Talk Elections

We know that most posters are well aware of this forum policy, but a few have crossed the line on this matter, with regard to President Trump in particular. We understand that for many of you, the level of frustration, anxiety and even fear regarding Trump is high, but please respect this rule. Thank you.

The moderation team for the U.S. General Discussion board

Does that include Divine Retribution? There were some domestic terrorists busted for an anti-Muslim plot, and I suggested that it would be fitting if they found that Muhammad would be judging them.

     This is a point that we discussed. We agreed that wishing for acts of God to befall people we don't like is somewhat distasteful and should be kept to a minimum, but not actionable in the same sense that wishing for violence is.

Out of academic interest, where does repeating the words of the current President of the United States fall on this scale? For example:

()

()

Can I openly wish for Trump to die of bowel cancer? That doesn't seem violent or a threat.

But it's ok to cheer to high heaven when someone dies......lol.

It's ironic. The Mossad, which can go practically anywhere and destroy any enemy of Israel, scrupulously avoids doing harm to women and children. So why doesn't the Mossad do such overkill? Probably because it doesn't need to. One act of revenge is enough; there is no need for a blood feud. Do evil to Israel and die. But be a widow or orphan of someone who did such, and that is the end of the enmity.   

I had a post deleted that contained a general wish for a politician to die that expressly disavowed ill will against that politician themselves. I think such a post would have to be against the rules to be consistent.

See Pit's post above.

Ah. I intend to test the limits of the Mods' patience with this rule.

"We pray for X's soul to make its way to Heaven."

"Soon."

You're off my Christmas card list.

I'm hoping the Secret Service give you a call. You sound deranged.

Is this applicable to non-American leaders that are our enemies? I still can call for horrible things to happen to ISIS or the Kremlin right? What's the standard on that?

E.g I hope the Russian hackers who hacked our elections are taken out by covert operations that assassinate them? Or that Daesh is blown up?

I'm not interested in saying the same about our fellow Americans. Impeachment and prosecution for crimes is enough and the rule of law should apply as well as respect for it. To be clear, I do not wish ill on President Trump or his political aides physically; they are American citizens and they should be treated legally in commensurate proportion to their crimes, if any are found.

Mainly, I want to say bad things about the Russians and ISIS, but it's a politically tricky line, so I'm seeking guidance here.

Here's the thing. Sure, posting that you wish that someone would off some genocidal maniac with power is not out of line. But then the mods need to subjectively evaluate whether the person involved really deserves summary killing without trial and jury under some moral standard. And that can be tricky. We discussed this aspect too in the Cave.

In the end I think, the best we can do is say that if you post that someone deserves killing, you do so at your own risk, and when in doubt, just don't do it. Close cases will be resolved against you. Typically saying that about someone residing in a nation that has the rule of law and is a civil society would almost always be out of line I would think. In places that have brutal authoritarian folks in power, perhaps sometimes it would not be so out of line.

That's how I see it anyway. My fellow Mods may handle it a bit differently. There is no easy answer here. It really is all about good judgment and common sense. And just how necessary is it for one to post that someone needs killing? It typically would be more of an exercise in venting than anything else I would think.

Just my two cents.

Are there legal issues, at work here? E.g, if I explicitly call for death of Russian hackers, who would be suing us? Russia? Ditto Daesh. Ditto calling for Putin's overthrow.

To be clear, I don't want to call for the death of the British Premier (I happen to like her). There should be an understanding Americans and our allies are off limits. Allies defined by the intelligence agencies, State Department, and other appropriate government agencies.  

Why not set the standard that any American citizen or American ally (throughout Bush, Obama, and Trump) cannot have death or harm called on them (unless they clearly and explicitly join ISIS, which in my mind constitutes renouncing American loyalty and citizenship). I've had liberals say some very extreme things about Trump, and that's equally disturbing to me (that's a little unhinged, personally).

I just feel we should have a pro-American/Western civilization/anti-Daesh viewpoint on these boards. This is an American political board and that should reflect our loyalty to the country.

The standard is as set forth above, and goes beyond what would raise legal liability. Calling for Putin's overthrow is fair comment. I would stay away from calling for his assassination however. And no, the Mods are not going to go through the exercise of just who, is whose ally, either. I think enough has been posted, so posters get the idea.

