US Politics Thread

[Kieran]

Can’t debate with these people

I wonder why so many people are like this in America, but then we see that the vast majority of tutors in American uni are far left. They don’t teach critical thinking..

 

[Kieran]

This is funny and there’s people who won’t understand why, because they live in that victim bubble where being black is the ultimate victim:

 

[Kieran]

She’s great!

That’s the best breakdown of the problem I’ve seen in a long, long time…

 

[Federberg]

This is funny and there’s people who won’t understand why, because they live in that victim bubble where being black is the ultimate victim:

there are some utterly retarded people out there!

As an aside, I've seen a number of people try to impugn the one holdout juror because he had been arrested in his past. But this was investigated during voire dire and both legal sides accepted him into the jury. As far as I'm aware this guy was arrested yes, but not convicted of anything. But the arrest related to domestic violence I think. So here's the point, the guy was accused of something, nothing came of it, but now Clancy supporters want to use that to invalidate the guy's right to be a juror. When media or idiots on the inter-web try to make out that false accusations aren't a big deal, this is the refutation. If you're accused but you're not convicted then miss me with bringing up shite about whatever issue relates to the accusation. It's just like with Zverev. I saw a post from John Wertheim who I generally like, complaining that Zverev didn't address his "past issues" after his win. Why the fuck did he need to? He was convicted of nothing, but you want him to carry around the stink of the accusation for the rest of his life?? Nah... This is why false accusers need to be dealt with. These folks are trying to have their cake and eat it, and it pisses me off

 

[Kieran]

there are some utterly retarded people out there!

As an aside, I've seen a number of people try to impugn the one holdout juror because he had been arrested in his past. But this was investigated during voire dire and both legal sides accepted him into the jury. As far as I'm aware this guy was arrested yes, but not convicted of anything. But the arrest related to domestic violence I think. So here's the point, the guy was accused of something, nothing came of it, but now Clancy supporters want to use that to invalidate the guy's right to be a juror. When media or idiots on the inter-web try to make out that false accusations aren't a big deal, this is the refutation. If you're accused but you're not convicted then miss me with bringing up shite about whatever issue relates to the accusation. It's just like with Zverev. I saw a post from John Wertheim who I generally like, complaining that Zverev didn't address his "past issues" after his win. Why the fuck did he need to? He was convicted of nothing, but you want him to carry around the stink of the accusation for the rest of his life?? Nah... This is why false accusers need to be dealt with. These folks are trying to have their cake and eat it, and it pisses me off

Yeah, black men kill more black men America than anyone else does - and it’s racist to point this out. Black bloke gets accused but not convicted - and suddenly he’s still guilty?

That’s a lynch mob mentality. Did NBC similarly dig into the past of all the other jurors? Highly unlikely…

 

[Kieran]

This woman nails something fundamentally important for the West to understand:

105K views · 4.6K reactions | Still wondering why the West has become obsessed with Palestine? Watch this powerful clip from @daliaziada speaking in Washington D.C. recently. Help us ring the alarm bell on this by following our page @isgapinternati

Still wondering why the West has become obsessed with Palestine? Watch this powerful clip from @daliaziada speaking in Washington D.C. recently. Help us ring the alarm bell on this by following...

www.facebook.com

 

[Federberg]

 

[Federberg]

Yeah, black men kill more black men America than anyone else does - and it’s racist to point this out. Black bloke gets accused but not convicted - and suddenly he’s still guilty?

That’s a lynch mob mentality. Did NBC similarly dig into the past of all the other jurors? Highly unlikely…

my only discomfort with that trope is that white people kill white people more than anyone else does. The decisive factor is proximity. It's not a racial thing. But I take your point.

As this woman in the clip below exposes this is the woke mind virus. The same virus by the way that claims black people can't be racist. I suppose because if you're a victim, one of the oppressed, you're somehow incapable of doing evil things

 

[Kieran]

They doxxed the FEMALE attorneys, after digging up [alleged] dirt on the BLACK hold out juror?

I said it before and moxie disagreed but these so-called activists and protesters DO NOT GIVE A SHIT about the causes they block the streets with. They do not care about Palestinians, trans, gay, black, or whatever is in fashion tomorrow. None of these things is important. They morph and segue easily into senseless contradictions that don’t bother them. The purpose is simple: disruption and destruction of the West. They’re fifth columnists, and “reason” and “truth” are white privileged colonialist constructs that need not apply..

 

[Federberg]

They doxxed the FEMALE attorneys, after digging up [alleged] dirt on the BLACK hold out juror?

I said it before and moxie disagreed but these so-called activists and protesters DO NOT GIVE A SHIT about the causes they block the streets with. They do not care about Palestinians, trans, gay, black, or whatever is in fashion tomorrow. None of these things is important. They morph and segue easily into senseless contradictions that don’t bother them. The purpose is simple: disruption and destruction of the West. They’re fifth columnists, and “reason” and “truth” are white privileged colonialist constructs that need not apply..

sadly I think they actually do believe in what they're protesting about. The problem is that they're so obviously monumentally stupid it should be pure comedy. Imagine LGBTQ activists supporting Palestine or Iran. When anyone with more than one brain cell knows they would be thrown off high places by the people they're protesting for. All of the schtick contradicts their own principles and they're too dumb to even understand how stupid they are. I can't ascribe some deeper fifth columnist strategy to these people!

 

[Kieran]

sadly I think they actually do believe in what they're protesting about. The problem is that they're so obviously monumentally stupid it should be pure comedy. Imagine LGBTQ activists supporting Palestine or Iran. When anyone with more than one brain cell knows they would be thrown off high places by the people they're protesting for. All of the schtick contradicts their own principles and they're too dumb to even understand how stupid they are. I can't ascribe some deeper fifth columnist strategy to these people!

