Darwin awards thread

[DEADPOOL]

Isn't that the wish for all governments with a 2nd main rival? It's human nature to an extent isn't it?

That may be their wish but it is usually frustrated by things like free speech and freedom of expression. Also the democratic process is generally more robust leading to a broadly consensus based political powerbase.

What we have instead is a questionable election result, heavily biased media and a single party in control now of all of the political houses in the US. The supreme court is apolitical of course and has a slim "Republican" advantage but the dems even have plans for that (pack the courts). They're also planning to introduce an extra couple of Democrat states to cement their position.

Meanwhile the propaganda arm of government (big tech) are systematically destroying any online presence that dares to voice dissent.

The danger is of course that while the Democrats may have carried off this incredible coup due to extreme circumstance (lack of support even from the Republicans for their own president and covid restrictions allowing a significant degree of rule bending), there is still the problem that at least half the country (!) do not actually support an extreme left wing agenda.

There may be trouble ahead.

[Yambo]

The supreme court is apolitical of course and has a slim "Republican" advantage but the dems even have plans for that (pack the courts).

Not for the first time you expose your stupidity in a simple sentence. HTF does an apolitical body have a distinct political advantage? I'd post the definition of apolitical for you but you'd say I made it up.

The danger is of course that while the Democrats may have carried off this incredible coup due to extreme circumstance (lack of support even from the Republicans for their own president and covid restrictions allowing a significant degree of rule bending), there is still the problem that at least half the country (!) do not actually support an extreme left wing agenda.

Or two sentences.

How is it a coup ffs if Republicans didn't support their man? That's not a coup. It's at best simple apathy and more probably an awakening to the fact that Donald Trump is a complete tosser.

I have to admit I found it pretty amazing that the Republican Party ran with Trump as their presidential candidate in the first place and were, I guess obliged to do so for a second term but all that really shows is that the people at the top of the party haven't got a clue about what the roughly half of the population that are not Democrats actually think or want.

American politics is in a shit state because the people who should be running for office are running the other way. Americans may be good at organising the odd coup in some 3rd world banana republic (even you could do that if you had some spare cash) but they really don't have the intelligence to organise one on home soil.

[Mr. Dazzle]

American politics is in a shit state because the people who should be running for office are running the other way.

Pretty much.

Trump is popular because he makes absurdly simple (and simplistic) promises that are easy to make, much less eay to follow through on. Are Mexico paying for the wall yet?

His rivals (Pelosi in particular) seem to be going down the route of being even more obnoxious and ridiculous, rather than steering back towards being a reasonable person.

If you actually out yourself forward as a sensible, thoughtful person right now you'd basically get ignored wouldn't you?

[DEADPOOL]

The supreme court is apolitical of course and has a slim "Republican" advantage but the dems even have plans for that (pack the courts).

Not for the first time you expose your stupidity in a simple sentence. HTF does an apolitical body have a distinct political advantage? I'd post the definition of apolitical for you but you'd say I made it up.

You forget this is not a chess game, pieces do not have to move or behave in a predetermined manner according to a set of rules. They are mere humans. They have allegiance and a political allegiance is an indication of which direction they may lean in lawmaking.

Thanks for calling me stupid by the way, by implication you are agreeing with me that the Democrat party, who have been planning to pack the courts forever must therefore also be stupid. What is the point of packing the courts (increasing the number of sitting judges by adding Democrat supporting judges) if there is no point??

Oh and I accept a supreme court judge should be apolitical which is why I refer to it currently being "Republican" in quotes. The Dems have no qualms about shoving anyone into a place of power no matter how biased or incompetent so long as they do as they are told. Look at Kamala Harris.

I am kinda curious though. Why do you suggest I would use the word "apolitical" above if I did not understand its meaning and if I didn't understand the meaning, what would my argument actually be? FWIW I was merely pointing out that the Dems now "control" the Senate, House of Reps and of course have a puppet president. I am merely pointing out (again) their ambition is to get the full set which includes the supreme court.

Yes I am aware the judiciary should indeed be apolitical but you try telling the democrat party that...

[Mussels]

You forget this is not a chess game, pieces do not have to move or behave in a predetermined manner according to a set of rules. They are mere humans. They have allegiance and a political allegiance is an indication of which direction they may lean in lawmaking.

Thanks for calling me stupid by the way, by implication you are agreeing with me that the Democrat party, who have been planning to pack the courts forever must therefore also be stupid. What is the point of packing the courts (increasing the number of sitting judges by adding Democrat supporting judges) if there is no point??

Oh and I accept a supreme court judge should be apolitical which is why I refer to it currently being "Republican" in quotes. The Dems have no qualms about shoving anyone into a place of power no matter how biased or incompetent so long as they do as they are told. Look at Kamala Harris.

I am kinda curious though. Why do you suggest I would use the word "apolitical" above if I did not understand its meaning and if I didn't understand the meaning, what would my argument actually be? FWIW I was merely pointing out that the Dems now "control" the Senate, House of Reps and of course have a puppet president. I am merely pointing out (again) their ambition is to get the full set which includes the supreme court.