So basically, have some common sense and courtesy.

No problem, except on Atlas.

LOL, is it like.. kindergarten? Isn't it like.. obvious?


Whatever. Let crying babies show what they are made of.

I never have been on your list. You're off mine, now.


What kindergarten did you go to?!?! "Missy teacher, I HOPE YOU DIE A PAINFUL, LENGTHY DEATH SOON!"

LOL! That genuinely may be the funniest post you've ever made, man (at least intentionally) ;)

I have this image of an absolutely adorable cherub like little girl talking any sweet lisping tiny Voice who suddenly goes like a cross between a female Stewie Griffin and the voice of Beelzebub

Completely opposed to this proposal. The idea that calling for the death of an American is morally worse than calling for the death of a foreigner is very debatable, and shouldn't be the official forum policy.

And for the US allies thing; So I would be banned if I say "I hope the people of Saudi Arabia pull a Nicholas II on the al-Saud family" but not be banned if I said the same about the Ayatollah?

LOL, I hope you somehow got my point
I just said to them that I am not feminist but equalist and then I heard that :(

Are people seriously debating about who it is okay to wish death upon? You really shouldn't be doing that at all, because it's just wrong. Just don't make those sort of comments, period.

It is sad that this is even necessary. People who are calling for violence against democratically elected officials are not only a public threat to other people/themselves but also to our country's electoral system and democratic values.

Good people don't wish death on public officials they have never met.
Good people don't make death threats against elected officials.

can we wish death upon officials not elected (like the mods?)

Why is this so hard for you deviants again?

Civility is vastly overrated IMO. In all realms of politics.

It's not about civility for the sake of civility. It's about the notion that the world would be a better place if someone died. That's all well and good unless you are that person. I will admit I've struggled with this, especially with Trump. It just doesn't feel right. I'm... dare I use the phrase... pro-life? I want my political enemies defeated, not dead. We're not in a civil war... yet.

It's quite a sad statement on society that this thread needs to exist.

It's the lack of civility that degrades political life. Does anyone think that the racist catcalls against President Obama did any real good? Many failed to recognize what a good President we had and found satisfaction in resisting everything that he did. Now look what we have!

See the Roger Ailes thread.

If you really can't engage in discourse on public life without vocally wishing for the death of those in power (particularly in your own country), there are other places for you.

Ding ding ding.

I agree, but how then, should we address those who support a prominent figure (who is now the President)  who does wish death on others? Should they be given a pass because they're only supporting it at one remove?

Many Trump supporters and opponents alike don't seem to want to even acknowledge that the Orange Menace regularly says things that fit well in the mouth of a war criminal and no where else.

Damn! And then your funniest post!

 don't you see what riotous good discourse you are squelching here Torie?

total cuck move etc etc

ah, just out of curiosity, will this be enforced consistently? will posts wishing for the violent death of e.g. abu bakr al-baghdadi be moderatable?

Just read the commentary above for guidance on this. Thanks.

Im with this guy for once.

Yea its kinda obvious that that's your opinion.

You're the epitome of "I'm a good person because I'm polite when I say brown people are scary"

Human being are dangerous animals. Human life in the days before there was such a thing as government was, as Thomas Hobbes famously and rightly pointed out, nasty short and brutish. After generations and centuries and millennia of being subject to a strong and many times harsh process of domestication  (similar in many ways to the domestication of animals)  human populations around the world have gradually become more peaceful and civilised. However it is important that that pressure of domestication, what you might call enforced civility, is kept up otherwise the process will quickly start to revert and human society move back towards the nasty short and brutish state.

What if we don't consider ExtremeRepublican/evergreen Donald Trump to be either an individual or a human being??

That's certainly something the strongmen, and those with a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo of the state like to tell us.

But what we actually find when we look is that when people are content - when they're not hungry, not scared for themselves or their loved ones, not in pain - then we all treat each other pretty well.

The enemy isn't the other. The enemy is suffering.

And isn't it just amazing how good people who want to be in charge are at making sure there is fear and want?

I am in agreement with this notion and therefore expect that no mention is made of the death penalty in any sort of positive tone as it is antithetical to this forum to wish, hope for, or endorse the death of another human being, whether if be OJ Simpson, Assad, Putin, Erdogan or Charles Manson.

