Protesting? They are blocking streets, lighting fires, waving foreign flags, — NOS4A2

Let me help you: just picture it’s a bunch of January 6th patriots. There— problem solved.

These principles apply everywhere. All the Palestinians killed were terrorists — or did all the right things to get unjustly shot. But I’m definitely not a defender of state violence. One should just stay home, not protest, not carry a weapon legally, and (if one must go out) not be rude in any way. If you’re told you’re under arrest, for no reason, then immediately fall to the floor and remain motionless— you know, like all the January 6th “patriots” did. Otherwise it’s totally normal to get yourself shot 10 times.

Unless you’re on our side. Then reverse all that. States rights, 2nd amendment, unjust state violence, don’t tread on me, Biden is a dictator, etc etc.

Guy did everything right to get himself unjustly shot - what unparalleled heroism. — Tzeentch

Yeah, like walking around. Not to mention being held down by 4 guys. That definitely deserves being shot 10 times, unarmed.

They want to get hit. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

The Trump bootlicker strikes again with another honest and consistent take.

One says he deserved it, the other says he wanted it. This is what we’re dealing with folks.

so need to misconstrue the position of the first person who doesn't join in the handwringing. — Tzeentch

Right — it’s everyone else’s emotions. Coming in and saying something stupid, then pretending it’s somehow an obvious point, is pretty childish. We get it — you don’t really give a shit and aren’t worried. Next time it’s a Trumper I’m sure you’ll feel the same way. :wink:

Nothing to see here! Just a goon squad murdering protesters.

Now about January 6th being a tour and Ashli Babbitt being a martyr….



Total consistency from the cult.

So Ashli Babbitt had it coming too, just like this guy. And the mother. Right?

How cavalier we are when it’s not someone on our team. Republicans really have no souls.

Oh, okay. Cool. Fair and balanced take.

But you’re right — actions do have consequences. So murdering someone for resisting arrest, when there was no threat (the gun was already removed), should indeed have consequences. But way to defend state power. Really shows the value of your other analyses— as complete garage. But you do you.

Seemed like a classic case of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" to me. — Tzeentch

What a shocker.

I'm not defending anyone nor downplaying anything. — Tzeentch

Yeah, except you really are.

So the latest killing was a straight up execution of a man they pinned down. Video really looks like the kind of violence in war zones. — Christoffer

Looks that way so far. I look forward to Trump supporters spinning this, or simply cheering on executions for resistance.

“If they just complied, they’d be alive.” Fuck you.

This scene encapsulates Trump’s negotiation skills:



Keep in mind: the original agreement was 25%.

Lots of distraction and hand wringing. In the end, nothing changes and he declares victory— and his supporters cheer what a great dealmaker he is. See the renaming of NAFTA, or dozens of other examples.

It's kinda funny that in our interaction on this, I'm the only one who presented facts - with backup, and all he did was attack me. Not a good look for a lawyer. — Relativist

Indeed.

He pulled the gun and fired in one movement in a split second. There was no hesitation, or warning given. The gun wasn’t shown to the victim to indicate that it might be used if she accelerated forwards. — Punshhh

Good point.

Protesters are domestic terrorists. That looks similar to what the regime in Iran would say. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But the bullshit pretext would be easy to see, given it’s Iran. But if Trump says Good was a domestic terrorist hellbent on running officers over— then it gets taken as fact, despite the video evidence.

you either (1) misunderstood, (2) are approaching in bad faith, (3) are being emotional, or (4) have an unseen liberal bias thanks to your consumption of “mainstream media.” — Mikie

So add to this being “incapable of interpreting the video the same way as I do.”

You’re of course exactly right, and it’s obvious from the video. But when dealing with emotional Trumpers, don’t expect a good faith conversation. Just the usual post hoc justification — or in this case, lashing out and running away. Not a single point you brought up was refuted, just lazy ad hominems about your rationality.

A good Rorschach test of political bias, this is. They’re so in their bubble that to them this is all as obvious as gravity, and to contradict their “objective truth” is as shocking as to question gravity. Amazing to witness.

He fired one shot, through the front windshield, perhaps he felt threatened*, but his next 2 shots were through the side window - when he was clearly not in danger of being hit. After this, he referred to her as a "f*cking bitch". Those 2 shots could not possibly be self-defense, and his attitude suggests anger. — Relativist

There’s is no doubt that he was pissed off and looking for a reason to shoot. Standing in the way of a car gives the perfect pretext to do so— “she was trying to run me over!” No, she wasn’t. She shouldn’t have driven away, no doubt. But she turned the wheel to AVOID him. But as I said before, the consequence isn’t death.

So once again another murderer walks free because of bullshit reasons. Or as the totally objective “I’m left of center but” Trump-lite crowd would say: natural causes.

Excellent synopsis — so of course you either (1) misunderstood, (2) are approaching in bad faith, (3) are being emotional, or (4) have an unseen liberal bias thanks to your consumption of “mainstream media.” Fortunately the guy repeating Kristi Noem talking points is here set you straight.

