Minneapolis

[Angela Channing]

Trying to keep the focus on Obama, a now irrelevant character because he's not been an elected politician for over 9 years, is very convenient for the politicians who still have their grubby hands on the levers of power and are currently murdering American people.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Right, just keep pretending that I'm not responding to someone who thinks I'm wrong for not supporting Democrats because they believe Trump is worse.

While you're at it, ignore the fact that I said what's happening in Minneapolis is a travesty ad nauseam. Whatever it takes to support the narrative that Obama is the sole focus.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Again, studies show that, in general, men are more tolerant of their political enemies' opinions than women are of divergent opinions on their own side of the aisle.

If any thread proves that point more clearly than this one ...

 

[Seaviewer]

As an American "in the real world," voting is not compulsory. Thus, I don't have to choose between evils. However, if I were forced to vote for the sake of argument, I'd continue to vote third party or for a write-in candidate. If refusing to vote for thugs means I'm "placing myself above it all," so be it. I voted for Obama twice, and still ended up with the policies of George Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. I'm not getting any more blood on my hands.

Voting third party or not at all is not neutral. It is a choice with consequences that demonstrably helps one or other of the major candidates.

How did you make that giant leap?

It's your standard response. I never said you supported Trump. But your go-to to criticism of him is to point to the misdeeds of his predecessors.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Voting third party or not at all is not neutral. It is a choice with consequences that demonstrably helps one or other of the major candidates.

Both parties support war and murder. One had Americans killed on US soil (Trump), while the other supported killing Americans deemed a threat abroad (Obama.)

That's why voting for either of the major candidates isn't consequence free either.

It's your standard response. I never said you supported Trump. But your go-to to criticism of him is to point to the misdeeds of his predecessors.

Yes, because most of the people I have these political discussions with typically believe that his predecessors weren't that bad (or were tolerable enough to vote for.)

I clearly have a different point of view.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Voting third party or not at all is not neutral. It is a choice with consequences that demonstrably helps one or other of the major candidates.

I used to make that old argument myself.

But when both pursue the same policies (and indeed they do) what difference does a third-party vote do.

But your go-to to criticism of him is to point to the misdeeds of his predecessors.

And?

 

[anndra w]

Voting third party or not at all is not neutral. It is a choice with consequences that demonstrably helps one or other of the major candidates.

It's your standard response. I never said you supported Trump. But your go-to to criticism of him is to point to the misdeeds of his predecessors.

It’s not just that - it’s a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the past in a misleading way that tries to normalise what has been happening as a consequence of the new approach that ICE has taken under Trump. I say deliberate - I don’t know if it is deliberate or if it’s case of people falling for simplified political rhetoric. I’ve just been watching this thread - and it’s clear what’s happening. You’re wasting your time - but it’s clear reading that you are also right - as is Angela Channing.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Again, that's just pure projection. Nobody's trying to normalize Trump's fascist use of ICE, but there are people trying to normalize despicable political leaders of the past.

I don't see how one can "misrepresent" wars, genocide, caging immigrants, warrantless surveillance, or drone bombing Americans. Either it happened or it didn't, but I digress.

Simplified political rhetoric indeed!

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Again, that's just pure projection. Nobody's trying to normalize Trump's fascist use of ICE, but there are people trying to normalize despicable political leaders of the past.

I don't see how one can "misrepresent" war, genocide, caging immigrants, warrantless surveillance, or drone bombing Americans, but I digress.

Simplified political rhetoric indeed!

Oh, she's not even reading the damned thread -- or she's reading it with wild selectivity.

It's known as "straw-woman argumentation": they have to lie about what's actually being said in this thread because they can't take on the actual arguments.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

It’s not just that - it’s a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the past in a misleading way that tries to normalise what has been happening as a consequence of the new approach that ICE has taken under Trump. I say deliberate - I don’t know if it is deliberate or if it’s case of people falling for simplified political rhetoric. I’ve just been watching this thread - and it’s clear what’s happening. You’re wasting your time - but it’s clear reading that you are also right - as is Angela Channing.

It's funny, isn't it, that two liberal Americans -- both of whom detest Trump -- somehow have no understanding of how our own government works.

And the devastating effect our government has on countries around the world regardless of who's in the White House.

 

[Seaviewer]

That's why voting for either of the major candidates isn't consequence free either.

Of course not. Who said it was?

And?

And it's deflection.

It's funny, isn't it, that two liberal Americans -- both of whom detest Trump -- somehow have no understanding of how our own government works.

And the devastating effect our government has on countries around the world regardless of who's in the White House.

Have you not seen the flags under our names? I'm not American, and I don't believe @Angela Channing or @anndra w is either. I'm only too aware of the effect US actions are having and don't try to tell me that it's not worse now.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Have you not seen the flags under our names? I'm not American, and I don't believe @Angela Channing or @anndra w is either.