Yes, yes, yes the mention of the death penalty is a good one. Seeing as it is a legal punishment in many nations, are we allowed to say "I can only hope that Donald Trump/Erdogan/klartext is sentenced to death for their many crimes"?

Stop focusing on how you hate others and try instead to become a better person.

I'm just asking questions, buddy.

()()()

Alright, I know at least one of you wished for Pianoforte to violently assault a reporter. Fess up!

Texas Governor Greg Abbott Jokes About Shooting Reporters

"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/texas-governor-greg-abbott-jokes-about-shooting-reporters_us_59284da3e4b0df57cbfb53c8"

If the intent is to stop those "making threats or wishing for violent crimes" all the blue avatars are going to need to be banned, because they obviously condone such behavior.


Cue those falsely claiming that actions of random protesters on one side and prominent politicians on the other make both sides equivalent.

Mods: Here's a vague new rule we're enforcing
Posters: Can we have some clear guidelines so we don't get banned at random?
Mods: WOW SUCH HORRIBLE PEOPLE WHAT'S NOT CLEAR ABOUT IT YOU NEED TO GROW UP.

Mods: While being afraid of stating the obvious, please, don't wish death/violence to people don't eat poos.

3-4 posters: Muh, but what's about poo with Coke zero or Russian/Australian poos? Is it ok to eat them then!?

Majority of Atlas: ???

Any actual rule would be too much for you people.

In any case, I would prefer we avoid any language that would look undesirable should a member of the Secret Service stumble upon us. That ought to at least be the starting point. It is my experience that the type of people who try to incessantly sniff out loopholes face certain character deficits.

At this rate, there's not much we can do to get people to stop saying stupid threats on the internet.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't get it to drink.

Well, those who wanted Manuel Noriega to go to Hell are probably getting their wish.

When Your President Incites Violence …

How do we handle heads-of-state who encourage crimes?

http://warisboring.com/when-your-president-incites-violence/


Seems relevant.

I don't think we can do something to you. But I don't know, maybe those second amendment people moderators...

It only seems relevant because of your own twisted hatred of Donald Trump.  He's a guy you dislike intensely.  I get that.  Do we have to talk about Democratic operatives encouraging mentally shaky folks to react to them during Trump rallies?

Scripture says to refrain from "returning evil for evil".  For the athiests and unbelievers, I would think that your parents explained to you at one time or another that two (2) wrongs didn't make a right.  (Quite frankly, if they didn't, they failed at part of their job, and if they did, but you blew it off, you failed at part of growing up.)

I'm a parent of a now 12 year old.  He's got ADHD with a bit of Oppositional Defiant Disorder.  He wants to push the limits as far as he can, and it's strenuous to have to constantly insist that boundaries and rules are what they are, and (quite often) not negotiable.  He's 12 and he's got an identifiable issue.  But here, I'm seeing a bunch of folks who, presumably, don't have those issues, thinking that they shouldn't be banned from a website for making threats, wanting to box folks as to how far they can go, etc.  It's the logic of someone who wants to know how close to the Atlantic Ocean they should build their new house during Hurricane Season, or how close to the cliff they should venture without fear of a rockslide.  They want to live on the edge, but when the edge is blown out from under them, they want it to be somebody else's fauld.

I wish Trump would quit Tweeting; he can't do it without being a jerk and he doesn't seem to want to listen to reason.  I get that, also.  But I'm not responsible for him.  I'm only responsible for me and my son; even my wife, who is also responsible for our son, is responsible for her own actions.  And if I really have to go to great lengths to explain this to folks, I wonder if these folks judgment in ANYTHING is sound, no matter how educated or experienced they may be.

Let's hope not. Don't do violence. Violence is one of the few things that fascists do extremely well. Fascists do violence far more effectively than people who have scruples.  


So what's the pacifist part of turning the other cheek?

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

— Matthew 5:38–5:39 KJV

Walk away. Try to avoid striking back. The sin is to escalate the violence. One act of violence is one too many. Most destructive fights begin over something that the participants forget about as the fighting gets to be a matter of survival.

This is how to stop a bar-room brawl that often culminates in one participant having a broken hand and the other a broken jaw. Was it worth it? Do you even remember the incident that escalated to a trip to a hospital ward?

