• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Gather App
Which Tyler said:
View attachment 23405
Click to expand...
Interesting, it seems the US government asked the illegal immigrant mothers who were deported, if there was any family including father's who could take the children, and the mothers decided to keep the children with them.

This is a tough case, keep the children who are US citizens and deport the illegal mothers, and they're literally ripping children from their mothers, let them return to Honduras with their mothers and they are deporting US citizens... bit of a catch 22 no?

Ultimately, ICE have offered to Facilitate a return for the children no?
 
dirty harry said:
100% agree that Patel will be gone with the next Dem president, but I also acknowledge Trump made the same claims about Comey as you have about Patel, so it's apples and oranges.

You talk likelyhoods when discussing Trump's blathering in the media, but in my theory the outcome of a strategy of entrapment would be exactly what is happening, whereas with your theory he'd have been ousted by now. I can't remember who said it but the phrase 'if Trump did one 10th of the stupid things he's done, he'd be criminalised 10 x more'

His strategy is shock and awe, and it's worked pretty well, during the Clinton campaign he said 3 things a week that would've sunk anyone else, noone seemed to recognise those 3 things a week drowned out Clinton announcements etc...

Ah OK, election denying is OK when Democrats do it because it's all true hahaha come on, when I say you guys are different sides of the same coin this is what I mean, condemns Trump for firing an FBI lead, requests the next Dem government removes this one, calls Trump election denier, would consider storming the capitol to defend Hillary.

Aw mate that Cato link doesn't say what you think it does (although i had to goggle it as link didnt work, so hopefully got the right articel), it only highlights 3 cherry picked examples, ignores 100 years of history, and basically states the actions were basically the same but the Rep numbers were stronger. It lost me when it made the claim Trump egged the capitol rioters on by telling them to 'fight like hell' when entering the building lol, and refused to mention the rest of the speach "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard". Thisnis what I mean by reporting that manipulates, just report the facts and let people make up their own mind!

One could argue the fierceness of Republican objections could reflect the evidence of electoral medalling, including the disgracefully postal ballot fight before hand. (More complex argument).

Your 3rd term argument isn't sensible though, because Reagon petitioning to abolish 22, Obama commented on it, Bill Clinton is still in favour of it, regardless of its legality. Let's say all 3 of these agree a 3rd term should be allowed, are they all authoritarian, or is it OK when they do it? Over the last 30 ro 40 years over a dozen representatives have tabled motions to repeal 22, multiple times each including Reagon and Clinton in their 2nd temrs and being popular (although they didn't do it directly, it was on their behalf).

22 is only illegal until it's repealed, Trump will try it, and then a dozen more representatives over the next 30 years will try it, until eventually it will go to a vote. These aren't authoritarian moves, the constitution is tried all the time, despite welsh exiles assertions, every president wants to change the constitution, and some even run on it, especially 2nd amendment which interestingly has quietened down recently.

And again, the documents, it's regular practice to mishandle and misuse documents, Biden and Trump got into heat for it, one was not prosecuted because he's too much of a nice old man with no memory, the other was because the judge excused away the special counsels abilities, which by the way invalidated elements of Nixons conviction too.

So there you have it, sitting, former and vice presidents are not criminalised for things we would be, they are protected and given far more immunity, in line with each other.
Click to expand...
Trump making the same claims about Comey as Patel is not the same as those claims being true. Come on, the man lies like he breathes. You yourself said that Trump frequently says bullshit to "entrap" media and in the next breath are saying Trumps word should mean something. Which is it? Comey didn't have a hit list published before he took office and didn't openly advocate for using the FBI to pursue political rivals of the president, Patel did.

His strategy is to talk with zero filter. There isn't some 4D chess going on in the background, it's a brash and hateful guy acting as he has always done. The fact that he gets away with it doesn't mean it's some stroke of genius.

I didn't say election denying is ok when Dems do it, I said there is a difference in the level of evidence. Again, you claim nuance but you don't look any deeper into it than person A and person B both criticised the elections, therefore they are equal. They are not. The things I listed in Abrams cases are established FACTS, not opinions. We know they happened. Where are the facts from Trumps claims? They don't exist yet you claim they are identically valid/invalid.

"But the GOP's post-2020 election denialism is in an entirely different league. It is vastly more toxic. And it is uniquely dangerous." Literally right there it says that what the Republicans are doing is a whole different league and specifically calls out what you are doing, "bothsidesism" and treating them as equal. That article says exactly what I'm saying, that the 2 sides are NOT the same and simply pointing to the fact Democrats have also criticised elections is lazy and lacking nuance. Again, you claim to support nuance so often and time and time again I'm finding you lumping very different scenarios together as being identical due to only a most basic level similarity. It's like saying Usain Bolt and I can both run, therefore we are the same as runners.

