on presidential debates), who suddenly required that canidates poll at 15% or higher shortly after a 3rd party canidate became govenor in Minnesota, effectively keeping Jill Stein & Gary Johnson from debating on television during the last election cycle: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...residential-debates-undemocratic-gary-johnson

That being said, I think the sytem its self is the problem. It encourages this type of behavior.

I think the internet will shake things up in coming decades, and people will realize they can have more power in this information age.

We aren't sending representiatives to the capital on horseback anymore - I can personally send information halfway around the world in milliseconds, and so can you. Just something to think about...

I think you make some good points. Where we fundamentally disagree is the amount of credit we give the average voter. I am deeply cynical that the average voter, including myself, is an idiot and votes against their best interests.

Your analogy for more brands of beef and car falls pretty flat for me since these are simpler problems so the buyer won't have a rational thinking problem. Politics is extremely complex; if the average voter was smart enough to process all of it, then I would agree with you that more choices is always better.

Maybe this is very cynical, but I really don't think most people who vote third party do it for the right reasons. I think there's a lot of "I'm not a sheep!" third party votes, as opposed to processing the platforms and really choosing the option that was best. I see a lot of...Democrats and Republicans suck! Therefore, Jill Stein. Nope, turns out Jill Stein sucks more unfortunately.

Your point about lobbying is great. However, I would counter that the stability and predictability that you talk about is helpful for the entire economy, including small business owners. I wish there was a way to better control lobbying though.

 

[FGG]

I think you make some good points. Where we fundamentally disagree is the amount of credit we give the average voter. I am deeply cynical that the average voter, including myself, is an idiot and votes against their best interests.

Your analogy for more brands of beef and car falls pretty flat for me since these are simpler problems so the buyer won't have a rational thinking problem. Politics is extremely complex; if the average voter was smart enough to process all of it, then I would agree with you that more choices is always better.

Maybe this is very cynical, but I really don't think most people who vote third party do it for the right reasons. I think there's a lot of "I'm not a sheep!" third party votes, as opposed to processing the platforms and really choosing the option that was best. I see a lot of...Democrats and Republicans suck! Therefore, Jill Stein. Nope, turns out Jill Stein sucks more unfortunately.

Your point about lobbying is great. However, I would counter that the stability and predictability that you talk about is helpful for the entire economy, including small business owners. I wish there was a way to better control lobbying though.

In my opinion, you aren't giving third party voters enough credit here and reducing the majority of them just to rebellious contrarians without their own thought out ideology.

 

[Zugzug]

In my opinion, you aren't giving third party voters enough credit here and reducing the majority of them just to rebellious contrarians without their own thought out ideology.

You may be right. I will say that I am young and didn't start following politics until Trump. Thus, I have a slanted view about the third party vote. The thoughtful third party vote bothers me less if it was between, say, Obama and McCain. I don't think America can handle Trump...it's driving us nuts. Hence, the third party vote is sour for me.

Hell, if Bernie lost to Hillary and, say, Kasich won the Republican nomination, the Bernie protest vote wouldn't really bother me.

 

[PeteJ]

You're replying with nonsense again and ignoring some of my main points.

I actually did answer your point. I just didn't agree with your framing of the issue.

I said it's possible to acknowledge *both* the seriousness of COVID-19 and wish people were given the chance to protest peacefully with mask while maintaining social distancing. This would have been entirely unnecessary if people would have woken up about this issue the first time we saw a guy literally suffocated on camera by the police.

When the NFL protests were happening, people got more upset about the flag than a man getting murdered by those supposed to "serve and protect."

I hate the idea that the protests will spread more COVID-19, but how can people not have a natural human reaction to watching a guy almost get away with a brutal, indisputable (recorded) murder? This is no longer, let's keep our heads together and try to keep the virus away, it's how long are black people going to be targets of police brutality before someone does something?

I guarantee you if the initial reaction would have been swift condemnation of Chauvin by police unions and politicians, the protest would not have happened.

What seriousness?

You have been following the protests right? 80%+ should be infected by now. We were told how harmful and contagious it was. The only measure anyone did was wear masks and that wasn't everyone.

This hoax has tons of holes and conflicting information and claims. I presented these and you ignored them. Saying you disagree...so what? Not addressing points and disagreeing means squat.