That’s unfortunately the only other option and it’s not easily discounted! They are stupid, and very ill informed. Whether it’s Obama and ICE, gay rights in Palestine, or a black juror not voting for the ticket. They don’t believe something is true if it contradicts their worldview. There must be some suspicious thing behind a black woman voting Trump. Can’t think of anything more arrogant than this.

Whenever I discuss things with people like this, I find it incredible how they’re not even remotely interested in a POV that’s disagreeable to them. I honestly don’t see a cure for this coming down the line…

 

[Federberg]

That’s unfortunately the only other option and it’s not easily discounted! They are stupid, and very ill informed. Whether it’s Obama and ICE, gay rights in Palestine, or a black juror not voting for the ticket. They don’t believe something is true if it contradicts their worldview. There must be some suspicious thing behind a black woman voting Trump. Can’t think of anything more arrogant than this.

Whenever I discuss things with people like this, I find it incredible how they’re not even remotely interested in a POV that’s disagreeable to them. I honestly don’t see a cure for this coming down the line…

it's because anything that contradicts their opinion is a threat to their very identity. Political views are not debatable with these people because of this. But I think this fugue will pass. More and more people are starting to understand what the problem is. In fact I think this Lindsay Clancy thing might be the straw that broke the camels back. There's going to be a mass deletion of social media clips when the worm turns. All these foolish (mainly women) people talking utter garbage will be run for cover in the end, mark my words. As I said before they don't even understand the implications of their politics. When judges give custody to a few men because the women are confessed threats to their children they'll start to realise they need to be accountable for the shite they spew

 

[Kieran]

it's because anything that contradicts their opinion is a threat to their very identity. Political views are not debatable with these people because of this. But I think this fugue will pass. More and more people are starting to understand what the problem is. In fact I think this Lindsay Clancy thing might be the straw that broke the camels back. There's going to be a mass deletion of social media clips when the worm turns. All these foolish (mainly women) people talking utter garbage will be run for cover in the end, mark my words. As I said before they don't even understand the implications of their politics. When judges give custody to a few men because the women are confessed threats to their children they'll start to realise they need to be accountable for the shite they spew

Your lips to Gods Ear, brother!

 

[mrzz]

I took the time to get the facts of the Lindsay Clancy case. If you search for "Linday Clancy case details" there is a lot of different sources, and it is interesting to say the least. It is astounding how the actual facts are always missing in the discussions, posts and videos, by most people.

In a nutshell, on one hand it is quite clear that had psychological/psychiatric issues. On the other, the extent of those issues are up to the debate. There is one point of contention which is extremely important, there are evidence that points to planning and premeditation (at least within the day of the event). Would not say that this definetely the case, but I would say it is likely to be the case. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the tricky part here.

If I was a juror, given this amount the information I have now, I would consider the possibility that she was mentally incapacited. It is a bit surprising that 11 people are completly sure of that, so either there are more facts pointing to that, or... well, both options are quite possible.

But the crazy point, for me, apart from the crazy people calling her a hero (which, even if you fully buy the legally insane defense, is completely absurd), that people are simply stuck in the guilty/not guilty part of the discussion. Either way you look at it, there are far more important questions to be asked.

 

[Murat B.]

I took the time to get the facts of the Lindsay Clancy case. If you search for "Linday Clancy case details" there is a lot of different sources, and it is interesting to say the least. It is astounding how the actual facts are always missing in the discussions, posts and videos, by most people.

In a nutshell, on one hand it is quite clear that had psychological/psychiatric issues. On the other, the extent of those issues are up to the debate. There is one point of contention which is extremely important, there are evidence that points to planning and premeditation (at least within the day of the event). Would not say that this definetely the case, but I would say it is likely to be the case. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the tricky part here.

If I was a juror, given this amount the information I have now, I would consider the possibility that she was mentally incapacited. It is a bit surprising that 11 people are completly sure of that, so either there are more facts pointing to that, or... well, both options are quite possible.

But the crazy point, for me, apart from the crazy people calling her a hero (which, even if you fully buy the legally insane defense, is completely absurd), that people are simply stuck in the guilty/not guilty part of the discussion. Either way you look at it, there are far more important questions to be asked.

The biggest problem for me is the ambiguity of the mental illness issues. It is such a gray area that everything is everything. Because we are asked to understand someone's thinking. One expert say there was planning involved. Other one says even in that state some people may look like they are planning but they are just operating in a fog. See, these are unknowable things. Absolutely no one knows except Clancy and maybe even she does not know. How can you prosecute a case like this? It is not possible. The only rock hard fact is that 3 kids are dead. I made my judgement ONLY based on that because everything else is simply gray.

 

[mrzz]

The biggest problem for me is the ambiguity of the mental illness issues. It is such a gray area that everything is everything. Because we are asked to understand someone's thinking. One expert say there was planning involved. Other one says even in that state some people may look like they are planning but they are just operating in a fog. See, these are unknowable things. Absolutely no one knows except Clancy and maybe even she does not know. How can you prosecute a case like this? It is not possible. The only rock hard fact is that 3 kids are dead. I made my judgement ONLY based on that because everything else is simply gray.

Yep. And that is a huge point. Apart from the crime and punishment part, you still need to protect society. From that perspective, it does not matter if it was a mindful crime or not. Thre kids are dead just the same. Nobody would let her kids with her either way...

And, if there is a good side about these extreme cases is that they expose the shortcomings of what is established. What is on public trial here is not this woman, but the actual criminally insane defense.

Hey, what about this for a trade off? We let Clancy of the hook and jail all her supportes instead. They are not claming insanity just yet...