So once again Trump backs away from a stupid idea and solves the problem he created. What achievements!

I’m loving buying the dips in stocks though. Knowing full well that he’ll just cave makes it rather easy to make some money. For that I applaud his senility.

THe officer was hit with a lethal weapon subsequent to a citizen illegally obstructing him, refusing lawful orders, he suffered internal injuries and had recently been attacked in a similar scneario. — AmadeusD

That’s a cool narrative. Totally wrong, but cool. Carry on.

There are numerous instance of due process violations, detaining citizens who can't provide immediate proof of citizenship, and a recent murder of a woman by an ICE agent. — Relativist

Honestly, anyone who claims the officer who killed Good was within his bounds are either emotional or playing the partisan game. He could have merely stepped out of the way; the intention wasn’t to hit him but to drive away. The consequence for panicking isn’t death. At the very least, given his history, he himself panicked.

But listening to those pretending to be neutral while regurgitating right wing propaganda verbatim is nauseating.

However, It was warranted for the officer who in the course of duty was hit with a lethal weapon by a woman who refused lawful commands. — AmadeusD

Someone’s been watching Fox News.

Nevermind— I meant to say that this description is fair and balanced, and not at all succumbing to hysteria and propaganda like all of you people are doing. How nice to hear someone with the undisputed Real Truth on these culture war issues.

Yes, self-preservation is key, but what does that even mean anymore? — BitconnectCarlos

I think it means preserving its sovereignty. But maybe this is a discussion for another thread — my initial point was only to point out the framework that is being used (in part) in approaching these issues.

Secondly, the defense expenditure has been a far higher percentage of the GDP during the Cold War. Let's remember that also the armed forces were back then larger. There were more men, more ships, more aircraft and more ...nuclear weapons. A way lot more. — ssu

Yes, so what?

And spending has more than kept up with inflation, as I mentioned above.

The United States spending on military is outrageous. The fact that it has been outrageous for decades, or in fact in some ways MORE outrageous in the past (during wars especially), is irrelevant.

That’s true. But the government has more than adjusted for inflation. Much more than your average worker. Seems like yesterday I was talking about the $600 billion dollar allocation.

It just seems to be the idea that the state - or rather, the people running the state - are primarily concerned with the national interest and how to attain it. — BitconnectCarlos

Primarily concerned with security — which makes sense.

I don’t completely agree with realism either, but I’d suggest reading further on it. It’s not as silly as you describe. Most of it is truism. Self preservation is key — although clearly not always rational.

$850 billion is the highest it’s ever been. It’s only gone up.

It’s a ridiculous sum of money. Given our GDP, it should be 1 or 2%, which would still be more than any other country. To argue it’s somehow “lower” is nutty. Look at inflation adjusted spending. To compare to GDP in attempt to make it something other than a monstrosity is absurd.

It’s a realist perspective. Those that are in government are mostly motivated by security and power concerns, as overarching long-term goals. That seems to be the case, especially when looking at something like defense spending, which has only gone up over the years regardless of what the public thinks, and regardless of political party.

But the public do have influence in the short term, beyond question. I think it’s obvious they have long term effects as well (the very fact that the government has to be more cautious or clandestine is itself an effect), but I guess that’s arguable.

The degenerate idiot in office just lost 3 court cases on offshoot wind. But that was never the point I guess.

still believe in US politics — Tzeentch

“Believe”?

Nice quip though. Meaningless, but nice.

I don't take that shit seriously. — Tzeentch

So domestic policy, and actual details, you don’t take seriously. This way you can keep making bullshit generalizations. Well done.

Next time I’m confronted with reality, I’ll use that line. :up:

all he's doing is putting up a display to cover for Washington, which was planning to carry out these policies anyway. — Tzeentch

No they weren’t. False equivalence, as usual.

What policies? In some cases, that’s true— and true of both parties. In others, it’s true about the Republican Party; they’re glad to have Trump as a lightning rod. But in many cases, including the one I mentioned above, it’s very different, and right in your face: one is using the entire force of government to shut down offshore wind, for example, including projects that are 80 or 90% completed— the other passed legislation that was putting billions into that industry. That’s not the same thing— not even close.

There are a lot of policies like that. And it matters. So why keep sticking to this over-general nonsense? Even if you don’t mean it completely, it still gives the sense of the argument from the 90s: “both parties are just as bad.” Maybe that was true at some point, and is still partially true, but it’s lazy.

I’ve been impressed by how diligently, relentlessly, and enthusiastically Trump has tried to murder millions of people and destroy the prospects of a decent human existence through his environmental policies (i.e., climate denial).

It’s incredible that the only time these people fall in line, get serious, get organized, and pay attention, is when they’re sending everyone over the cliff. It’s really something. When it comes to healthcare, social services, or really anything that makes life better for the 80%, they have no ideas and no follow through.

The Republican Party are a officially a death cult.

It’s amazing that we’re giving everything away to China. Especially when solar cells and wind turbines were invented in the United States. Guess Trump really loves China after all.

