• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Thread for Democrats Being Useless

I Am The Scum said:
Second, you're just throwing buzzwords into the argument without stating appealing to a definitive, coherent government policy.
Click to expand...
Oh, but I did.
I Am The Scum said:
Ziggurat, should the government have the power to deport someone (who would otherwise not be deportable) based solely on that person's Constitutionally protected speech?
Click to expand...
Whether or not the government should have that power, under current law the government does have that power.

And I think I'm OK with that. I think I'm OK with deporting foreign nationals who advocate terrorism.
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, but I did.

Whether or not the government should have that power, under current law the government does have that power.

And I think I'm OK with that. I think I'm OK with deporting foreign nationals who advocate terrorism.
Click to expand...
Glad that's on the record. If there's a conflict between supporting free speech and deporting brown people, Ziggurat kicks free speech to the curb.
 
Ziggurat said:
It was in the full tweet. Khalil is a key member of CUAD, which advocates for Hamas terrorism. More here.
Click to expand...
"Armed resistance" is not necessarily "terrorism". I don't have a Times sub so I can't comment on that article, but the Jerusalem Post editorial (not a news article) does not cite any specific calls for violence. You can certainly criticize the group for tasteless comments and say they run close to the line. But, your weak orange daddy has said worse. And his words have the force of government behind them.

Khalil's role as a "key member" seems to be helping CUAD carry out a good faith negotiation with officials.

It is kind of weird how the JP editorial can link to a few random Instagram posts, but not to the really juicy stuff the author seems really upset over.

Even you know this is weak.
 
Donal said:
"Armed resistance" is not necessarily "terrorism".
Click to expand...
It is in the case of Hamas. That's what they do, that's who they are. If you defend Hamas using "armed resistance", you're defending terrorism, even if you refuse to call it that.
 
CUAD the Annihilator ?

battlebots.fandom.com

CUAD the Annihilator

CUAD the Annihilator was a middleweight robot built by Team CUAD which competed in Season 4.0 of Comedy Central BattleBots. It was a parallelogram-shaped robot with a triangular battering ram on one side to stop robots from going all the way up the wedge. It won one fight before losing a judges'...
battlebots.fandom.com battlebots.fandom.com
 
Ziggurat said:
Not really much of a defense there. An organization is what an organization does, and that includes what they tweet.
Click to expand...
a Green Card is an official document that cannot be revoked by anyone - if Trump does it by EO, fine. If a judge does it, okay.
ICE doesn't get to do it.

Have you already forgotten that under Trump 1.0 US citizens got deported because they didn't have their documentation on their person, but looked "immigrant" to ICE? So you want to go back to that?

Why don't you wait what the ACTUAL argument in front of the Judge is going to be - because what has been said about Khali has been a lot of lies and propaganda.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Why don't you wait what the ACTUAL argument in front of the Judge is going to be
Click to expand...
Bwahahahahahahaha!

Funny you never suggested that all the posters claiming his arrest was illegal should wait for the actual case to be presented. And I said earlier that we don't know what the official case against him is. I was explicit that the tweet I posted outlined a potential case, I do not know if that's what the government will actually argue and did not claim to. But for you to now say to me that we should wait for the case to be presented in front of a judge, and not to everyone jumping to defend Khalil without knowing that case either? Yeah, irony abounds.
 
Ziggurat said:
It is in the case of Hamas. That's what they do, that's who they are. If you defend Hamas using "armed resistance", you're defending terrorism, even if you refuse to call it that.
Click to expand...
Hamas absolutely commits acts of terrorism. But, not every act committed, even the violent ones by terrorist groups like Hamas, are necessarily terrorism. For instance, I would argue armed resistance to the illegal expansion by Israel into Palestinian territory would be self defense, not terrorism. But that's going down a road that this thread is not for. The point of all this was how the Democrats have absolutely failed. I'm not sure why you are afraid to discuss that.

Back to the topic at hand:

Speaking of terrorists, Gavin Newsom continues his "why I left the left" tour with a Steve Banon interview.
 
Donal said:
Speaking of terrorists, Gavin Newsom continues his "why I left the left" tour with a Steve Banon interview.
Click to expand...
I liked Ken White's take on it.
Anyway Gavin Newsom’s podcast is premised on this concept “I will bring on people I disagree with and have conversations with them and that’s good for Discourse” and then he invites Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, and Michael Savage. This is the thing about “Discourse among people who disagree:”

The concept is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ unless the people share a certain set of values. Not everybody does. If they are propagandists or Nazis, you platforming them is just helping them do propaganda and Nazi ◊◊◊◊.
Click to expand...
 
That's not how that works though. They are way better equipped for the forum than he is. Nobody gets "destroyed" in those things unless they have a complete meltdown. They are going to Newsom, get credit for "going into the lion's den" and cut a bunch of clips to make themselves look good.

Generally, I hate online debates, especially those stupid Jubilee videos that put an equal number of 2 "sides" together to debate or their new format of 1 vs 20 But I think Sam Seder did a good job in the one that was just released. He wasn't "debating" with a bunch of influencers, he just sat there while a bunch of Trump supporters tried to articulate their positions and he just pointed out how factually wrong or inconsistent they were. they weren't yelling or talking over each other. A few of them realized how out of their depth they were. Every person he talked to had at least one moment that made the other 19 go "oof that was bad".

What I really prefer is when a Democrat does one of those FOX News Town Halls. I think Bernie, Warren and Buttigieg did really well on them. Instead of getting into a shouting match with a loud mouth, they can talk directly to a room full of folks who normally don't hear from them.
 
Last edited:
Donal said:
That's not how that works though. They are way better equipped for the forum than he is. Nobody gets "destroyed" in those things unless they have a complete meltdown.
Click to expand...
The biggest mistake, IMO, is that that group of people don't argue honestly. They're not in it to thrash the truth out, just to use all the rhetorical tactics to 'win' on their terms.

The Alt-Right Playbook has a really good dissection of them
 
They are like a dumber, more vicious version of the ice cream scene from Thank You for Smoking.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom