jakee

No. They're addicts, right? The nature of addiction is such that the two most important things to them are a supply of drugs and the ability to beg or steal money to buy those drugs with. Second to that, food water and shelter. Are you going to find those things outside the city? So you want to victimise poor, innocent people who can't afford to live outside the bad areas by pushing all the homeless people at them? What will you say to them when they complain to you about all the homeless people on their doorsteps?

So right now, you would let the murderer go? Because it’s illegal to cane him, and those are the two options you just represented? Pretend he’s not helpless and cane him, or acknowledge that he is helpless and let him go? And the Constitution? That’s a bit trickier, I thought. And what would caning do about that? Homeless psychotic drug addicts will suddenly get their act together as a result? Come off it. Even Trump pretends his plan is about rehab. You think if you came someone they’ll suddenly decide the government has their best interests at heart and therefore they will engage with a government rehab program?

Funny thing, it would indeed be illegal to cane that person in that scenario. Is there any chance at all that the absurdity of your own example applied to your own suggestion will make you stop and think for a second? No, of course it won’t.

When they’re in custody after having been convicted of a first offence, yes. That’s exactly what they are. Unkess you’re taking about the police dispensing summary justice in the streets. Is that right? Do you agree with Trumps Judge Dredd fantasy of the police being really violent against suspects of petty crime? In which case, yes they still would be. The police aren’t going to risk fighting a dangerous person if they don’t have to, they’d just taser them first then dispense the caning. Duh. So anyway, yeah. What Joe said you said is exactly what you said.

What do you think caning means?

Yes of course, as with Putin and as with your imaginary Jan 6th panels you will decide to stop engaging for completely unrelated reasons when you are unable to support your argument any further.

Ooh, please go ahead and explain that one. This’ll be fun.

Jesus you’re obtuse. Try this - that’s exactly what the dems thought 4 years ago. (And if you’re unable to do the substitution if parties and candidates yourself, that’s in you.)

It’s when you start to play silly games like this that we know you’ve noticed your mistake.

And yet the lesson you have taken from it is that it couldn’t happen again.

You can’t figure it out yourself? He and his ideas were conclusively rejected by the electorate, but the Rs kept supporting him.

Are you? What happened to Trump 4 years ago?

Since you apparently can’t remember what happened 4 years ago you shouldn’t be trying to predict 4 years in the future.

Y'know the thing about the problem being growing numbers of homeless people is a clue that having a plan to just deal with the homeless people you already have is unlikely to be sufficient.

Uuuuuuhhhhhhh lemme break it down - he made a legally binding deal he then tried to back out of. This is exactly why we know his acquisition of Twitter was a stupid thing he tried to back out of because it was stupid. Standard acquisition tactics are that you do due diligence and negotiate first, and sign a contract afterwards. But please, explain more to us about business. It's fascinating.

In what way does that make sense to you? You think that because Tesla and SpaceX are successful, Musk going to court to try and back out of buying Twitter because he thought he'd made a terrible deal didn't really happen?

I don't think that's the best line to take given that MAGA people (and conservatives in general) will simply deny that's a thing. The effects of gutting the EPA will be much more direct and immediate. Before the EPA rivers used to catch fire. Before the EPA you couldn't see one side of an LA street from the other. The people who want to reduce the EPA will never just nibble away at the fringes, they'll go straight for the core mission and cut anything that makes conservative business owners have to spend more money to comply. They're so deluded that even before Trump we had conservatives here arguing that the EPA was completely unnecessary because bad publicity alone was enough to make companies act in ethical ways and not do anything dangerous to their customers or neighbours.

Again, Musk isn't Nostradamus. Buying Twitter was basically the equivalent of a drunk bet that he desperately tried to welch on until the courts forced him to honour it. It's great that you think allowing Silicon Valley elites to buy power is a positive feature of a Trump government though. Most of your MAGA fellows will claim that's exactly what they stand against. Cute gif by the way. I suppose the only dfference with X now is that you're trapped in there with a bunch of neo-Nazi farts, and farts that haven't had their measles vaccines?

There's a dfference between pardoning people connected to you who don't deserve it, and pardoning people for crimes they did on your behalf - let alone crimes against the fabric of democracy. It's funny how often this comes up with Trump but again, not even Nixon did that (I think). Also, coplaining about Trump being singled out doesn't make much sense. He is the President elect now, so his misdeeds will be talked about more than those of previous Presidents now. That's not unfair, it's plain common sense. Were stupid pardons from other Presidents complained about at the time? Yes. The Rs were still complaining about Clinton and Marc Rich when Obama was in office. They can't hve it both ways. BTW, I also think it's a mistake to believe you can mollify the Trumpists with a pardon. They would simply take it as confirmation that they were right all along, the prosecutions of Trump definitely were politically driven, and they'll be even more zealously in favour of Trump weaponising the Justice department as retribution.

When we elected Boris Johnson a lot of Americans quite rightly pointed at us and said ‘see! It’s not just us who get fooled by lying morons with stupid hair!’ Now, the thing that brought down BoJo, the line he crossed that was too far for even his own party to tolerate, was appointing a known sex pest to a position of authority within the government. But in the US, since Trump has already smashed through that barrier by being one himself, even people opposed to him are arguing that appointing Gaetz, a known sex offender, isn’t that bad. This is the corrosive effect he has on ethics in government that is going to be very hard to undo.

For someone so concerned when it suits you with the details of what people said, you seem to be intent on ignoring the ‘he said he was going to do it’ side of things. Looking at it that way, it’s quite likely that you will know when he pardons people with airtight convictions. It’ll be kinda obvious.

That’s just the kind of strong language that makes me think you’ll honour your promise to be appalled and not just shrug and say ‘eh who cares everyone does it’.

Sure, but then they said he can ignore anything else they say.

Well it's already been done, according to the people who are about to try and do it.

Then how do you know how much they warmed up to him? Seems odd to to tear down your own post so viciously, but ok. At least you're now acknowledging that the Putin speech you were so keen to share really does make them sound like mates.