I'll agree with you on "pitiful" -- this is one of the most embarrassing crashouts I've seen on this site.
You couldn't just acknowledge that it is disinformation and move on with your life. — Mijin

I missed that entire exchange a while back, but agreed. Embarrassing. I was thinking about doing a thread about this, and it’s a good example: “if anything contradicts me, it’s biased.”

So my citations are complete bullshit? YOU are to blame somehow: you don’t read carefully enough, you misunderstood, you’re biased, you’re a bad “interlocutor.” Basically, you’re doing something wrong, not me.

It’s not that common, and not as blatantly obvious as in this example, but it’s common enough to warrant a little reflection.

Truth in Heidegger is aletheia, unconcealedness. This relates to absence, what’s overlooked. Another concept of what dasein is, is a “clearing,” like a clearing in a forest. Basic perception is key, viewed as an opening or blooming.

Contrast this with Descartes or Kant, or even (much earlier) Plato. The human being becomes a rational animal, a thinking substance, a subject. Truth becomes correspondence with an object— and endless epistemological debate follows about the object, the subject, etc.

Meanwhile, modern science develops out of natural philosophy— nature being a translation of the Latin natura, which itself is the translation of the Greek phusis, both of which have original connotations of birth and growth, but later (as in physics and nature) as aspects of the world in terms of substances, mechanics, and forces.

In my view, scientism, materialism, and generally nihilism has been the long term result, embodied especially in the techno-capitalist system we currently endure. It’s all based in this basic Western philosophy, which has evolved for a couple thousand years. As I said before, I think a good antidote is the perspective and practices of the East, as a kind of counterbalance. But they’re basically capitalists now too, largely. So it’s tricky.

I'm here to add more to the pile--"Little Big Man" is so much more humane, funny, and moving. — T Clark

Good to know — I’ve never seen it. Could be one reason why I liked DWW so much. Reminds me of people who love the Magnificent Seven and never watched Seven Samurai. I could be one of those schmucks in this case.

Moonstruck — T Clark

Moonstruck is great. I loved it when I was 17 and watched it recently — still love it.

, I definitely have old coot syndrome. — T Clark

How old are you? I’m 44. I consider myself old, so…

the direction Trump would take the country would be unrecognizable relative to the standards of a constitutional democracy. — Joshs

I’m not sure Trump has a direction.

Interesting post.

Couple of points:

1) What if there is no right or left in any meaningful sense?

2) I’m surprised you didn’t give much time to the financial crisis and the Tea Party movement that followed. I think that (and Occupy) accounts for the different “populist” streams we currently see, with Trump riding the wave of one and Bernie the other.

Remember how popular Sarah Palin was for a large group of people? That amazed me— and even though she lost, that’s where the excitement was. Trump could see this. If anything, Trump is good at reading the room— and it was clear that Bush, the iraq war, and the establishment (represented by Romney and Ryan) were unpopular and were losing. The energy was among the crowd craving WWE type politics.

Regardless, most of this is superficial. Look at the actual policies, and the core element of it hasn’t changed: both parties are factions of the Business Party— that is to say, the ruling class. In its modern form, its business. That’s where the ruling power is. Trump — for however different he is in many ways — hasn’t really strayed from the very policies that have been championed for decades: tax cuts, deregulation, small government, privatization. Same old, same old.

What’s the wealth distribution like in Australia? It’s likely better than the US, but I would expect about 70-80% of people there living fairly precarious lives too. I haven’t done a carful analysis of the economy of down under though.

The point I’m making goes beyond economics, of course— it’s a (mostly tacit) philosophy of life, of how we see ourselves and what we value. We’re living the answers to those questions.

I don’t see widespread objectification of the world as an emerging trend so much as a mystification of everything — Tom Storm

That’s true to a degree, but look at how people really behave. Everyone’s forced into jobs, more or less. And today’s jobs are mostly total crap. Cogs in a machine. Ironically, I think looking at material reality exposes just how materialistic we are.

What are your top 3 or 4 movies? — Tom Storm

From another thread long ago:

Seven Samurai

Shawshank Redemption

2001: A Space Odyssey

The Usual Suspects

No Country For Old Men

Persona

8 1/2

Dances with Wolves

Goodfellas

There Will Be Blood

If I were to pick 3: Seven Samurai, Goodfellas, Dances with Wolves.

Yes, it’s become common to shit on Dances with Wolves — and I get why, some parts are cringe, plus the sentimentality (especially the ending, which I dislike) and portrayal of the soldiers is over the top. But Costner otherwise surrounded himself with talent, from cinematographer to composer to editor to actors — and some parts are so well done that it makes up for what it lacks, by far. Enough so to be one of my favorites.

Shawshank used to be way up there, for years. And of course, long ago my favorite film was Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I was 10 at the time— but maybe I had it right… that movie is gold.

Here’s an easy prediction: this will turn out to be a disaster.

Quote me on it later.

The entire Venezuelan diaspora is cheering — NOS4A2

:rofl:

And Trump’s approval rating is at 99%.