I have run away from many fights in my time. Cowardice? No. Wisdom. Fists prove nothing except who is a better or more devious fighter. 



Corporate lobbyists tell our elected officials what to do, Congress writes the laws, the President signs them, and the police enforce them with the threat of people going to prison or having to pay hurtful fines for non-compliance. That's the way things go in America, and if you don't like them there are nearly 200 sovereign states with different laws and much the same means of enforcement. If things go a certain way the Great Command in life will be to suffer with a smile and do as you are told with selfless disregard for anything except the 'wonderful people' whom God has appointed to lord it all over us. God help us if we should ever be expected to treat the inanimate possession of some member of the Master Class  more precious than something so trivial as our own children.


Wise people recognize that in the absence of certain rules life gets precarious. Tahquamenon Falls is beautiful, and it is obviously tempting to get a closer closeup by going past a fence. But get too close to the edge and you will fall to your death into near-freezing water. Even if you got the image of a lifetime your camera might not survive, either.  


I might stick to divine retribution. You know how that goes -- do horrible things to people and the God who judges you will be among those that you mistreated. Just imagine how nasty a discovery that a Nazi might have upon finding that God is Jewish. (subject for a story out of The Twilight Zone?) Or that Osama bin Laden found that God is an American.

We have three and a half years in which to outlast Donald Trump. That is less time now than is usually necessary to start and complete a bachelor's program at a 4-year college. That will be time enough for Americans to decide what they want as a successor. I hope that this will not be a liberal crook -- better a conservative  with a conscience than a left-wing demagogue as obnoxious as Trump.

If I were thirty years younger I would seek to spend the Trump Presidency in some other country. Think of a joke that the late Arte Johnson made as a mock-Russian

American: In our country we are free to criticize our President
Russian: In our country we are free to criticize your President.

If you don't care what goes on in Saudi Arabia and you find what Trump does is more cause for your concern, and you are a petroleum engineer, then you might want to apply for work at Aramco.

I just hope Trump gets voted out in 2020 or undermines his own presidency before then.  Political misfortune for him will be good news for the country. 

Disgrace.. So sad!

lol. I wish you posted more.

Quotes such as these indicate Hillary Clinton's weakness as a politician. After all, she lost to HIM!

Fixed.

I for one believe that both Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate and the American voters got it wrong.

Agreed, she made a lot of mistakes and in many ways was a female version of Mitt Romney. There's a lot she should have done different.

That said, there's plenty of blame to go around, including with the voters.

I'm just curious: does this mean that nobody can make a comment in favor of the death penalty (at least in a specific case)?

Ultimately, other than the legal nicities, there really is no difference between having the state kill on your behalf rather than wishing somebody dead (or for 'violent crimes' against any individual.)

If there were truly equal justice in the carrying out of the death penalty, I suppose one could argue it was truly fair justice being meted out by the state, but I think everybody here knows that's not the reality.

I think I've abided by this rule and although I have mixed feelings about it, I can see its value. Every discussion could turn into some flame war without the rule.

But, on my initial point at least 60% of Americans support the death penalty, so this idea that people (at least Americans) find the idea of wishing somebody killed to be morally repugnant is just a lie.  

I wrote in the second paragraph about the supposed rationales of how a person can support the death penalty but virtue signal over somebody else wishing for somebody be killed.  Obviously I think those rationales are garbage.

So, I seriously would like to know if this rule does extend to calling for the death penalty to be carried out, or, if not, what makes the high profile people this rule is obviously primarily for so special?

I haven't checked all the comments on the latest shooting, but one of the idiotic arguments against gun control is 'we need guns to prevent government tyranny.'

Is that argument allowed?  Because getting away from the abstract nonsense of this statement, what it really means at present is 'we need guns to kill Donald Trump or to kill members of Congress.'

Lmao, no it doesn't. Nice try though.

1.You're not a moderator.

2.Why doesn't it?

This.  We should acting according to the better angels of our nature.

What? That’s crazy! That’s a little to much for a forum.

Read more carefully the text of the headline of this thread, and I confident that you will find the answer to your question.

I have.  This is why I wrote "in a specific case."  Maybe you should read more carefully what I wrote.