You've completely ignored the point of my argument. I've said there is nothing inherently wrong with a 3rd term OTHER than the fact the law doesn't allow it. Previous presidents may have floated the idea of going for a 3rd term and some have had a 3rd term, but none have sought to do so via illegal means or loopholes, they have proposed directly challenging the law the establishes the 3rd term through the proper Constitutional process. Trump isn't, he attempted to obtain a 2nd term through illegal means (fake electors and insurrection) and is now seeking to obtain a 3rd term currently through a loophole and in the future potentially illegal means again. Given his history of reluctance to engage in the peaceful transfer of power, the only president in I don't even know how long to have not done so, him seeking to legitimise a 3rd term is more worrying than for the others. Again, lack of nuance, you see a bunch of presidents postulating a 3rd term and have lumped them all together as the same.

Trump simply trying to repeal the 22nd through the legitimate constitutional process isn't the authoritarian part of this, as I've said repeatedly now. It's them trying to find loopholes and repeal it through an illegitimate process that's the issue. Don't try to claim it isn't happening because it's literally being done right now. The fact the repealing will likely fail is besides the point, but copying the Putin tactic of getting the presidency via the vice presidency to become an eternal president is not looking to tackle the issue head on, it's looking to find a loophole and dodge around the clear intent of the law using language games. If they think Trump can legitimately have a 3rd term, why are they looking for a loophole rather than directly challenging the Constitutional amendment barring from him running for a 3rd election and then running for a 3rd election?

Again Trump mishandling documents IS NOT WHAT HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR. I've said this so many times now and it's getting tiring. He was prosecuted for his repeated and intentional obstruction of their retrieval. Please do not repeat that Trump was prosecuted for simply mishandling documents, that's not what I'm saying, that's not what the justice department said, that's not what the justification for the FBI raid was and that's not what it went to court for. Had he cooperated and returned them, he would not have been prosecuted.
 


500 law firms have signed an amicus brief against the federal government for the blatant breaches of the law by the Trump administration in retaliatory measures against law firms that represented Trumps opponents.
 
Last edited:
Ragey Erasmus said:
Trump making the same claims about Comey as Patel is not the same as those claims being true. Come on, the man lies like he breathes. You yourself said that Trump frequently says bullshit to "entrap" media and in the next breath are saying Trumps word should mean something. Which is it? Comey didn't have a hit list published before he took office and didn't openly advocate for using the FBI to pursue political rivals of the president, Patel did.

His strategy is to talk with zero filter. There isn't some 4D chess going on in the background, it's a brash and hateful guy acting as he has always done. The fact that he gets away with it doesn't mean it's some stroke of genius.

I didn't say election denying is ok when Dems do it, I said there is a difference in the level of evidence. Again, you claim nuance but you don't look any deeper into it than person A and person B both criticised the elections, therefore they are equal. They are not. The things I listed in Abrams cases are established FACTS, not opinions. We know they happened. Where are the facts from Trumps claims? They don't exist yet you claim they are identically valid/invalid.

"But the GOP's post-2020 election denialism is in an entirely different league. It is vastly more toxic. And it is uniquely dangerous." Literally right there it says that what the Republicans are doing is a whole different league and specifically calls out what you are doing, "bothsidesism" and treating them as equal. That article says exactly what I'm saying, that the 2 sides are NOT the same and simply pointing to the fact Democrats have also criticised elections is lazy and lacking nuance. Again, you claim to support nuance so often and time and time again I'm finding you lumping very different scenarios together as being identical due to only a most basic level similarity. It's like saying Usain Bolt and I can both run, therefore we are the same as runners.

You've completely ignored the point of my argument. I've said there is nothing inherently wrong with a 3rd term OTHER than the fact the law doesn't allow it. Previous presidents may have floated the idea of going for a 3rd term and some have had a 3rd term, but none have sought to do so via illegal means or loopholes, they have proposed directly challenging the law the establishes the 3rd term through the proper Constitutional process. Trump isn't, he attempted to obtain a 2nd term through illegal means (fake electors and insurrection) and is now seeking to obtain a 3rd term currently through a loophole and in the future potentially illegal means again. Given his history of reluctance to engage in the peaceful transfer of power, the only president in I don't even know how long to have not done so, him seeking to legitimise a 3rd term is more worrying than for the others. Again, lack of nuance, you see a bunch of presidents postulating a 3rd term and have lumped them all together as the same.

