[AATW]

So basically cult of personality overrides respect for others.

Ie. They love Trump more than they respect the military.

Kinda scary.

It is scary but is it really news?
Trump supporters are basically a cult, they’ll whoop and cheer at pretty much anything he says. It’s not “Trump says stuff that’s true”, it’s “it’s true because Trump said it”. It is pretty scary.

Back in reality of course much of what Trump says demonstrably isn’t true, but his supporters are far too detached from that for it to matter.

[Lord Dave]

So basically cult of personality overrides respect for others.

Ie. They love Trump more than they respect the military.

Kinda scary.

It is scary but is it really news?
Trump supporters are basically a cult, they’ll whoop and cheer at pretty much anything he says. It’s not “Trump says stuff that’s true”, it’s “it’s true because Trump said it”. It is pretty scary.

Back in reality of course much of what Trump says demonstrably isn’t true, but his supporters are far too detached from that for it to matter.

They boo for the covid vaccine.

So....
Obama <military<Trump<Covid vaccine hate.

[AATW]

They boo for the covid vaccine.

So....
Obama <military<Trump<Covid vaccine hate.

Ha. Yes, that was an interesting one. Quite a difficult one for Trump to know how to pitch.
He had to take credit for the vaccine while talking to a load of conspiracy theorists who he is encouraged to distrust the mainstream. Tricky.

[Tom Bishop]

AATW says it's a cult. Lord Dave points out that Trump's followers rejected his promotion of the vaccine. This appears to debunk AATW's claim.

It is the Democrats who took the vaccine without question.

[Lord Dave]

AATW says it's a cult. Lord Dave points out that Trump's followers rejected his promotion of the vaccine. This appears to debunk AATW's claim.

It is the Democrats who took the vaccine without question.

Even cult leaders have limits.  And the cult has been promoting against it anyway.  Better question: why do they keep supporting the man who helped create the deadly vaccine?  Demanding it be done at warp speed?


In other news:

Sydney Powell has pleaded guilty to racketeering and attempted election interferance because she did nothing wrong and has a mountain of evidence to prove it was fraud.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207076719/sidney-powell-georgia-guilty-plea

[Roundy]

Sydney Powell has pleaded guilty to racketeering and attempted election interferance because she did nothing wrong and has a mountain of evidence to prove it was fraud.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207076719/sidney-powell-georgia-guilty-plea

I'm sure she only pleaded because they gave her a sweet deal. Maybe a few months in a Club Fed "prison", then riches, bitches, the whole nine. The Deep State at work helping to get at our poor, misunderstood, benign ex-president.

[AATW]

AATW says it's a cult. Lord Dave points out that Trump's followers rejected his promotion of the vaccine. This appears to debunk AATW's claim.

As Lord Dave says, this isn't really a contradiction. On that particular issue Trump wanted to take credit for the vaccine but he'd conditioned his disciples to distrust the mainstream. So he had to give somewhat mixed messages - saying how safe it was and that people should take it but also saying it was up to people to decide. So I understand why they were conflicted when their glorious leader was telling them contradictory things. I guess that explains why 55% of Republicans took the vaccine.

For Democrats it was 88 percent, so to say they just slavishly followed the advice without question isn't true either. But the messaging was clearer that they should take the vaccine.

(source
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-poll-shows-demographic-breakdown-vaccinated-u-s-n1277514 )

Obviously it's not a literal cult but it does have some of the hallmarks. We've all seen the mental gymnastics you've done to be an apologist for everything Trump says or does, no matter how egregious, while falling over yourself to criticise everything the people you don't like do. You've even admitted it here where you've talked about who is and isn't allowed to criticise the military. Either criticising them is bad or it isn't, it shouldn't matter who does it. But, to you, it's not about what people do it's about who does it. Biden bad, Trump good. Everything they do is filtered through that ridiculous black and white world view. Try some nuance.

[Action80]

...Either criticising them is bad or it isn't,...

^This doesn't sound polarizing at all...

On the contrary, it sounds extremely well thought out and reasoned...

[AATW]

...Either criticising them is bad or it isn't,...

^This doesn't sound polarizing at all...

On the contrary, it sounds extremely well thought out and reasoned...

Are you struggling with logical consistency?

[Action80]

...Either criticising them is bad or it isn't,...

^This doesn't sound polarizing at all...

On the contrary, it sounds extremely well thought out and reasoned...

Are you struggling with logical consistency?

Not at all.

It has been clearly demonstrated that vocalizing or writing polarizing positions is an extremely logical course of action and has absolutely no possible adverse consequences on any significant level.

I mean, Jesus H. Christ...

You wrote "Either criticizing them is bad or it isn't...", then closed the same fucking paragraph with the words, "Try some nuance."

Who the fuck are you trying to fool?

GTFO with your claims that I might be struggling with "logical consistency."

You have no fucking clue what that means.

You should just quit writing here on this forum in any topic.

[Tom Bishop]

She pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and is receiving no jailtime and almost no punishment except for probation and a relatively smallish fine. For comparison a traffic violation is a misdemeanor. She was initially charged with seven felonies. Looks more like she essentially won her case, tbh.



She was initially charged with felonies:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/19/pro-trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-in-georgia-criminal-election-case.html

"Powell initially faced seven felony charges, including racketeering and conspiracy to commit election fraud"

Those charges were dropped and she was told that she could plead guilty to some misdemeanors and face almost no punishment.