Wishing someone to die via applying the rule of law is different than wishing or calling for them to be executed outside the rule of law.

I'm not trying to play games here, but at what point in the 'rule of law' does that apply.  There are credible allegations that Donald Trump committed treason and the ultimate penalty for treason is death, so at what point does that kick in for him and for everybody else? 

When there are allegations?
When they are charged?
When they are convicted?
When they are sentenced?

Again, I expect the rules on this forum are the same for Trump as they are for any other individual.

The comments below would be OK:

When there are allegations? If the allegations are true, Trump should be charged, tried, and if found guilty, he should get the death penalty.
When they are charged? If found guilty, Trump should get the death penalty.
When they are convicted? Trump should get the death penalty.
When they are sentenced? I hope he is executed soon (if he got the death penalty). If not found guilty, then expressing the opinion that he should have been found guilty, and got the death penalty, would be OK.

I hope this helps. But somehow I think you are just messing with me. That's OK. :)

It does help and I  my questions were sincere, I was not asking rhetorical questions or trying to play games with you.

On Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, for the first time he posted a story raising the possibility that Mueller is making a case for treason.

Is Robert Mueller Building a Case for Treason?
May 18, 2018 at 11:12 am EDTBy Taegan Goddard148 Comments
This piece is only available to Political Wire members.


I asked specifically about this because this has seemed to me the obvious criminal charge in a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign (and Administration) and Russia (and Putin) for at least months now.

It's a fair point. I mean I have to imagine that there have been times here when people wished for the violent death of Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein and the same could potentially have been said about Castro or Putin or Kim Jong Un. No different from Trump.

If this poster really believes this, he is deranged beyond belief.

Torie, you're a sane, reasonable person.  I hope you can see that some of these people here are off the rails in what is unprecedented ways for a forum of this nature.

How do you know you're not the one deranged beyond belief?

Better watch out. I got reported for saying deranged. Remember?

If it results in nobody being allowed to reference this idiotic non-existent 'malady' of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' it's worth it for me.

Assuming arguendo that what you say is correct, being "off the rails in unprecedented ways" may show some signs of idiosyncrasy/creativity, but it is not per se a violation of the TOS. One thing about being a Mod that has spilled over somewhat into the content of my posts, is that I get more detached about some stuff. I can't fully explain it at the moment, but I sense that it is there. The scope of my hot button passion area has truncated. Trump however remains in my hot button passion area. I loathe him!

I don't know where the rules are.  Is it now acceptable to say to anyone on this board who still supports Trump that they are a traitor and should be convicted and executed?

...

Stupidest shxt I’ve read on Atlas (the land of hot takes). Maybe your psychopath  ass will finally get canned.

As long as the implication is that a necessary precondition is that Trump is first found guilty of treason through the justice system, and if found guilty, the penalty should be death, that is not a violation of either the TOS or the rules I fashioned here. If the implication is that Trump should be killed without the due process of law through extra-legal means, not only is that a violation of the rules here, and the TOS, that comment might well be the cause of a banning.

Oh, I misread the question. To answer the question actually posed (which seems more of a rhetorical than a real question, as to which the poster already knows the answer), I would support banning a poster who published that. Has somebody actually posted that? If so, please direct me to the post!

Dude

No, I'm asking.  I don't see anything wrong with it.  Anybody who continues to support Trump is complicit in his traitorous behavior.  As I've written before, this demand for 'civility' and following 'due process' while the Trump Administration and the Congressional Republicans continue apace to take the U.S down the road of authoritarian conservative dictatorship is extremely naive.

I remember a discussion in a military history class in which a leader of some country engaged in a war argued in favor of bombing civilian populations of the opposing country on the basis of 'in a democracy the civilian population is complicit in the decisions of that country' and our instructor responded that he's never heard an effective counter-argument to that.

Even, for instance, David Frum, now acknowledges that the Republican Party has or will soon abandon democracy in order to force a conservative America. Anybody who does not agree with this is, in my opinion, a naif who is suffering from an extreme case of normalcy bias (which unlike 'X Derangement Syndrome' is a real condition.)

Normalcy bias: a belief people hold when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the likelihood of a disaster and its possible effects, because people believe that things will always function the way things normally have functioned.

