Political Debate Thread

[DBRider251]

That is evidence though? Every other post not made by his lawyers have weird all caps words, strange sentence structure or punctuation. That entire tweet was made by his team and posted on his behalf.

There's no way you can reliably prove that in any way. Look at all his tweets on Jan 6 and tell me that which ones were posted by him, and which by lawyers. Phrasing is consistent.

Also to say they were "let in" with videos showing them pushing past barricades, police, and stopping security doors from closing is a bold claim.

When I say let in, I'm more referring to things like this. Video 1 Video 2. Bad phrasing on my part, it's more of the lack of urgency to remove the "threat of a coup."

They were all there because they wanted politicians to put the person they wanted in power and the only reason they didn't get to them is because of Ashley Babbit. Once they crossed that line and the crowd found out there were consequences they couldn't deal with it fizzled out.

Another reason I think it was a pathetic, bullshit "coup." Who would try to overthrow a government without expecting deadly force? It makes no fucking sense. "Oh I'm just going to walk into the capitol and they're going to hear me!" It's an empty threat.

One more for you. Would you rather we deal with attempted coups in court or similar to how Putin deals with uprisings? I'm no fan of Prigozhin but if the government delt Trump in the same fashion I wouldn't be defending their actions either.

I'd rather call it what it was. Political violence due to polarization. I can say that it's not a coup and also believe that it was a stupid political act that should be dealt with accordingly. Impeachment happened because of party lines and a buzzword. Also why he was acquitted.

the party deserves to be destroyed

Needs to happen to both parties tbh. We live in an age where people hate each other because they're told to by their political views. "Me want this thing, he want that thing. He want that thing, he hate us." Political discourse in this country is a shithole. I long for the day we get back to voting for the best candidate and not just the party they run for.

[jlv]

It's pretty silly to look at videos of the capital building security not fighting after the mob overwhelmed them and saying that means they let them in. Find a video where an exterior door is opened for them. You won't because it didn't happen. The rioters broke in through windows and then opened the doors from the inside. You're doing yourself a disservice by consuming that bullshit.

Just for the sake of argument, what if instead of MAGA it was al Qaeda terrorists attacking the capital. If the president did absolutely nothing to stop it, as Trump did, would that dereliction of duty be impeachable? That he was the actual leader of the attack makes it much worse, but even if it was unrelated to him his inaction that day would be impeachable.

Also, could you guys not clip me mid-sentence when you quote me? If you want to highlight something just italicize that part but please leave the rest of the sentence (or better yet paragraph) for context.

[DBRider251]

My main point is that there wasn't anyone killing officers after they were overpowered. One capital policeman died in the whole ordeal. I just don't understand how a coup was supposed to happen without mass casualties. THAT is my main problem with calling it a coup. Riot/protest? Yes. Coup? No.

Trying to equate a foreign attack to something domestic is never going to draw the same conclusion. It's a false equivalence. There's a huge difference between a foreign war and a civil war.

What else was he supposed to do? He had already ordered and authorized police to secure the building. Was he supposed to A10 the capitol steps? Cruise missile the senate chambers? Maybe he should've done something earlier, but nobody was burning down the capitol and any credible threats were being handled. You have to tread carefully when you ask the military to go against their own country. I know they take the vow to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, but there has to be two things happen there. The President declare them a domestic threat, and the service member themselves believe it then act upon it. The last think we would've needed was our military gunning down our own citizens and a foreign nation deciding we were in a weak spot dealing with our own domestic affairs.

I genuinely had another section where I responded to the bit I had, then whole thing then accidentally deleted it I guess. Sorry for that. It was something like:

I said "we" meaning Republicans. If Republican voters can't see through populist charlatans like Trump the party deserves to be destroyed by him.

Republicans really haven't been able to see through their candidates since after Reagan. They became so infatuated with his policies that they would rather vote that party and not care who it was, than take a look at who was actually running. Trump isn't the one destroying it, it's been happening since the 90's, seemingly to both parties.

[TeamHavocRacing]

You dismiss every witness testimony, including Pence just to try and pick gnat shit out of pepper to arrive at some agreeable fantasy conclusions about how vile Trump was/is. Even second guessing things he said himself. How deep in denial can you get?

[DBRider251]

The beauty in all of this is, this is a debate thread. I don’t have to believe a fucking thing I’m writing on here. And I mostly don’t. But debates are meant to strengthen your arguments by arguing your case against what the other debater is. You’ve never had any interest in debate though because you believe you’re never wrong. All you ever do is call people stupid and belittle them. Really fucking counterproductive in all actuality, because the last thing I want to do is associate myself with anyone like you Havoc. There are a plethora of people on both the left and right that make me feel that way, but self reflection and being able to debate more than “I hate this guy” is really what drives meaningful political discourse. I’ve never seen you debate policy on here. Ever.