[honk]

You don't need to bother pretending she's on your side. Trump will no doubt be yelling about how he's never even heard of her and also that he never liked her to begin with, if he hasn't done so already.

Also, it's not polarizing to point out that a stance of "criticizing/insulting the military is morally wrong" should logically apply to everyone regardless of whether or not you like them.

[Action80]

You don't need to bother pretending she's on your side. Trump will no doubt be yelling about how he's never even heard of her and also that he never liked her to begin with, if he hasn't done so already.

Also, it's not polarizing to point out that a stance of "criticizing/insulting the military is morally wrong" should logically apply to everyone regardless of whether or not you like them.

Criticizing the military is not morally wrong at all.

Period.

End of sentence.

[AATW]

You wrote "Either criticizing them is bad or it isn't...", then closed the same fucking paragraph with the words, "Try some nuance."

Ok. Well allow me to clarify.
IF you take the position that criticising the military is bad then do so consistently. It can't be bad for Biden to do it and OK for Trump, just because he happens to like Trump and not like Biden. This is the logical inconsistency I'm highlighting. Tom routinely shows double standards and logical inconsistency, he'll defend person A to the hilt because he likes person A, person A is on his side. But if person B does the exact same thing, or often something much less serious, then Tom will hold it up as evidence that person B is terrible. Because person B isn't on his side. It's pretty silly.

[Action80]

You wrote "Either criticizing them is bad or it isn't...", then closed the same fucking paragraph with the words, "Try some nuance."

Ok. Well allow me to clarify.
IF you take the position that criticising the military is bad then do so consistently. It can't be bad for Biden to do it and OK for Trump, just because he happens to like Trump and not like Biden. This is the logical inconsistency I'm highlighting. Tom routinely shows double standards and logical inconsistency, he'll defend person A to the hilt because he likes person A, person A is on his side. But if person B does the exact same thing, or often something much less serious, then Tom will hold it up as evidence that person B is terrible. Because person B isn't on his side. It's pretty silly.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

You do the very same thing here all the fucking time.

Most of us do...no need to post a bunch of troll posts to state such an obvious fact.

If the military deserves to be criticized (and it does , most of the fucking time, as it does very little good for anyone) then it should be criticized.

You call a spade a spade.

[Lord Dave]

She pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and is receiving no jailtime and almost no punishment except for probation and a relatively smallish fine. For comparison a traffic violation is a misdemeanor. She was initially charged with seven felonies. Looks more like she essentially won her case, tbh.



She was initially charged with felonies:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/19/pro-trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-in-georgia-criminal-election-case.html

"Powell initially faced seven felony charges, including racketeering and conspiracy to commit election fraud"

Those charges were dropped and she was told that she could plead guilty to some misdemeanors and face almost no punishment.

If by win you mean take a plea deal to testify against Trump then... Yes.

[Tom Bishop]

It just says that she agreed to give "truthful testimony" in future hearings. Unless I am missing something, you are already required to give "truthful testimony" in court hearings.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-georgia-election-interference-case

As part of her sentence, she also agreed to provide a written letter of apology to the people of Georgia and give "truthful testimony" at any future hearings and trials relating to other defendants.

[honk]

Tom's right, guys. Pleading guilty to misdemeanors is a huge win for Powell. Frankly, I'm extremely jealous of her. One day maybe I'll be lucky enough to plead guilty to a misdemeanor too.

Criticizing the military is not morally wrong at all.

Period.

End of sentence.

Do you realize that there's an actual context to what's being discussed here? The subject under discussion here isn't whether or not criticizing the military is inherently morally wrong (of course it's not), but why it's generally seen as conservative dogma that the military should never be criticized or insulted, and then those same conservatives ignore or downplay the contempt that Trump regularly shows for the military. I've allowed for the possibility that this dogma may have shifted somewhat since Trump's election, but no - once Biden was elected, conservatives promptly began scolding him for disrespecting - or just seeming to disrespect - the military the same way they regularly did with Obama. And now that Trump is campaigning again and his usual lack of respect for the military is making the news, conservatives have once more dropped into apathy.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

It just says that she agreed to give "truthful testimony" in future hearings. Unless I am missing something, you are already required to give "truthful testimony" in court hearings.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-georgia-election-interference-case

As part of her sentence, she also agreed to provide a written letter of apology to the people of Georgia and give "truthful testimony" at any future hearings and trials relating to other defendants.

The reason that traitorous, lying, bat-shit-crazy bitch got misdemeanors instead of what she really deserved is because she agreed to burn Trump. It's so awesome to see a former Trumpian turn on Trump the way he turned all his idiotic, radicalized followers rotting in jail.

She's going to have to come to terms with the fact that there was no 'kraken' and all crap swirling in her diseased mind was just bullshit she just imagined.

BTW, yes, you are always required to give truthful testimony. But in this situation, the plea bargainer is reminded of their responsibilities to fulfill the conditions of the plea deal.

...  and she's a lying sack of shit that has never told the truth about anything so it doesn't hurt to remind her.

[markjo]

She pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and is receiving no jailtime and almost no punishment except for probation and a relatively smallish fine. For comparison a traffic violation is a misdemeanor. She was initially charged with seven felonies. Looks more like she essentially won her case, tbh.

I suppose that depends on how you define "win".  The charges that she plead guilty to are a bit more serious than a traffic ticket and will probably cause her to get disbarred..

Attorney ethics rules in Texas require disbarment for "serious crimes," a category that includes "any misdemeanor involving theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent or reckless misappropriation of money or other property; or any attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation of another to commit" such a crime.