Trump simply trying to repeal the 22nd through the legitimate constitutional process isn't the authoritarian part of this, as I've said repeatedly now. It's them trying to find loopholes and repeal it through an illegitimate process that's the issue. Don't try to claim it isn't happening because it's literally being done right now. The fact the repealing will likely fail is besides the point, but copying the Putin tactic of getting the presidency via the vice presidency to become an eternal president is not looking to tackle the issue head on, it's looking to find a loophole and dodge around the clear intent of the law using language games. If they think Trump can legitimately have a 3rd term, why are they looking for a loophole rather than directly challenging the Constitutional amendment barring from him running for a 3rd election and then running for a 3rd election?

Again Trump mishandling documents IS NOT WHAT HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR. I've said this so many times now and it's getting tiring. He was prosecuted for his repeated and intentional obstruction of their retrieval. Please do not repeat that Trump was prosecuted for simply mishandling documents, that's not what I'm saying, that's not what the justice department said, that's not what the justification for the FBI raid was and that's not what it went to court for. Had he cooperated and returned them, he would not have been prosecuted.
Click to expand...
Don't bother answering him, he'll ignore anything you say and spout garbage of his own as usual.

The only way to get rid of him is for no-one to engage him, then hopefully he'll get fed up and **** off and adult conversation will resume.
 
AlRums said:
Don't bother answering him, he'll ignore anything you say and spout garbage of his own as usual.

The only way to get rid of him is for no-one to engage him, then hopefully he'll get fed up and **** off and adult conversation will resume.
Click to expand...
Ignoring people who disagree with misinformation is the stupidest thing you could do, you should enjoy challenging opinions... if you had any conviction!
 
AlRums said:
Don't bother answering him, he'll ignore anything you say and spout garbage of his own as usual.

The only way to get rid of him is for no-one to engage him, then hopefully he'll get fed up and **** off and adult conversation will resume.
Click to expand...
Dirty Harry and I had a short chat privately off the main forum. I believe there is conversation to be had. Yes it's getting frustrating at times but I think that's what happens when there is a disagreement of opinion, particularly where tone is lost in text unless made abundantly obvious.

In stuff not related to this forum, I've spoken to people IRL about how society has changed, particularly since Covid. People's attitudes online can be exaggerated due to the lack of immediate consequence, leading to people being much quicker to anger, more dismissive, more ready to abuse, more likely to troll etc etc. I know I have engaged in this myself and conversations I've had in the big real world have made me think I need to re-evaluate how I deal with people online.

So I'll try to keep engaging if I think there is a conversation to be had. I'm definitely going to get annoyed and frustrated still but I think trying to get in the habit of moderating feelings is no bad habit to get into again. I lost contact with someone I had thought a friend because he fully bought into some of the most horrific parts of online engagement and added them to some already pretty horrific views he held. I think people's minds are being poisoned by online engagement that is too different to real life personal engagement.
 
Last edited:
Ragey Erasmus said:
Trump making the same claims about Comey as Patel is not the same as those claims being true. Come on, the man lies like he breathes. You yourself said that Trump frequently says bullshit to "entrap" media and in the next breath are saying Trumps word should mean something. Which is it? Comey didn't have a hit list published before he took office and didn't openly advocate for using the FBI to pursue political rivals of the president, Patel did.

His strategy is to talk with zero filter. There isn't some 4D chess going on in the background, it's a brash and hateful guy acting as he has always done. The fact that he gets away with it doesn't mean it's some stroke of genius.

I didn't say election denying is ok when Dems do it, I said there is a difference in the level of evidence. Again, you claim nuance but you don't look any deeper into it than person A and person B both criticised the elections, therefore they are equal. They are not. The things I listed in Abrams cases are established FACTS, not opinions. We know they happened. Where are the facts from Trumps claims? They don't exist yet you claim they are identically valid/invalid.

"But the GOP's post-2020 election denialism is in an entirely different league. It is vastly more toxic. And it is uniquely dangerous." Literally right there it says that what the Republicans are doing is a whole different league and specifically calls out what you are doing, "bothsidesism" and treating them as equal. That article says exactly what I'm saying, that the 2 sides are NOT the same and simply pointing to the fact Democrats have also criticised elections is lazy and lacking nuance. Again, you claim to support nuance so often and time and time again I'm finding you lumping very different scenarios together as being identical due to only a most basic level similarity. It's like saying Usain Bolt and I can both run, therefore we are the same as runners.