Yes I am aware the judiciary should indeed be apolitical but you try telling the democrat party that...

I don't doubt the Democrats would rather the supreme court is full of their guys but don't pretend that is just a Democrat trait, Trump and the Republicans were determined to stick a right wing pro-lifer in to replace the liberal pro-choice predecessor. As for packing the court I haven't seen any move to do so yet, is it just more Trump fear-mongering?

Both sides including Trump and Biden seem more occupied with petty point scoring than serving their country.

[DEADPOOL]

If you actually out yourself forward as a sensible, thoughtful person right now you'd basically get ignored wouldn't you?

Ohh, oohh me, me, I know this one.

What actually happens is that if you merely question a statement, despite not being Republican, Trumpist, Democrat or even live in America, you will automatically be vilified, declared a racist/homophobic/misogynist/fascist/baby killer.

Now the dems have somehow been successful in their grab for power, backed by Antifa/BLM and big tech, they are out for revenge. So if you have a YouTube channel, FaceBook, Instagram, Google, Twitter presence, they're out to get you.

Finally I can say that without the inevitable tinfoilhat/lizard nonsense such remarks would normally demand. I have been ringing that bell for a while now <waves to Yorick> but now those rather obvious "moves" have been made, they cannot be dismissed as madcap fantasy. It is happening and even the left wing mainstream media can't ignore it. They really are out to get you.

Oh and there are now orchestrated attacks by Antifa on bookshops. They are demanding certain books/authors be removed or they will literally burn down the business. Where have we seen those tactics before?

May you live in interesting times.
Never really considered the full meaning of that simplistic and yet complex epigram.
Now it appears somewhat chilling don't it?

[weeksy]

Now it appears somewhat chilling don't it?

Not really fella.

[Mussels]

Stuff

Free speech is definitely under attack in the USA but a lot of what you post is what is enabling it to happen, antifa use ludicrous claims like that as an excuse to order them silenced. Whilst big tech shouldn't have silenced POTUS under any circumstances Trump gave them all good reasons.

[DEADPOOL]

I don't doubt the Democrats would rather the supreme court is full of their guys but don't pretend that is just a Democrat trait, Trump and the Republicans were determined to stick a right wing pro-lifer in to replace the liberal pro-choice predecessor. As for packing the court I haven't seen any move to do so yet, is it just more Trump fear-mongering?

Both sides including Trump and Biden seem more occupied with petty point scoring than serving their country.

I am not pretending anything, you can ask me questions rather than making assumptions.

A supreme court judge is a lifelong appointment. When one of them dies, the president installs another one. It's part of a very well thought out randomised process, as decreed by the constitution. Part of a checks and balances, swings and roundabouts type of affair which is a good way of maintaining an impartial judiciary.

It's a fair bet whichever party is in power will install a judge favourable to their political agenda (which includes religious belief etc.). It really shouldn't matter if all the judges do is interpret the law impartially

What the dems are planning is to artificially increase the number of sitting judges during their presidency (pack the courts). That is literally unconstitutional but that doesn't matter when they also hold the senate and the house. They can pretty much do wtf they want. Why do you think they would bother to do that if it didn't increase their grip on "democracy"?

This is merely my opinion of course but it is based on the dodging and diving Biden had to do when asked the very same question. He refused to deny it, therefore (imho) they're gonna do it. I could be wrong of course but I wasn't wrong about big tech now was I?

[Mr. Dazzle]

Its a bit silly to worry about Antifa trying to prevent books being released when POTUS himself has multiple injunctions, gagging orders etc. against all kinds of books, newspapers and TV stations doesn't he?

Antifa are ridiculous but the other side are just as bad. Why do they need to take automatic weapons to peaceful protests for example? If you want to "keep the peace" maybe don't bring firearms?

They're all as bad as each other and none of it is evidence of a great leftist conspiracy IMO.

[DEADPOOL]

Stuff

Free speech is definitely under attack in the USA but a lot of what you post is what is enabling it to happen, antifa use ludicrous claims like that as an excuse to order them silenced. Whilst big tech shouldn't have silenced POTUS under any circumstances Trump gave them all good reasons.

Ludicrous claims like what? Like big tech are going to censor anything that doesn't toe the party line?

err, you've seen the news right? I'm not sure people are seeing the full picture. It's not just the POTUS being silenced is it.

[David]

Isn't that the wish for all governments with a 2nd main rival? It's human nature to an extent isn't it?

The danger is of course that while the Democrats may have carried off this incredible coup due to extreme circumstance (lack of support even from the Republicans for their own president and covid restrictions allowing a significant degree of rule bending), there is still the problem that at least half the country (!) do not actually support an extreme left wing agenda.

There may be trouble ahead.