I believe pushing back on this normalcy bias and pointing out the complicity in Republican voters in enabling this corrupt, criminal and traitorous behavior is very important.

()

This is off-topic obviously, but it's a little disappointing how much people are dancing on McCain's grave just minutes after it was announced that he passed. This isn't really so much about Atlas but the internet in general. You don't have to agree with everything he did, or say great things about his career or him as a person, you don't need to say anything at all. You don't even need to like him. Just, if you're going to critique his life and career, the worst place to do it is as a response to news of his death. It's not to say you can never criticize his past or him as a person, but there is a time and place for everything, and right now is definitely not the time to air grievances or piss on his memory.

I confess to rhetorically dancing on the grave... of Charles Manson. But that is understandable. There's nothing controversial about Charles Manson; he is evil personified.

With people of controversy, such is disgusting. I called people on that when they celebrated the death of Margaret Thatcher, whom some people consider evil for her ideology. I'll save the dancing on graves (rhetorical, that is) for mass killers, serial killers, mobsters, drug kingpins, and tyrants. I think you could understand people celebrating any death of the Green River killer or the BTK killer. Being on the wrong side of a partisan divide is not good for any grave-dancing. 

Probably the worst living murderer, and in view of the ability of a brutalized state to do mass killing, is Haile Mengistu, former dictator of Ethiopia.         

Should joking that someone you're debating should be eaten be a bannable offense?

Kind of sad that this isn't obvious.

Freedom dies in Hudson County  :.(

That is in New Jersey honey.

...not if you refer to oral sex. Just don't be explicit.

Otherwise, suggesting that someone be cast to crocodiles, alligators, a reticulated python, Komodo dragons, bears, Big Cats, sharks, or a pack of starving dogs should be an offense suitable for banning.

OK, I would leave room for al-Baghdadi (leader of ISIS/Daesh) or Assad.

Summary extra-judicial execution is no answer for purveyors of evil like al_Baghdadi or Bin Laden. They should be put on trial, subject to the full weight of the law, and left in prison for the rest of their lives  and get to watch as a the world leaves them and their toxic ideologies on the garbage heap of history.

Hey, I already have indigestion.

Seems with a crime family running the country this whole concept is passe, no?

I assume that such horrible people would be subjected to the formalities of due process, including the right to a spirited defense. That's not to say that a fair trial would save someone like al-Baghdadi.

I once suggested that hanging was too gentle a punishment for Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Nazi war criminal (and traitor to Austria for his role in the Anschluss) who was the highest-ranking survivor to have responsibility for (and culpability in) the administration of the Nazi concentration camps and extermination camps. I suggested that burning at the stake would have been more appropriate in his case.

If you believe in Hell, then you likely believe that he is getting torture beyond human capacity for imagination -- at least if you know about him. Dante had his limits. 

Late to the party here, but excellent point.

It echoes a core problem of online discussion in the era of Dump's GOP: how can we possibly have a useful debate, when simply accurately quoting the President of the United States and leader of Republican Party is censored, or is a violation of site TOS? I do not blame various websites for the problem - I blame the Republicans who have collectively enabled a man grossly unsuited for the office he is purported to hold.

No.

It is all the more important with the gang of questionable characters we have 'leading' our country.

Due process of law was adequate against the Nazis, the thug rulers of imperialist Japan, the leadership of the Hungarian Arrow Cross Party, the Khmer Rouge, and Satan Hussein's clique. Due process exposes the monstrous crimes and leaves little question of culpability of perpetrators.

Obviously we cannot compare Donald Trump to the likes of people who loosed half-starved dogs upon live prisoners, cast live children into the raging furnaces of crematoria, or ordered the use of Sarin gas upon helpless villagers. Summary execution or show trials leave too many questions unanswered. Even the Soviet Union set Anglo-American standards for trials of Nazi war criminals that they caught. We all have questions about most Soviet trials of political offenders, but not those Soviet trials of Nazi war criminals. If you are discussing Poland -- Poland quickly resurrected its old judiciary before the Commies fully consolidated power, and the old standards of Polish law were capable of damning the Nazis.

I'm not going to make any unfounded accusations of criminality by the Trump administration. It is best that the legal process do so should there be a solid foundation for such. 