You've completely ignored the point of my argument. I've said there is nothing inherently wrong with a 3rd term OTHER than the fact the law doesn't allow it. Previous presidents may have floated the idea of going for a 3rd term and some have had a 3rd term, but none have sought to do so via illegal means or loopholes, they have proposed directly challenging the law the establishes the 3rd term through the proper Constitutional process. Trump isn't, he attempted to obtain a 2nd term through illegal means (fake electors and insurrection) and is now seeking to obtain a 3rd term currently through a loophole and in the future potentially illegal means again. Given his history of reluctance to engage in the peaceful transfer of power, the only president in I don't even know how long to have not done so, him seeking to legitimise a 3rd term is more worrying than for the others. Again, lack of nuance, you see a bunch of presidents postulating a 3rd term and have lumped them all together as the same.

Trump simply trying to repeal the 22nd through the legitimate constitutional process isn't the authoritarian part of this, as I've said repeatedly now. It's them trying to find loopholes and repeal it through an illegitimate process that's the issue. Don't try to claim it isn't happening because it's literally being done right now. The fact the repealing will likely fail is besides the point, but copying the Putin tactic of getting the presidency via the vice presidency to become an eternal president is not looking to tackle the issue head on, it's looking to find a loophole and dodge around the clear intent of the law using language games. If they think Trump can legitimately have a 3rd term, why are they looking for a loophole rather than directly challenging the Constitutional amendment barring from him running for a 3rd election and then running for a 3rd election?

Again Trump mishandling documents IS NOT WHAT HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR. I've said this so many times now and it's getting tiring. He was prosecuted for his repeated and intentional obstruction of their retrieval. Please do not repeat that Trump was prosecuted for simply mishandling documents, that's not what I'm saying, that's not what the justice department said, that's not what the justification for the FBI raid was and that's not what it went to court for. Had he cooperated and returned them, he would not have been prosecuted.
Click to expand...

I mean Trump making a claim about Comey, as the same claim you made about Patel is absolutely the same. I know and trust both of you about the same.

When I say Trump has an entrapment strategy, I don't mean I trust what he says, but I understand his intent. He's outraging on purpose, that outrage is trustworthy because I get the intent. For example, when Trump stated he would deport illegals, did you believe him? When Obama made the exact same claim did you believe him?

I have never called Trump a genius, what he is is a great representation of the US public. I'm not sure ivlf you've travelled extensively, or lived there, but for every statesman Obama there are 150 Trump type people. They are loud, brash and arrogant.

You can deny MAGA claims all you like, but to acknowledge Clinton and Abrams claims as fact, and MAGA claims as not your showing your not looking at the the entire picture objectively. There are 100% claims that are accurate AND nonsense on both sides.

I've said it before, and I will say it 100 times more, if your view is that 1 side is 100% correct and the other is 100% wrong, who have been manipulated and don't want to acknowledge evidence! There is no right and wrong, there is only wrong and more wrong!

"But the GOP's post-2020 election denialism is in an entirely different league. It is vastly more toxic. And it is uniquely dangerous"

says you, the other side argue that it is because the scale of election fraud is more than ever before, and there is evidence for both of these positions!

"That article says exactly what I'm saying," no it doesn't, it ignores 100 years of history, and only discusses 3 specific cases as you well know!


"You've completely ignored the point of my argument. I've said there is nothing inherently wrong with a 3rd term OTHER than the fact the law doesn't allow it. Previous presidents may have floated the idea of going for a 3rd term and some have had a 3rd term, but none have sought to do so via illegal means or loopholes"

See Reagon, WTF are you talking about?! 22 is only illegal until it is overturned, which numerous precious presidents advocate for, why are you playing ignorant?!?!

Where were you when Obama was controlling when definately not in control of his favourite vice president 5 years ago?! Did you throw your hands in the air when Harris was 'installed' and Democrats were denied a primary because 'Biden was as sharp as ever'before being forced out?!


Again Trump mishandling documents IS NOT WHAT HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR. I've said this so many times now and it's getting tiring. He was prosecuted for his repeated and intentional obstruction of their retrieval.

And what was he convicted of?! It doesn't matter, as I've said 20 times, and I am getting more tired of telling you, no president / candidate or former president gets convicted of mishandling, misusing, obstructing, or conspiring to destroy of classified documents... because they have pretty much all done it! The same way Biden wasn't prosecuted because he was a senile old man.

Why are you pretending this is any different?
 

Similar threads

Which Tyler
Proposed law changes - 2024 edition
Replies
9
Views
4K
AlRums
AlRums
JohnKA
ARK - The State
Replies
1
Views
3K
JohnKA
JohnKA
RoosTah
Is South African Rugby afraid of Rugby League?
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
TRF_stormer2010
TRF_stormer2010
snoopy snoopy dog dog
Brett Gosper: 3 Year Residency Rule to be changed?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
11K
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili
TRF Mr Fish
All Black Watch - Week 2
Replies
10
Views
2K
TRF Mr Fish
TRF Mr Fish

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top