My 100% true feelings about Trump? He’s an overreaching statist centralist. I didn’t even vote for him in 2020. I wouldn’t vote for him in 2024. He’s not really helping the causes I want addressed, so he’s not a candidate I support.

Yeah, he probably shouldn’t be able to run again. Yeah, he deserves the lawsuits against him. But I’m not burning him at the stake after charges have been filed because, like every other American, he has his right to a trial to prove innocence. It’s not like it matters though. Whatever decision is reached, it won’t satisfy.

[TeamHavocRacing]

Well, to continue the debate I stopped resorting to name calling, while you continued. You kept insisting that a zebra has spots not stripes. You even continue to keep the out-of-context quote in your sig. Your denial of a coup attempt was my main point and at the level of Mason's deep denial. That is all.

[jlv]

My main point is that there wasn't anyone killing officers after they were overpowered. One capital policeman died in the whole ordeal. I just don't understand how a coup was supposed to happen without mass casualties. THAT is my main problem with calling it a coup. Riot/protest? Yes. Coup? No.

Trying to equate a foreign attack to something domestic is never going to draw the same conclusion. It's a false equivalence. There's a huge difference between a foreign war and a civil war.

What else was he supposed to do? He had already ordered and authorized police to secure the building. Was he supposed to A10 the capitol steps? Cruise missile the senate chambers? Maybe he should've done something earlier, but nobody was burning down the capitol and any credible threats were being handled. You have to tread carefully when you ask the military to go against their own country. I know they take the vow to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, but there has to be two things happen there. The President declare them a domestic threat, and the service member themselves believe it then act upon it. The last think we would've needed was our military gunning down our own citizens and a foreign nation deciding we were in a weak spot dealing with our own domestic affairs.

He used the National Guard on the BLM rioters, so it's hardly unprecedented. On 1/6 he did nothing and Pence had to take action. He was either asleep at the switch or trying to assist the attack. If it was the former, he should have been impeached for the dereliction of duty. If the latter, it would be justifiable to try and execute him for treason. I think we all know what his intention was.

I genuinely had another section where I responded to the bit I had, then whole thing then accidentally deleted it I guess. Sorry for that. It was something like:

I said "we" meaning Republicans. If Republican voters can't see through populist charlatans like Trump the party deserves to be destroyed by him.

Republicans really haven't been able to see through their candidates since after Reagan. They became so infatuated with his policies that they would rather vote that party and not care who it was, than take a look at who was actually running. Trump isn't the one destroying it, it's been happening since the 90's, seemingly to both parties.

I think we actually do best with a Democrat president and Republican congress. That's the only combo that limits spending. If it's not split, the ruling party wants to pay off their big donors regardless of party. If it's split with a D congress controlling the purse strings they'll spend more since they're pro spending. It's only when you have a D president when the R congress will limit the spending. Look at Clinton/Gingrich and Obama/Boehner/Ryan. Compare that to Trump ballooning the budget from ~4 trillion to ~6 trillion.

[DBRider251]

He used the National Guard on the BLM rioters, so it's hardly unprecedented. On 1/6 he did nothing and Pence had to take action. He was either asleep at the switch or trying to assist the attack. If it was the former, he should have been impeached for the dereliction of duty. If the latter, it would be justifiable to try and execute him for treason. I think we all know what his intention was.

Getting out of my debate hat, and into my personal beliefs, I agree. The only thing that makes me even mildly okay with not using the guard to secure the facility is the significant lack of lethal weapons. It still should’ve been handled if he wanted any consistency with a case later on. I’m interested in what the argument in court is going to be if that comes up.

I genuinely had another section where I responded to the bit I had, then whole thing then accidentally deleted it I guess. Sorry for that. It was something like:

I said "we" meaning Republicans. If Republican voters can't see through populist charlatans like Trump the party deserves to be destroyed by him.

Republicans really haven't been able to see through their candidates since after Reagan. They became so infatuated with his policies that they would rather vote that party and not care who it was, than take a look at who was actually running. Trump isn't the one destroying it, it's been happening since the 90's, seemingly to both parties.

I think we actually do best with a Democrat president and Republican congress. That's the only combo that limits spending. If it's not split, the ruling party wants to pay off their big donors regardless of party. If it's split with a D congress controlling the purse strings they'll spend more since they're pro spending. It's only when you have a D president when the R congress will limit the spending. Look at Clinton/Gingrich and Obama/Boehner/Ryan. Compare that to Trump ballooning the budget from ~4 trillion to ~6 trillion.

I’d generally agree with you there. I’d like to give Trump the benefit of the doubt relating to his spending, most likely having the mindset of “spend now, save later.” I was critical of his plan there. We’ve transitioned to a time where bipartisanship is becoming a political stance though. Some people aren’t voting for candidates because they WOULD be bipartisan. I’ll be honest though, I don’t look at the spending changing much between candidates anymore. The world debt is increasing so significantly that I’m almost numb to it.