Sad we need a giant thread saying to please have a basic level of civility but we do

(Gets out doll, pins, and lock of target's hair)

Challenge accepted.

OUCH!  Dammit, Beef, make sure you get the right doll.

If it is someone incontrovertibly evil, like Charles Manson or Osama bin Laden... fine. With someone simply controversial such as Margaret Thatcher I have a problem. So it will be when the Grim Reaper takes Rush Limbaugh.

I've always had this rule for general conversation thank you for bringing it up here

Do violent crimes include crimes against property of an individual or group?

Mmmh I don't think there is ever a way to decide who is "incontrovertibly evil" objectively. I mean, in theory we can all agree about Osama Bin Laden being more evil than Thatcher or Limbaugh and I certainly think so, but...
To this point, let me refer a story from an old article called "I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup" on the now closed blog SlateStarCodex (I'm recovering it from a podcast version):

We all have our ideas of who is manifest evil. Eternal damnation is a severe consequence of some very bad misconduct. I could imagine that if Dante were writing his Inferno today he might have supplied a special bolgia for Nazis, the most egregious sinners of all times. I can imagine their souls being ripped by dogs... dogs might not be as efficient as lions, bears, or crocodiles, which makes a dog attack one of the most fearsome demises possible. Nazi guards at concentration camps came up with that horror.

I cheered the death of Osama bin Laden by singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic... and I contemplated what other powers would have done had it been their commandeered jetliners and their building. In such a case I would have cheered the People's Republic of China had it not done undue 'collateral damage'.

We all recognize some people as quite nasty. Some are simply offensive; some are incontrovertibly horrible. There's a huge difference between Margaret Thatcher and  Irma Grese (the latter a Nazi camp guard who had her dog attack and kill live inmates, for which she was duly hanged).

I recognize the vast abyss between Margaret Thatcher and Nazis or Al-Qaeda, and hope everyone else does. At the same time, I am not in the business of cheering at anyone's death and in truth I kinda hope that Trump dies the oldest possible so that he will be a historical footnote by then and hopefully there won't be spontaneous parties in the street or other appalling things (although as my quote showed, this didn't work well for the Iron Lady).

 Pretty sad The President of The United Sates could not meet basic requirements for posting on this message-board.

That's been true since even before he won. And it illustrates one of the ways in which he is so corrosive: his very existence is an unfit subject for civilized discussion. By becoming an unavoidable topic of discussion, he does vast amounts of damage to our society.

The same ethical standards as rightly apply to the rich and powerful as to the poor and helpless. I think of no major religion that suggests otherwise. Ideologies? Sure. Plutocratic ideologies assert that the rich and powerful have some inherent right to lord it over the rest of Humanity and can set harsh rules for the powerless and soft rules for themselves. Obviously prisons operate on that principle, but good reason exists for people to have a distinction between a normal life and imprisonment.

Potty-mouths are vile no matter how many assets the mouth has behind it.

Obviously I expect some occasional lapses, and we must excuse people with such conditions as Tourette's syndrome. This said, we have cause to not put vileness in the spotlight unless to use the light to disinfect it or to expose the vileness as a threat.

Prescient post.

Higher than Trump

Beyond that, it really depends whether Dems finally nuke the filibuster

They need to, voters got had when we Elected Sinema, we Elected her to pass legislation, not protect the Filibuster, she doesn't get that.

There is nothing in Constitution to protect the Filibuster, the Framers created Amendments to protect minority rights. The 13, 14 and 15 protect Civil Rights, if we undo the Filibuster, before recent times, it was worrisome that Rs would get rid of Civil Rights when they have control of Congress.

We have Civil Rights and there isn't any poll tax anymore

On a related note, members of which political party dominate the discourse on this forum?

We've gone from the position where right-wings were doing this, to where Donald Trump was doing it, and now people like TX Rep. Roy are doing it:

'Get a tall oak tree': Rep. Chip Roy of Texas defends apparent pro-lynching remarks (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/get-tall-oak-tree-texas-rep-chip-roy-defends-apparent-n1261437)

Can I wish I were dead?

PS: Where are the emojis???

Did I just sign up at a forum with no emojis???

:o

PPS: The emojis just showed up - when I hit reply! :)

In such a case I would encourage you to get help from the mental health system.