I agree...it looks sticky....but " extreme left wing agenda"? Its Biden, not Corbyn

[DEADPOOL]

I agree...it looks sticky....but " extreme left wing agenda"? Its Biden, not Corbyn

I am of the opinion Biden is a puppet like no other world leader in history. He is owned by a conglomeration which includes big tech and the CCP. I don't see him lasting long and I don't just mean the obvious signs of Parkinson's.

Kamala Harris is a joke but a really unfunny, extreme left wing joke. She's next in line! I **think** there is some sort of mechanism by which the speaker for the house has the opportunity to step in as president if the POTUS is removed on health grounds.

If Pelosi gets in, that really performs an incredible trick of making a disastrous situation even worse!

May you live in interesting times.

[Mr. Dazzle]

You need to read more history if you think that ^^^ would make Biden a puppet like no other

[moth]

You need to read more history if you think that ^^^ would make Biden a puppet like no other

This bit made me smile

Kamala Harris is a joke but a really unfunny, extreme left wing joke.

Even Hitler wouldn't have thought Harris was extreme left wing

[DEADPOOL]

You need to read more history if you think that ^^^ would make Biden a puppet like no other

And you need to read what I said and not argue against what you think I mean.

I am of the opinion Biden is a puppet like no other world leader in history.

Name one.

[DEADPOOL]

Even Hitler wouldn't have thought Harris was extreme left wing

Funny how often he turns up when someone can't think of anything sensible to say.

So in the historical context of Nazi Germany, how would someone like Kamala fare?

[Yambo]

You forget this is not a chess game, pieces do not have to move or behave in a predetermined manner according to a set of rules. They are mere humans. They have allegiance and a political allegiance is an indication of which direction they may lean in lawmaking.

If you are talking about the Supreme Court here then you are doing it again. Being stupid. That very sentence of your's above clearly says the SC is not apolitical. Now ideally, should they would be apolitical? As their job is to rule on cases relating to the Constitution of the United States - very much a political document, maybe they should have a political bias. It's pretty much a basic requirement. Oh, and the Supreme Court are not lawmakers. They are there to interpret the law in line with the Constitution. Governments make law, judges interpret it.

Thanks for calling me stupid by the way, by implication you are agreeing with me that the Democrat party, who have been planning to pack the courts forever must therefore also be stupid. What is the point of packing the courts (increasing the number of sitting judges by adding Democrat supporting judges) if there is no point??

No problem. If you are going to think that politically appointed judges are going to form an apolitical bench then you're not being very clever. It's also a bit stupid to suggest/assume that I am agreeing with you. I'm not. I have no belief that the Democrat Party have been trying to pack the courts forever. I have no belief that they would be able to do so. Now, I can on occasion be stupid, why just this morning I came back to my house from working on my boat while it was raining when I could have found something else to do and come home 45 minutes later when the rain had stopped. Just fucking dumb, I know but I'm not agreeing with you.

The Dems have no qualms about shoving anyone into a place of power no matter how biased or incompetent so long as they do as they are told. Look at Kamala Harris.

I guess you didn't have a straight face when you wrote that. Both political parties in the US will put forward anyone who they think will win, regardless of competence. Now the Democrats have certainly had their moments in the past and will no doubt continue in that way but then, let's face it the Republicans backed Trump (I seem to remember Trump calling himself a Democrat in the past. Maybe I misheard). Even Billy Connolly isn't that funny.

I am kinda curious though. Why do you suggest I would use the word "apolitical" above if I did not understand its meaning and if I didn't understand the meaning, what would my argument actually be? FWIW I was merely pointing out that the Dems now "control" the Senate, House of Reps and of course have a puppet president. I am merely pointing out (again) their ambition is to get the full set which includes the supreme court.

I thought I'd answered that question.

[moth]

Even Hitler wouldn't have thought Harris was extreme left wing

Funny how often he turns up when someone can't think of anything sensible to say.

So in the historical context of Nazi Germany, how would someone like Kamala fare?

It goes like this

You "Kamala Harris is further to the Left than Stalin"
Someone with a firing synapse "There are no extreme left wing politicians in the USA"
You "GODWINS!!! (makes non-sequitur) I win LOLZ"
SWAFS "Tit"

[DEADPOOL]

<dumb removed for clarity>
I thought I'd answered that question.

No all you are doing is ignoring what I have said and reformatting it.

First you say I don't know what apolitical means, then you make some specious argument that "apolitical" does not exist because everything is political. Make your mind up.

I also point out that while the SC should not have a political or partisan bias, it obviously does. Read the chess analogy again and don't merely assume you are smarter than everyone else therefore I must be wrong. Answer the question regarding the obsession with packing the courts and try to say something interesting.

Oh, and the Supreme Court are not lawmakers. They are there to interpret the law in line with the Constitution. Governments make law, judges interpret it.

Oh. And what did I say?

It really shouldn't matter if all the judges do is interpret the law impartially

So you're making stuff up which I haven't said and pointing at that as if I must be wrong. Is that the best you can do?