My mistake. I thought “deterring people from voting” meant “voter suppression”. It does mean that in regular parlance but perhaps not in your world. — NOS4A2

Deter (verb): to discourage or restrain from acting or proceeding:
Example Sentence: Trump campaign strategy to deter millions of Black Americans from voting in 2016

Your mistake indeed.

meanwhile an actual data leak from Trump's 2016 campaign shows how they attempted to deter 3.5 million Black Americans from voting. — Maw

believes you can suppress a vote with Facebook ads, confusing voter suppression with political campaigning. — NOS4A2

Hey can a third party here point out where I said "suppress" or "suppression"? Can't seem to find it!

@NOS4A2 is sharing Project Veritas videos churning up ersatz agitprop about rigged elections, meanwhile an actual data leak from Trump's 2016 campaign shows how they attempted to deter 3.5 million Black Americans from voting.

He literally bragged about not paying taxes in the 2016 debates

Then why not simply police brutality and what we do about it? — ssu

There is no absolutely no difficulty in understanding that Black Americans are disproportionally targeted by police numerous ways and that police have been militarized in American which effects all Americans regardless of skin color. The preponderance and reaction engendered by the former (e.g. Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake), in fact, helps provide credence to the latter, as evidenced by the fact that there is no major protest as a result of a 13-year-old autistic boy being cut down by cops.

Just pointing out the bias towards blacks and thinking that this is an issue only with blacks and minorities makes the argument about police being racist, which leaves behind the fact that the police uses excessive force towards the majority whites too. — ssu

No one suggested this is an "issue only with the black and minorities" you dumb fucker, we've spent this entire summer alone watching cops unleash unrestricted brutality against protesters regardless of skin color.

Yet that's the argument what people can discuss? — ssu

No I just question how saying a random Finn on the internet has a "walnut-sized brain" because he thinks that an American cop shooting an American 13-year-old white kid entails that systemic racism in America is an inflated concern (if not an non-issue) "divides people" and keeps American power structures intact. I can assure you, nothing I say to you will have any effect whatsoever on American power structures.

It only serves the present power structures to stay intact. — ssu

You don't even live in America

Concentrating on the systemic racism part veers the focus away from the fact that excessive violence happens without regard to one's race. — ssu

I can see how it would be difficult to consider two facts together if you have a walnut-sized brain.

I think we all feel relatively certain there's been a lot of lying surrounding the knock and announcement. — Benkei

Yes, the cops lied.

The Quiet 2013 Lunch That Could Have Altered Supreme Court History: President Obama met with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, hinting at retirement.

Mr. Obama had asked his White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, to set up the lunch so he could build a closer rapport with the justice, according to two people briefed on the conversation. Treading cautiously, he did not directly bring up the subject of retirement to Justice Ginsburg, at 80 the Supreme Court’s oldest member and a two-time cancer patient.

He did, however, raise the looming 2014 midterm elections and how Democrats might lose control of the Senate. Implicit in that conversation was the concern motivating his lunch invitation — the possibility that if the Senate flipped, he would lose a chance to appoint a younger, liberal judge who could hold on to the seat for decades.

But the effort did not work. Justice Ginsburg left Mr. Obama with the clear impression that she was committed to continuing her work on the court, according to those briefed.

:rage:

I don't think this was brought this up yet, but the officer's account saying that they first identified themselves - a requirement in a "knock and announce" raid - is highly contested given that 11 out 12 nearby neighbors did not hear the police announce themselves. And that one neighbor that claimed otherwise stated that 1) he only heard one announcement, 2) that it would have been hard to hear that announcement at the time, and, 3) curiously, had originally stated in two interviews with the police that he did not hear an announcement, it wasn't until a third interview where he reversed his statement.

Compared with Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, do the Dems have leverage and power to effectively oppose Trump's pick for Supreme Court Justice? Will there be the confirmation battle again? — Number2018

The Democrats had leverage against Kavanaugh because there was a credible sexual assault charge against him, but they had no power to actually stop his nomination by a majority Republican senate. Assuming Amy Coney Barrett hasn't murdered someone she will quickly be confirmed by the senate (although they'd probably confirm her regardless).

He has defended all statues

He won the Bipartisan Justice Award for justice reform

He has had many roundtables with “black leaders” and black supporters. — NOS4A2

I agree, Donald Trump cannot be racist. He has defended black statues, some of which he has counted among his closest friends. He reformed justice, it's been reformed, so all the protestors can go home now. He has spent 45 minutes in the same room as several black people and has even shaken hands with some. Would a racist do that? Absolutely not. Donald Trump has said "Martin Luther King Jr." at least four times in his life, not including actual MLK Day. That's impressive. He has seen the first 30 minutes of Do The Right Thing (he realized he was in the wrong theater, he wanted to see Back to the Future II since he was told he was in it). Does anyone sincerely think a racist can do all that?

Hungover? — darthbarracuda

Uh no the President of the United States is outright attempting to subvert the election results while not committing to concede or peacefully transfer power if defeated.

This is simply ahistorical and conceptionally unjustified. Read Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind.

I've felt physically ill all day today

On September 23rd, 2020 the men who killed Breanna Taylor's were not charged for her murder. 65 years ago to the day, Emmet Till's murderers were also found not guilty. Obviously no systemic racism in America.