That's my point.

Talk about your deflection!

 

[Frank Underwood]

Just because I don't bury my head in the sand when it comes to atrocities committed by the Democrats doesn't mean I'm deflecting from the atrocities committed by Trump.

They're all horrendous, which has been the point Snarky and I have been trying to get across. People can get into the weeds about who's "worse" if they want to, but they're all war mongers and murderers at the end of the day. Government should exist to ensure the welfare of its citizens, but in the US, it exists to serve the interests of the oligarchs.

 

[Seaviewer]

That's my point.

Talk about your deflection!

What am I deflecting from? You've conveniently omitted the part where I directly answered you.

Just because I don't bury my head in the sand when it comes to atrocities committed by the Democrats doesn't mean I'm deflecting from the atrocities committed by Trump.

They're all horrendous, which has been the point Snarky and I have been trying to get across. People can get into the weeds about who's "worse" if they want to, but they're all war mongers and murderers at the end of the day. Government should exist to ensure the welfare of its citizens, but in the US, it exists to serve the interests of the oligarchs.

And, again, the resort to false equivalence.

 

[Frank Underwood]

And, again, the resort to false equivalence.

You may see it as a false equivalence, but I don't agree (I've already listed all the reasons why.)

What else can we do but agree to disagree? Neither of us is changing our minds anytime soon.

 

[Angela Channing]

Just because I don't bury my head in the sand when it comes to atrocities committed by the Democrats doesn't mean I'm deflecting from the atrocities committed by Trump.

They're all horrendous, which has been the point Snarky and I have been trying to get across. People can get into the weeds about who's "worse" if they want to, but they're all war mongers and murderers at the end of the day. Government should exist to ensure the welfare of its citizens, but in the US, it exists to serve the interests of the oligarchs.

But you do bury your head in the sand when it comes to Trump. During the 2025 Presidential campaign whenever I posted anything about Project 2025 being Trump's agenda for office, you consistently defended his and argued that I was wrong because it wasn't going to be his programme, even though JD Vance wrote the introduction to it and many of his allies contributed to it. Whenever I pointed out that Trump was found liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll you consistently defended him and tried to argue that the decision of the court was flawed. Yet you still claim all you are doing is pointing out that the Democrats are just as bad as Trump.

Anyway, back to ICE.

Yesterday, I listened to an interview by Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and she was telling of some deeply sinister things that were happening in her state. ICE agents are waiting outside churches to arrest worshipers when they come out after a service and they are also arresting families of law Nevada law enforcement agents. Nevada risks becoming the next Minnesota as the USA slips more an more into becoming an authoritarian state.

 

[Frank Underwood]

But you do bury your head in the sand when it comes to Trump. During the 2025 Presidential campaign whenever I posted anything about Project 2025 being Trump's agenda for office, you consistently defended his and argued that I was wrong because it wasn't going to be his programme, even though JD Vance wrote the introduction to it and many of his allies contributed to it.

That's an oversimplification. I addressed this before, but what I said was that Trump distanced himself from Project 2025 and claimed he had nothing to do with it. I also made it a point to say he could be lying, and that I was dubious of his claim precisely because it was written by his allies. Were journalists defending Trump by reporting his denial?

When it comes to issues such as income inequality, delaying food stamps, cuts to programs like Medicare, reproductive rights, the genocide in Gaza, the wars in Venezuela and Iran, and ICE terrorizing US cities like Minneapolis, I have condemned Trump unequivocally. Far from "burying my head in the sand," I'm fully aware of just how despicable he is.

Whenever I pointed out that Trump was found liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll you consistently defended him and tried to argue that the decision of the court was flawed. Yet you still claim all you are doing is pointing out that the Democrats are just as bad as Trump.

I didn't defend him. What I said is that it's hard to prove a sexual assault case that allegedly happened decades prior. To be clear, that's regardless of who the defendant is.

Sometimes the courts get it right, and sometimes they get it wrong. That isn't a commentary on Trump's guilt or innocence, but everything is black and white to you.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Anyway, back to ICE.

Yesterday, I listened to an interview by Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and she was telling of some deeply sinister things that were happening in her state. ICE agents are waiting outside churches to arrest worshipers when they come out after a service and they are also arresting families of law Nevada law enforcement agents. Nevada risks becoming the next Minnesota as the USA slips more an more into becoming an authoritarian state.

It's also happened at a few stores in the town I live in. I live in a town with a large Hispanic population, but the town itself isn't large enough to make the news.

However, there is a Facebook group that posts about it to raise awareness. A lot of the high school kids here have been protesting as well.

It's such a flagrant disregard for both the law and humanity.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

What am I deflecting from? You've conveniently omitted the part where I directly answered you.