As for BLM and the protests... there's so many things people could protest and people pick this? Did people just wake up from a coma? It's not the first time a cop used excessive force. But, besides that, what about the peculiar reports that these two knew each other? That Floyd had major health problems, the weird details regarding the coroner etc. etc.? The lies regarding police brutality and race? Various NON MSM have published this information that contradicts the BLM/LEFTIST narrative. But, liberals ignore and refuse to acknowledge it. Anyone who points it out is labeled an extremist, racist, white supremacist and other bs like that.

BLM have shady details regarding financing and donations. Yet leftists overlook, deny and lie about this.

The police have two problems. An internal problem with corruption, abuse of powers etc which is condemned by all but also they are treated like shit. There's lots of videos in which blacks attack and harass them. This is ignored by liberals. The defunding agenda is insane. Liberals often support this. When it backfires and goes to sh**, what will they do after? Liberals aren't objective about anything and that goes for you, too.

 

[Juan]

I think Americans elected Trump because they wanted to beat the British on nonsense after they decided to leave the EU.

Oh... sorry, the UK has not left the EU yet. They keep delaying and delaying...

 

[FGG]

You're replying with nonsense again and ignoring some of my main points.
What seriousness?

You have been following the protests right? 80%+ should be infected by now. We were told how harmful and contagious it was. The only measure anyone did was wear masks and that wasn't everyone.

This hoax has tons of holes and conflicting information and claims. I presented these and you ignored them. Saying you disagree...so what? Not addressing points and disagreeing means squat.

As for BLM and the protests... there's so many things people could protest and people pick this? Did people just wake up from a coma? It's not the first time a cop used excessive force. But, besides that, what about the peculiar reports that these two knew each other? That Floyd had major health problems, the weird details regarding the coroner etc. etc.? The lies regarding police brutality and race? Various NON MSM have published this information that contradicts the BLM/LEFTIST narrative. But, liberals ignore and refuse to acknowledge it. Anyone who points it out is labeled an extremist, racist, white supremacist and other bs like that.

BLM have shady details regarding financing and donations. Yet leftists overlook, deny and lie about this.

The police have two problems. An internal problem with corruption, abuse of powers etc which is condemned by all but also they are treated like shit. There's lots of videos in which blacks attack and harass them. This is ignored by liberals. The defunding agenda is insane. Liberals often support this. When it backfires and goes to sh**, what will they do after? Liberals aren't objective about anything and that goes for you, too.

There is too much to parse through here but your statement "there is so much people could protest but they pick this?" stuck out and suggests to me that you may have difficulty understanding how different people could have radically different values and priorities than you.

I doubt we could come to an understanding but that's ok imo. I don't take it personally and hope you don't either.

 

[PeteJ]

I think Americans elected Trump because they wanted to beat the British on nonsense after they decided to leave the EU.

Oh... sorry, the UK has not left the EU yet. They keep delaying and delaying...

Of course. There is no real democracy.

 

[PeteJ]

There is too much to parse through here but your statement "there is so much people could protest but they pick this?" stuck out and suggests to me that you may have difficulty understanding how different people could have radically different values and priorities than you.

I doubt we could come to an understanding but that's ok imo. I don't take it personally and hope you don't either.

Yeah, like insufficient healthcare, crappy housing, governments/politicians stealing, on and on. Yeah, I guess my priorities don't matter and no one else in the entire world cares about this. I am glad you made it clear.

 

[PeteJ]

I will stop posting to this thread as I know people want me to. I want to oblige them. Liberals are pathetic human beings. They're also incredibly simple and stupid. Everywhere is ****ed. It's over. I just hope other patient people call out these hypocrites because they can't understand anything.
To the people here who replied directly to me and made genuine attempts at discussion... I salute you. Take care. I hope things are okay and improve.

I really hope I have the nerve to get out of this world soon. I don't like this place and this condition makes it far worse than it should be.

 

[FGG]

Yeah, like insufficient healthcare, crappy housing, governments/politicians stealing, on and on. Yeah, I guess my priorities don't matter and no one else in the entire world cares about this. I am glad you made it clear.

I didn't say your priorities don't matter. I just said that many people have different priorities and different viewpoints.