What If Trump Refuses to Concede:

According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

The constitution doesn't define a human life, and a strict constructionist wouldn't read this into it. — Relativist

Not necessarily, Originalism is a far more openly interpretative Judicial philosophy than its followers would admit; its value for the GOP lies in providing a pseudo-intellectual cover to further conservative political ends irrespective of philosophically consistency. Here is an expanded article on the fight over Fetal Personhood in the court system.

Resisting arrest, assaulting the officer, going for his gun, chasing him with a knife, shooting at him—all are ways to increase your chance of being shot by police. — NOS4A2

Yes, your position is that trained professionals are actually baby brained individuals that require such immense coddling that we should consider it acceptable if they unload on a civilian if they are resisting arrest, regardless of how that manifests itself, and regardless of their mental state and capacity. Hope you don't startle a cop yourself!

It will (once again) be up to the states to set their own abortion policies. — Relativist

I'm going to bed so I have more to say on this, but it's possible that a new right wing court will attempt to apply personhood on fetuses which would affect the ability of blue states to perform abortions

Do you think resisting arrest is sufficient reason to be killed? — Metaphysician Undercover

I am saying resisting arrest is wrong, illegal, dangerous and stupid. Had resisting arrest not occurred people would be alive today. — NOS4A2

You don't have to beat around the bush, the answer here is clearly "yes" so just say it. Essentially your position is that the onus of personal discipline and self-restraint is situated squarely on civilians, regardless of context, and not the (ostensibly) trained officer carrying a deadly weapon. The only important, consequential word in your outright psychopathic response is "dangerous". How is it dangerous? How can resisting arrested be rendered dangerous? That responsibility lies in the reaction of the (ostensibly) trained officer, who, out of all other possible recourses, chose the most extreme and severe: termination. What you are justifying is the existence of a fascist comic book character, a "street judge" who can summarily arrest, convict and execute civilians with impunity.

The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991 by Eric Hobsbawm

I mean speaking of surviving outside the womb, I sincerely don't think @NOS4A2 is capable of dressing himself

How do you survive outside the womb if an opposing opinion causes this much distress? — NOS4A2

My comment was directed at @BitconnectCarlos who, among other insane things, is unable to grasp how the state shooting black men is bad, and if this is merely an "opposing opinion" to you, then you are also part of the problem.

All it does is leave me depressed that people like this exist

Just ban him jesus christ

Dude read what I fucking wrote how is this difficult

Given who and what (and how) Trump seems to be, against all that he's done, which makes more sense? That he's his own evil genius all by himself seems to me very unlikely. — tim wood

Obviously Trump isn't operating in a vacuum, as a one man administration or political party. That's not the issue you originally raised however; you stated that Russia is the likely culprit behind the Trump administration, that it comes from "outside the system", which is simply a ludicrous fantasy that grossly overestimates the power that Russia has over worldly affairs. In fact there are very clear explanations that are to be found within the American political system. For example, the USPS has been bleeding money for nearly 15 years thanks to an insane bi-partisan Congressional act that require the postal service to prefund retired employee's health benefits up to 2056, something no other business entity, private or public, has to do. We are now simply seeing the capitalist effort of privatizing the USPS come to fruition. There is no need to look towards Russia as an explanation. The call is coming from inside the house. Why is Trump "against the scientists"? He has said so repeatedly that he did not want panic to disrupt the stock market because that's where his wealth and his rich friend's wealth are tied up in.

The actions of his administration can be explained by their material interests, their complete callousness towards American citizens, especially towards blue states, and their desire to maintain power at the expense of any sort of norms, mores, or decency, the latter of which is particularly indigestible for centrists and liberals who still believe that we are still bound together by some invisible code of decency and political norms, which the GOP has shed ages ago.

Hence my analogy with qanon. It's a deranged political theory that ignores substantive facts and materialistic explanations in favor of taking something basically true (Russian election interference and pedophilia) and transforming it into an all-encompassing fantasy narrative and we get psychotic answers to the question: Why is Trump destroying the USPS? It's because Putin has his pee-tape or is it because Trump needs to do it to take down a global pedophile ring.

Yeah, well - I'm drunk also. — Kevin

Well that would certainly explain your post

I'll fold - not sure why. I'm up? — Kevin

It's very simple: it's 2am where I am, I'm pretty drunk and I just took another shot of Eagle Rare, and I don't have the patience to read some deconstructed argument consisting of over 10 quotes
and pedantic commentary about qanon and Russia

ok I won't waste my time then

Can you just summarize whatever it is you are trying to say because whatever this is is unreadable.

My money is on Amy Barrett

So in your view(s), Trump may be viewed essentially as without 'masters,' leverage, or otherwise outside influences and any other supposition would lead to a conspiracy nut? — Kevin

This isn't what was originally stated. What was originally stated and implied was that "Russia" was pulling Trump's strings. Putin isn't some all powerful puppet master. This is just an unhinged liberal explanans for Trump's election, the actions of his administration, and the overall disaster that has been the last 4 years.

Not for nothing, but the dumbass should have retired at 80, or just 77 when Obama was first elected. Now we have to deal with the fallout of sublime arrogance.

Granted in some cases and areas the GOP has been practicing for years, but I feel the presence of master hands. But who? The only reasonable explanation that occurs to me is that he gets advice and suggestion from Russia. — tim wood

This shit is becoming qanon for liberals.

I do so hope that someone in the senate quotes McConnells own words to his face on this one. — MSC

He will not give an iota of a shit; in fact he will just smile and laugh.

I actually have no idea what country @StreetlightX lives in I always assumed he was British