For one thing, I said, "It's funny, isn't it, that two liberal Americans -- both of whom detest Trump -- somehow have no understanding of how our own government works" and "And the devastating effect our government has on countries around the world regardless of who's in the White House."

But you tried to incorporate the point -- and then flip it -- by saying, "Have you not seen the flags under our names? I'm not American, and I don't believe @Angela Channing or @anndra w is either. I'm only too aware of the effect US actions are having and don't try to tell me that it's not worse now."

You may not view that as deflection, baby, but it is.

You've conveniently omitted the part where I directly answered you.

You directly answered me?? You mean, when you said: "I'm only too aware of the effect US actions are having and don't try to tell me that it's not worse now."?

My point was that I found it fascinating two-liberal Americans (who detest Trump and trash him constantly) are being preached to by non-Americans about how American politics works, in or out of our borders --- as if we're two rightwingers who buy into his bush!t.

So you, basically, repeated my point, pretended you said it first, and then flipped as if you were clever.

That isn't a commentary on his guilt or innocence, but everything is so black and white to you.

It's not really possible to have a rational discussion with any of these people. Topic doesn't really matter, only compliance with their foolish "purity test."

But no matter how many times you say, "I hate Trump!!," if you don't stop right there, then they keep accusing you of "defending Trump!!"

I mean, it's psychotic. Cognitive dissonance doesn't even begin to describe it.

But it's a manifestation of those studies which show that, generally, men tend to be more tolerant of differing political opinions -- even from the other party, while women are much less tolerant of differing opinions within their same party.

It's a purity test. And you simply can't have discussions with them -- you'd receive less lies and nonquitter-ish pushback if you screamed "I love Trump!' because that's less-threatening to them. Disagreement from the "outside" is always far less disconcerting.

It's a kind of political naivete or immaturity (for lack of a better word). They still think in terms of the "good" team versus the bad team.

They can't handle anything else, or frame it in any other way. It's too hopeless and frightening for them.

 

[anndra w]

For one thing, I said, "It's funny, isn't it, that two liberal Americans -- both of whom detest Trump -- somehow have no understanding of how our own government works" and "And the devastating effect our government has on countries around the world regardless of who's in the White House."

But you tried to incorporate the point -- and then flip it -- by saying, "Have you not seen the flags under our names? I'm not American, and I don't believe @Angela Channing or @anndra w is either. I'm only too aware of the effect US actions are having and don't try to tell me that it's not worse now."

You may not view that as deflection, baby, but it is.



You directly answered me?? You mean, when you said: "I'm only too aware of the effect US actions are having and don't try to tell me that it's not worse now."?

My point was that I found it fascinating two-liberal Americans (who detest Trump and trash him constantly) are being preached to by non-Americans about how American politics works, in or out of our borders --- as if we're two rightwingers who buy into his bush!t.

So you, basically, repeated my point, pretended you said it first, and then flipped as if you were clever.



It's not really possible to have a rational discussion with any of these people. Topic doesn't really matter, only compliance with their foolish "purity test."

But no matter how many times you say, "I hate Trump!!," if you don't stop right there, then they keep accusing you of "defending Trump!!"

I mean, it's psychotic. Cognitive dissonance doesn't even begin to describe it.

But it's a manifestation of those studies which show that, generally, men tend to be more tolerant of differing political opinions -- even from the other party, while women are much less tolerant of differing opinions within their same party.

It's a purity test. And you simply can't have discussions with them -- you'd receive less lies and nonquitter-ish pushback if you screamed "I love Trump!' because that's less-threatening to them. Disagreement from the "outside" is always far less disconcerting.

It's a kind of political naivete or immaturity (for lack of a better word). They still think in terms of the "good" team versus the bad team.

They can't handle anything else, or frame it in any other way. It's too hopeless and frightening for them.

My name is Anndra - it’s the Scottish Gaelic version of Andrew. I’m also a guy not a woman.

Do you think things have gotten worse under Trump, yes or no? If no just say that. If yes, then why when people who agree with you criticise him do you seem to get annoyed? What’s the problem?

For example when people criticise what’s happening in Minneapolis there is an attempt to derail real concerns by saying well Obama deported more - which may be true but the nature of who, how, where and why they were deported is pretty relevant. It’s not really about who deported more. It’s about how things are being enforced and how folk are being treated. Masked federal agents threatening protesters and US citizens because they think they look like they could be illegal immigrants - because of you know - how they look is a new low. The other worry is that it feels like it’s focused more in places who politically disagree with the president - that also feels new. Also, enforcement feels political and deliberately intimidating towards liberal states and communties, again that’s a change.

And on the point about women, although I’m a man l, can you explain what you mean by women being less tolerant, and what studies you’re basing that on? I’ve never heard that before.