This is my take on this matter, that I wrote earlier today about Covidiots, but it can be used for this as well:

I've been thinking about this (kind of like Spicolli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.)

In an ideal (natural) world (meaning viruses would still exist) people would not act like this, so nobody would have to think such things. However, not only is human behavior far from ideal, but the options to address human behavior that causes negative externalities is limited, so is far from ideal as well.

Sometimes it is simply the case that people need to die from their own stupidity or selfishness to either act as a warning for other people or to simply rid the world of those people.

Reality can be very dark as well, especially when dealing with cold equations.

Again, we see that Republican leadership would be unable to meet basic standards of this forum.

How about posters spreading misinformation about a pandemic, like that masks don't work?

Show me proof that masks work.

I don't care what the CDC says.  The CDC says Obama's party and BLM demonstrations/riots aren't superspreader events, but Sturgis is.  So show me studies that verify the efficacy of masks.  Statements by Dr. Fauci aren't studies.

There used to be invention called "Google" that lets you find these kind of information on your own, if you're interested in them. You don't need other people for that. But whatever, here you go:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536
(If this article for whatever reasons doesn't convince you... don't dismiss the topic out of hand, try to use Google on your own instead.)

Of course, the spread of the virus in open spaces is always much more subdued and therefore somewhat negligable compared to the spreading rate in closed spaces. This is why I never really obeyed my own government's rules on wearing masks in the open as opposes to closed spaces - based on the scientific asssessments I had read.

I'm also pretty positive that "CDC says Obama's party" constitutes some form of logical fallacy.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

now that we've cleared that up can you please tell your GOP buddies here to stop spreading misinformation that could help spread a deadly disease?

This was not in the general discussion section but seriously when is this poster going to be told to stop?  See part in bold.  How is that not a direct violation of the subject line of this thread?

Many of us have mocked loudmouth anti-vaxxers and COVID-19 deniers for getting COVID-19 and dying of it. I have no qualms about after-the-fact mockery of the stupid. I think of a fellow who was doing everything wrong... losing control of his car and being thrown out of it because he was watching pornographic video on a hand-held device even as he was going onto a freeway off-ramp. Of course he was killed. If he had instead been watching a Billy Graham Crusade (which obviously isn't so distracting) it would be mere pathos. But here we have stupidity that shouts "Don't do this!" Pornography is distracting in the extreme. I can't imagine worse.

Oh, by the way -- his pants were down. 
 

That is the rationale behind the death penalty. Armed robbers who kill someone have put another person's life below some often-small amount of money in a till. As far as that goes, every armed robbery is a potential murder, and the Michigan criminal code treats armed robberies that do not result in death as severely as attempted first-degree murder.


Scientific reality often appears in cold, seemingly-lifeless equations.  Maxwell's equations about electricity (no, I do not understand them( are about as bloodless material as I can imagine.

What if it’s not a single individual, but several? Technically would that be allowed?

"Any" is existential and not necessarily singular. Just ask John Dule, he has a 175 LSAT apparently.

Wise people accept statistical evidence. Does the abuse of children result in a higher likelihood of children becoming criminals? The correlation is so strong that one cannot deny it.

Does smoking contribute to early death from lung cancer and heart disease? The statistical evidence so suggests.

Does unprotected sex with complete strangers contribute to the spreading of HIV? We all saw the story. 

If I must choose between the well-contemplated statements of people well trained (by well-established criteria) in medical science about vaccines, masks, and social distancing and ideological hacks I will go with the people well trained in medicine who recognize both the difficulty of what they call for and the means of spreading a lethal disease. So it was with AIDS and so it is with COVID-19. The ideological criticism of the medical story about AIDS came at the time from the Left; the ideological criticism of the medical story about COVID-19 came from the Right. I may be old to remember both, but I'd say that I am fair. Using a condom during sex not for pregnancy and wearing a mask when the SARS-2 virus was or is running amok were good ideas at their appointed times.

Oh, by the way -- I do not smoke.

   

Show me the statistical evidence.

Why? You won't believe it or change your mind. (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=459373.msg8218201#msg8218201)

Statistical evidence for what? That unprotected sex spread HIV? That SARS-2 is communicable by breathing air from infected people? That smoking contributes to untimely death from cancer and heart disease?