My main focus in searching for political candidates is limiting the federal government. If you put the power back to the people and let most decisions be made at a state level, things would start to work themselves out I believe. I’d describe myself as a right leaning libertarian, but I know the yellow party will never accomplish anything meaningful because of their own self destruction. We have so many things that need to happen, that never will, with the current fight we have because it’s all about the donors. My biggest gripe about both of the parties are empty promises and just misleading statements. Democrats say they want to help the environment, but won’t unlock nuclear energy. Republicans say there’s no need because what we have works, not understanding that there are finite resources that we can’t just use forever. It’s only one example of the never ending turntable we’re stuck on because X person gets paid to push electric and Y person gets paid to push fossil.

I got off track there, but it’s mind boggling how many people don’t see the problems right in front of their face.

[jlv]

Getting out of my debate hat, and into my personal beliefs, I agree. The only thing that makes me even mildly okay with not using the guard to secure the facility is the significant lack of lethal weapons. It still should’ve been handled if he wanted any consistency with a case later on. I’m interested in what the argument in court is going to be if that comes up.

It's not going to come up. The main charge he's facing is for giving people fake certificates so they could fraudulently pose as electors from the swing states. Pence was supposed to reject the actual electors and use the fakes instead, but he refused. So Trump sent his mob to threaten Pence into going along with the scheme. But the charge is for the fraudulent certificates/electors, not the violence. Which is a shame in my opinion but I understand the reasoning going for the most provable charge.

I’d generally agree with you there. I’d like to give Trump the benefit of the doubt relating to his spending, most likely having the mindset of “spend now, save later.” I was critical of his plan there. We’ve transitioned to a time where bipartisanship is becoming a political stance though. Some people aren’t voting for candidates because they WOULD be bipartisan. I’ll be honest though, I don’t look at the spending changing much between candidates anymore. The world debt is increasing so significantly that I’m almost numb to it.

My main focus in searching for political candidates is limiting the federal government. If you put the power back to the people and let most decisions be made at a state level, things would start to work themselves out I believe. I’d describe myself as a right leaning libertarian, but I know the yellow party will never accomplish anything meaningful because of their own self destruction. We have so many things that need to happen, that never will, with the current fight we have because it’s all about the donors. My biggest gripe about both of the parties are empty promises and just misleading statements. Democrats say they want to help the environment, but won’t unlock nuclear energy. Republicans say there’s no need because what we have works, not understanding that there are finite resources that we can’t just use forever. It’s only one example of the never ending turntable we’re stuck on because X person gets paid to push electric and Y person gets paid to push fossil.

I got off track there, but it’s mind boggling how many people don’t see the problems right in front of their face.

Yeah. I agree the current set of republicans wouldn't do anything to limit spending. I never appreciated guys like Paul Ryan because I wanted someone like Ted Cruz who I thought would make serious cuts. Now I wish we had someone half as good as Ryan. Really Sinema and Manchin have probably done more to limit spending recently than any republican has. And of course, they're getting killed politically for showing some responsibility.

[TeamHavocRacing]

It's time for 'ol Glitchin' Mitch to go. How pathetic is that?

[m121c]

Well, to continue the debate I stopped resorting to name calling, while you continued. You kept insisting that a zebra has spots not stripes. You even continue to keep the out-of-context quote in your sig. Your denial of a coup attempt was my main point and at the level of Mason's deep denial. That is all.

I’m not even in your “debate” lol im sorry you still have nightmares about me.

Honestly I think every single coup member that walked in the capitol that day should pay decades of prison time, and until they can get on trial, they should be put in isolation and treated like foreign enemies not US citizens. To make room for them all, we’ll probably have to let some pretty bad people off with a slap of the wrist… something your state is already good at.

[TeamHavocRacing]

Oh Mason, it's so adorable when you try to backpedal.

[TeamHavocRacing]

Looks like the House majority just wants a domestic terrorist as leader based on the picks so far. Sounds legit.

[jlv]

Looks like the House majority just wants a domestic terrorist as leader based on the picks so far. Sounds legit.

Would have been funny if the Republicans took the Democrats' offer to vote for Liz Cheney. Everyone thinks shes a lib because of the 1/6 stuff but she's actually much more conservative than Trump. As speaker she would be way more dangerous to them than McCarthy was.

If I were the Dems I'd offer to approve Crenshaw. He's relatively sane and hasn't earned the scorn of the MAGAs like Cheney and Romney have.

[TeamHavocRacing]

... the scorn of the MAGAs ...

Johnson certainly doesn't have it since he toed the line on the stolen election and Roe v. Wade. That's not sane. We'll see when it comes down to gov't. shutdown. So stupid that it became a hostage for the right.